Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

COVID: SYNTH, BLUDGEON and MEDRS (moved from AE)

Original AE statement

Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it WP:MEDRS 18:09, 16 April 2021 - arguing based on "circumstantial evidence" (from a MEDPOP source about a Twitter group of, unsurprisingly, non-experts...) [combined with copious amounts of personal opinion and inferences] 07:09, 9 April 2021 - making a very prominent "Note to closer" (well after the discussion was stalled) based on unreliable and MEDPOP sources. 12:44, 24 April 2021 12:52, 24 April 2021 - proposing two long UNDUE sections to bring FALSEBALANCE about a FRINGE position, despite being told in the immediately preceding that even one sentence might be too much (on what is the main topic article); despite being suggested alternatives, and supposedly ignoring such objections. 15:14, 22 April 2021; - favouring MEDPOP sources (newspapers) over MEDRS (what is cited in WP:NOLABLEAK) - see also the subsequent explanations about this, including the clarification from Guy Macon WP:OR and WP:SYNTH 16:03, 19 April 2021 - attempting WP:SYNTH based on interpretations of twitter posts and MEDPOP sources (the other examples, particularly in the MEDRS section, also show plenty such SYNTH. WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT 10:10, 17 April 2021 - making one long report, based entirely on the popular press, arguing mostly based on WP:SYNTH and even misinterpreting some statements which are in the sources they cite. 15:34, 24 April 2021 - after being warned about MEDRS, they repeat a comment based on substantially the same sources, which again argues pretty much the same things, and is based on WP:OR. Here, in addition, we see a clear attempt at WP:CANVASSING by selectively pinging a few editors sympathetic to their viewpoints. One long section at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation - re-arguing points raised in the previous RfC, despite being told that theirs was a misinterpretation and despite being repeatedly asked for MEDRS and providing none. 15:46, 19 April 2021 - claiming, despite the multiple MEDRS presented, that the WHO report is not scientific consensus ([[User:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak#Top_quality,_WP:MEDRS_sources|this section of the NOLABLEAK essay clearly shows that it is; and despite me making a long, researched comment quoting from multiple MEDRS just after this... 16:46, 19 April 2021 - ...they repeated a very similar comment just one hour later. 16:32, 22 April 2021 - This (with the two previous diffs) shows that, after being repeatedly warned about their misuse and misinterpretation of a specific statement, sticking to the same point (which they had already expressed a month prior, 02:15, 17 March 2021; here. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) 06:50, 18 March 2021 Additional comments by editor filing complaint So, CutePeach has been here for about 1 month, supposedly here after they saw a post on Twitter, saying saw: "[a] conversation on Twitter and I am not impressed with your [Wikipedia's] brinkmanship on this topic". 08:19, 18 March 2021. Per their own admission, this kind of thing is still being off-wiki canvassed(16:22, 24 April 2021; It would be better understood in the context of this ANI [1], which was all over Twitter.). Edits such as one of their very first ones (08:09, 18 March 2021) also already show a knowledge of prior events (along with further accusations of brinkmanship, obfuscation and censorship) very suspicious for a new account, which shows again the extant of the off-wiki canvassing. Due to the fact the articles are ECP'ed (after previous socking and disruptive editing in the area, and under the GS allowed for COVID), most of their contributions which show evidence of a problem are concentrated on two talk pages: Talk:COVID-19 pandemic; and Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. So far, about a quarter of their total edits have been to these two pages. These have been solely to advocate for the plausibility of the "lab leak" hypothesis; and, apparently, attempts at discrediting the WHO and the whole of the scientific community (because they, unsurprisingly, show the same skepticism about unfounded and unsubstantiated hypotheses, despite their popularity in the popular press...) - going as far as adding a tendentious header about "disregarding the WHO" when the post below it makes exactly the point that we shouldn't disregard it and that even if we did, it would change strictly nothing about the MEDRS consensus. They have, unsurprisingly, been repeatedly appraised of our policies, including WP:UNDUE; WP:NOR; and, most importantly, WP:MEDRS. And yet, despite all of this, they have yet to cite a single such source, preferring the company of the popular press and of twitter posts... Given the repeated, persistent requests and warnings made to them about our content policies, and their failure to abide by them, their behaviour is nothing short of "perpetuating disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive". I'm heavily involved in this, but at some point editors which keep arguing the same FRINGE points are just disruptive time sinks, and they need to either accept the point and move on to something else (for ex., they've been repeatedly suggesting things which could go into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or COVID-19 misinformation by the United States, and yet their involvement in both of those pages is nearly non-existent), or be more formally topic banned from the area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The AE thread was closed (wrong venue?). So bringing this over here. The issues are as in the header: some editors are seemingly inclined on advocating for the hypothesis of a lab leak (despite statements from the WHO in their report deeming it "extremely unlikely" and multiple other reports in MEDRS such as Conspiracy theories about a possible accidental leak from either of these laboratories known to be experimenting with bats and bat CoVs that has shown some structural similarity to human SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested, but largely dismissed by most authorities. source: "SARS-CoV-2 and the pandemic of COVID-19". Postgraduate Medical Journal. 97 (1144): 110–116. doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138386 and Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory. Yet, it is difficult and time‐consuming to rule out the laboratories as the original source completely. It is highly unlikely that SARS‐CoV‐2 was accidentally released from a laboratory since no direct ancestral virus is identified in the current database. source: "SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology: e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222), based on WP:SYNTH from twitter comments and WP:MEDPOP sources. This has been going on for about a year and is again reaching levels of WP:BLUDGEON proportions; and despite multiple topic bans and blocks for socking (ScrupulousScribe) and off-wiki harassment (Billybostickson), the situation is not abating, and in fact there is distinct evidence off-wiki canvassing is still ongoing (see for example the admission of WP:MEAT at the SPI, here). I request the community consider a couple of things:

• What needs to be done in regards the enforcement of the general sanctions in the COVID area (can we make AE an acceptable venue for this?)
• Whether any additional clarification in regards to the applicability of WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:MEDRS in the COVID area are necessary
• Whether any sanctions are necessary (topic bans, ...)
• Whether this is still the wrong venue and we need to go to ArbCom

Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Courtesy pings (in addition to the regular templates): @PaleoNeonate, Jtbobwaysf, JzG, Nsk92, ToBeFree, and CutePeach: RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I had topic-banned Billybostickson a while ago, and Empiricus-sextus recently, for their disruptive behavior in the COVID-19 area. It is extremely difficult to apply WP:GS/COVID19 sanctions for conduct in this area, as all discussions about conduct are mixed with endless content debates that are simply continued during noticeboard evaluations. The most recent example was the ANI discussion leading to Empiricus-sextus's ban. It is also extremely difficult to draw a line between repeated iteration of valid arguments and WP:IDHT behavior, especially when there are legitimate reasons for supporting one's argumentation with walls of text. The usual reaction from editors in RandomCanadian's position would be giving up to argue with IDHT editors; I have no idea how they manage to invest this amount of time into dealing with such cases. They're not without blame either, calling a discussion opponent "overly naive" (Special:Diff/1018401000) and describing their behavior as "trolling" (Special:Diff/1018404449). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing here as at the other AN/I thread created by RC earlier this week, about the same subject, and spawned from the same talk page argument:

Over the course of the last several months, it seems like every few weeks another extremely verbose thread about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis has come to spew bile over a different noticeboard. Frankly, it's hard for me to understand how anyone can sustain caring about this for so long, in either direction; how extremely online can we get? But, moreover, it's hard for me to empathize with the argument that letting "Those Guys" have "Their Article" is inherently evil, or that "having an article about some stupid crap that was in the news" is going to somehow get people killed (note that we have articles about Strategery and planking). I've said this same thing at probably a dozen noticeboard discussions at this point -- it seems like a content dispute. This, to me, is evidenced by the fact that every noticeboard thread about it devolves into a prolonged argument about content. The fact of the "other side" being unreasonable is probably related to it being brought up dozens of times, to the point where any reasonable person would become exhausted and find something else to do.

I hope I can be forgiven for saying basically the same thing again, since this seems to be basically the same thread with basically the same content. jp×g 19:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

One major difference is that I do not think that Strategery or Planking have killed 500,000 Americans and millions around the world. Further, there is very real concern that the so-called "lab leak" hypothesis is primarily political in nature. But the biggest issue is that Wikipedia has some very firm rules about what we write about on medical topics, how we write about it, and what sources are allowed. In this regard, WikiProject Medicine is rather different than most Wikipedia topics. See WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, you are right that they didn't kill 500,000 Americans. However, the term "strategery" was mostly used in reference to the foreign policy of George W. Bush, including starting a series of wars which our article cites as having been responsible for upwards of 800,000 deaths (not Americans though). This may seem like a pedantic point to make, but I don't think that a bunch of people dying should significantly change our general editorial standards (if they are bad, we should change them for all articles, and if they are good, then they should work fine even for serious topics). jp×g 20:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Look, my personal views on the GWB administration are both unprintable and irrelevant to this discussion. But as I said above, the most important aspect here is WP:MEDRS. However, I think that there is a valid public health aspect here as well, since disease transmission involves everyone in a way that a war does not. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think that a mix of topic-banning egregious offenders, and continuing to stress the importance of MEDRS in all COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 articles is probably the best path forward. Editors who flat out refuse to adhere to MEDRS and repeatedly attempt to insert non-MEDRS articles after being warned would be good candidates for TBans. Ultimately, however, this involves one of Wikipedia's weak spots, in that experts have limited time and low tolerance of added stress, while trolls, True Believers, cranks etc are very highly motivated and often have an abundance of free time. Additionally, experts may have very real fears of dealing with some of this stuff if it becomes high-drama, I certainly wouldn't want to become "Twitter famous" and have some unstable extremists trying to dox me or bring my agency into their sights, for example.

  But in the end, MEDRS is probably one of Wikipedia's true bright spots, it's an exceptionally well-written policy for sourcing medical information. Following MEDRS means that the "lab leak" hypotheses are barely more than speculation, "unlikely, but we can't rule it out" means "we can ignore this unless truly exceptional evidence shows up". Still, given how much effort I remember it took to keep Scientologist propaganda out of psychiatry articles back in the day, it won't be easy. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, this article is the perfect storm of militant stupidity, anti-vax, racism and batshit insane conspiracism. It's being policed by a handful of diligent people who are approaching burnout. Cut them some slack, eh? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperion35: While I agree that persistent insistence on using non-MEDRS sourcing is a problem, I disagree with taking that so far as to say "we can ignore this". Coupled with WP:FRINGE, we have an authoritative source that says how unlikely the theory is, and it's up to us to determine if it can be placed into context on a given page that makes it WP:DUE. I've assisted in making multiple sticky edits to pages that I feel have placed this hypothesis both in proper context and with due weight. I invite you to review them and see if you concur that they meet policy, and if so to revise your above statement accordingly. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that, if you go to the talk page for COVID misinformation, you will see not one, but two talk page discussions that were non-admin closed by RC (an INVOLVED editor who was actively participating in those discussions), seemingly in the middle of a conversation, with borderline-WP:PA summary language like "This proposal was dead on arrival; no need to waste time further and entertain the newest SPA" and "Despite all the hot air from political quacks and Trump syncophants, this will not get anywhere closer to being accepted by mainstream MEDRS". Regardless of whether they are correct about the political issues, this strikes me as lacking in collegiality. jp×g 20:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I was probably unnecessarily rude in these comments; but I note that in each case it was just repeated discussions of topics already raised and resolved otherwise on the talk page, sometimes in the immediately preceding section...; with the same issues about MEDRS and SYNTH as the previous discussions. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I am not happy about being mentioned by name in an ANI case without being notified on my talk page. I only noticed this because "the other Guy" was notified. I would also note this: "...including the clarification from {{noping|Guy Macon}}". Not only was I not notified with the standard template, but RandomCanadian went out of their way to make sure I wasn't pinged. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  That was copied from the original AE post (where I was not sure you would want to join in). Feel free to add you 2cents here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• As I've said before, we need to have an RFC on whether a disease's origins fall under Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and, if they do, clearly add it to the list on that page so there's no room for doubt. While I think the conspiracy theories are obviously WP:FRINGE, I have seen experienced editors stridently and unequovocially say both that it clearly does and clearly doesn't. It's going to come up again and again - we need to make sure the guidelines are completely clear. --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What would be the proper forum for such an RfC; are you thinking that this is something to be held on the talk page of WP:MEDRS, or would there be a better venue? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I think the talk page of WP:MEDRS is fine - we might want to advertise it a bit broadly because it touches on something that is currently a big deal and which people will want to know about, but it's not actually a sweeping change or anything. --Aquillion (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

      I agree that the talkpage of MEDRS is fine. I also agree that this isn't going to be a sweeping change - because from my experience, dealing with dozens of experienced editors, is that the consensus is pretty clear among Wikipedia editors that MEDRS applies to epidemiological information that isn't purely historical (i.e. wouldn't apply to smallpox, for example) - but if it needs to be clearly added to the list then that's the right page to discuss it on. Maybe having it clearly added to the list would enable more GS enforcement against editors who are being clearly disruptive trying to claim it doesn't apply - or at a minimum it'd make it easier to say "here's a link to the guidance, consensus is that it applies" in response to people trying to claim over and over that it doesn't. I spent some time looking at this last night when I couldn't sleep and trying to think of whether a broader discussion over different pieces of information would be useful... but I think this is at least a good start. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

      I think it will be difficult to write a functional RFC question about that. Consider statements such as "Paul Politician claimed that that <condition> is caused by <something>" or "<Medical condition> was first described by Alice Expert in <country>". Would those require an ideal MEDRS source? Or only a statement that says "<condition> is caused by <something>" or "<condition> originated in <country>"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  • While I agree that a more robust decision on the topic would be beneficial, I think the concern is a bit broader and more complex than just whether the origins are biomed. Common topics of conversation have included the boundary between the scientific, political, and conspiratorial; the category particular overlapping claims fit within; which COVID-19 articles require strict MEDRS throughout, which only for particular claims that are biomedical in nature; etc. I suppose we eat an elephant one bite at a time, but the level of disagreement is broad and deep. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), {{FAQ}} isn't visible to mobile users, but might a FAQ section on the talk page help? See Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories for an example. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm generally for FAQs as they help good faith editors. It's unlikely to stop propagandists, though. —PaleoNeonate – 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  AFAIK there's no FAQ at any of the COVID pages under consideration (there's a current consensus section at the main pandemic article, but other than that nothing). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd like to voice a brief concern that we ensure we don't drift too far into allowing POV to the contrary to drive sanctions and policy enforcement. I worry there's a tendency to drift dangerously close to WP:GAMING while arguing against certain edits, rather than aiming for WP:CONACHIEVE. I bring this up particularly because I have had good success with several of the named 'problem users' by being civil, referring to policy, and recognizing when they make a case for something they aren't able to put into policy terms to find that common ground to build off of. While there are truly disruptive users, I would like this to be a call to the other editors on the topic to take the time to truly improve the encyclopedia, even if it means being clearheaded and finding ways to accommodate or work with requests we don't personally agree with but which abide by policy when viewed through a neutral lens. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• I disagree with Aquillion and Berchanhimez that the talk page of MEDRS is appropriate place to discuss "whether a disease's origins fall under Wikipedia:Biomedical information" or similar yes/no, problem solved, job done type of approach. The talk page of a guideline is for discussions about how to improve that guideline, and specific content disputes (plural) are only relevant in so far as they are relevant to modifying the guideline text. The Wikipedia:Biomedical information referred to, is an essay, and this issue has been discussed in January on that essay's talk page. It has also been been discussed at WT:MED, which is a more typical venue. I think WhatamIdoing had a good point on the essay talk page discussion: the origin of COVID, vs the origin of any other disease, is uniquely a source of conflict on Wikipedia. I've said before that I find when editors are determined to argue about whether nor not MEDRS applies, the problem they have can generally be examined by citing other guidelines and policy instead. Given the political nature of some hypotheses, it is likely some editors will remain determined regardless what guidelines say.

I don't think this is much different to aspects of global warming or the Armenian genocide, say. It is a controversy where politics mixes against experts of varying authority. I don't really see why it matters if those experts are medical, environmental or historians in terms of Wikipedia policy or guideline. I am opposed to trying to resolve this by RFC, especially one that tries to put X in or out of MEDRS, because it is clearly a multi-faceted topic. There is an IDHT behavioural problem fed by external politics, which will eventually diminish. -- Colin°^Talk 14:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Extended-confirmed protect Talk:COVID-19 misinformation indefinitely

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It was requested by the initiator of this remedy that I close this proposal — a community discussion, but also a critical WP:GS/COVID19 General sanctions matter. One key thing about this discussion surprises me. Unlike several other COVID talk pages, this page has never been semi'd even once. So, going straight-to-WP:ECP seems drastic and worthy of more in-depth discussion which is specifically focused on that question. Yet, few have really touched on this key aspect too substantively (with the notable exception of Mikehawk10).

I mean, for WP:DRRs, dormant accounts may be tagged with {{canvassed}}, and new ones with {{spa}}, but a wholesale revocation of their access to the talk page... I don't think it's in question that this would be an extreme step. Personally, I don't know of another talk page (of any kind) on the project that's long-term ECP'd. Therefore, this makes the leaping straight-to-ECP nature of this request doubly-problematic — due to it being a drastic remedy and due to the absence of an in-depth discussion about that. I'm not saying that the reasons for why ECP should supersede a testing-the-waters semi (again, for a page whose protection log is currently blank) isn't touched on below by participants (aside form Mikehawk10), just that that discussion seems unfocused, and, not to be harsh to the collective of participants, too superficial.

So, looking at the strength of the arguments, that's a major fail on participants' part. Echoing the OP's almost aside opening of "it's not generally done" without much further comment, I think weakens this already-tenuous argument. As for the discussion about whether we should put a clock on this protection (of whatever level) or indef it till... review — personally, I'm on the indef side, but more importantly, it seems a bit tangential. Certainly when compared to what I view as the crux of the matter (which, to state again): why we're going straight-to-ECP instead of trying semi first and escalating as needed.

In the final analysis, I think starting with a semi is reasonable outcome. A cautious one by virtue of being incremental and providing for a better inspection procedure wrt enforcement action. A WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to this decision for being WP:SUPERVOTE'y would be fair (more so than for most of my closes), but I stand by it nonetheless. Regardless, I am getting the ball rolling by implementing a one year semi, with a further wait-and-see approach (i.e. favouring an escalated response). El_C 13:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

---

It's not generally done, but I propose to make an exception and apply extended-confirmed protection, indefinitely, to Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I see a lot of people editing Talk:COVID-19 misinformation who should have taken at least a month and 500 edits to demonstrate an actual interest in building an encyclopedia instead of jumping into this dispute. The proposed measure would have prevented Billybostickson, Empiricus-sextus and CutePeach from editing the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I could see a case for going a step further and deleting the "COVID-19 Misinformation" article and merging what little material actually meets MEDRS, UNDUE, NPOV, etc into a single paragraph in the main COVID-19 article. This is why we have (rarely enforced) rules about content forking, because we already have too many "<Scientific Topic> Controversy" pages that seem to exist solely as a repository for rejected hypotheses and conspiracy theories that would never be allowed on the main page. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  There's plenty of content on COVID-19 misinformation; and it is a notable topic. It just so happens to be a Twitter-canvassing magnet and well I must concede arguing MEDRS and UNDUE time and time again to every new account that pops up because of these off-wiki shenanigans is getting more and more irritating. Deleting the article (and I don't think that's quite necessary or helpful: despite it being a disruption magnet, there is plenty of verifiable content about misinformation which couldn't possibly be included in the main article due to WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY concerns) would just move all of this to other talk pages (Talk:COVID-19 pandemic; ...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes it's notable enough for official sites to have released reports and educational material about it, —PaleoNeonate – 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's already not possible to edit the article unless you're ECP, so it's not obvious how a bunch of people being silly on the talk page would actually affect content. Meanwhile, it seems like a pretty dramatic restriction to make, for not much benefit, and with quite a few drawbacks: primarily, people who complain that their criticism is being suppressed will gain a lot of credibility if their criticism is actually being suppressed. jp×g 20:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would think it makes more sense, not less. After all, someone who cannot edit the article is unlikely to comtribute to the talk page. Additionally, having people repeatedly ignoring MEDRS to advocate for adding non-MEDRS material that doesn't belong in the article becomes disruptive and makes it more difficult to use the talk page as it is intended. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem is that there's a problem, but no solution, or at least no elegant one. How are we to solve the issue of new Twitter-canvassed editors trying to push their POV with poor, non MEDRS sources? Or are we better off just ignoring them - which seems even more condescending and suppressive to me than the proposal. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support for up to one year - yes it's an unusual step but it can be very helpful for the super-unstable articles. My only caveat is it shouldn't be indefinite. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, to prevent time-sinks like this. Let people learn their craft in less contentious articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Worth a try. The lab leak articles have been dealing with bludgeoners and sealions for months, usually new users, some of whom have been recruited by an off-wiki Twitter campaign. These folks do not follow wiki-etiquette. They do not read the room and they do not reduce their intensity when they sense there is a consensus against them. They just keep posting full steam ahead. It's a big timesink. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Guy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unsure Weak support, regretfully. I am sure that someone's going to be confused as to why I'm not one of the most adamant supporters of this proposal, but there have been anonymous or non-extended editors on the COVID misinformation talk page who haven't been disruptive. Even those that originally come to discuss the "lab leak" tend to get the memo when it's pointed out to them - and sometimes good edits get made based on those discussions. As I've said for the time I've been watching the page, I think the problem primarily stems from two things: the lack of clarity on the subject of this article (versus the origin investigation article), and the long time it takes to get COVID-19 GS applied to disruptive editors. The lack of clarity is something I'd love to address, but when it takes time to continue responding to this disruption it's hard to have discussions about improving the article(s) to be more clear that the misinformation article is solely about the misinformation surrounding the "lab leak" and not about the investigation into the lab leak - which should be covered in depth (the history of the investigation) at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 - while the theory that it leaked from a lab is a fringe theory at this point, it may turn out that it wasn't always one and that article would be where to cover it. All in all, and back to the conduct part of it, I think this is a harsh solution that would only move the problem of the WP:IDHT and WP:Bludgeoning to other talk pages - there's probably a dozen pages where the "lab leak" could fit in - be it as a legitimate part of the content, as a notable fringe theory that should at least be mentioned (as one), or discussing those who've proposed/advocated for that hypothesis - and all of them are going to be vulnerable to the same disruption if this one page is blocked for them. I think it may be a good idea to flesh out a "lab leak explanation" to be pinned to the top of the talk page or included in an edit notice for the talk page (or both), and to allow as a general sanction the removal of any talk page post that is not in line with improving the article. Alternatively (or preferably in addition), it'd help if there were some admins who watched the pages and more quickly impose lighter general sanctions so we don't need to get to the point of ANI. When IDHT or bludgeoning is observed, if within a day or two (and after one or two warnings) an admin imposes a sanction against discussing the "lab leak" only on editors, but not the rest of COVID, it may solve the problem without something this harsh. I'm just not sure this is necessary quite yet, nor that it will be the best solution. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • After seeing ProcrastinatingReader's explanation of what would potentially be doable if disruption spreads, and under the perhaps optimistic assumption that this has given me that this is being looked at and watched by many more editors now, I support ECP for this talkpage with the understanding that perhaps a topic prohibition may be necessary in the future. I didn't want it to get here but I can't see anything else that's going to make it to where myself and others can stop spending massive amounts of time and effort trying to fight off-wiki canvassing of new editors here to push a POV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose ECP, support one-year semi-protection. I don't think that an indefinite protection of the talk makes sense, though I certainly understand the reasons for protecting the page for a good period of time. If our concern is new, twitter-canvassed editors, then ECP isn't required to weed them out; semi-protection would likely serve as enough of a barrier to do so. These sorts of protections should be narrowly-tailored towards the end of prevention. I have some concerns regarding the potential for future RfCs on the page to not truly reflect community consensus if we exclude (auto-)confirmed editors; the most recent RfC relating to the lab-leak hypothesis had substantial positive contributions from editors that did not have extended-confirmed permissions. It should also be noted that there's currently no consensus on whether the lab-leak hypothesis is a conspiracy theory or if it is a minority, but scientific viewpoint. I would caution against putting specific sanctions on the page against discussing the lab-leak hypothesis, in light of the lack of a current consensus on the issue. In particular, if an RfC is hosted on the article's talk page, I would have strong issues with excluding autoconfirmed and confirmed users from such future discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - For 3 months or more, —PaleoNeonate – 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support with regular "sunset clauses". I don't edit these pages often though I once did so see them on my watchlist. They're always magnets for dubious and determined editors who sail close to the wind. Let's do something about their sails. doktorb _words^deeds 05:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Guy. --Jorm (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This discussion is not above the misinformation article, it was about a different article. What is being proposed here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, this isn't the only talk page edited by CutePeach, and if CutePeach's behavior was the only issue, a ban would be the solution. However, this is one of many threads about disruption that significantly involved Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. That talk page is a central honeypot for conspiracy theorists and IDHT behavior. Contrary to COVID-19 pandemic, the article COVID-19 misinformation is dedicated towards misinformation, and this a) causes an imbalance of many POV-pushing editors against a minority of those who uphold policies, and b) makes it much harder to argue for proper weighting and reliable sourcing. People read about the discussion on Twitter and use this specific page to jump into using Wikipedia for pushing their theories. I'd like to prevent this from happening again and again every week, leading to repetitive ANI threads and individual topic bans after long discussions, exhausting the patience of the larger community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support (with regular "until it is no longer necessary" limitation), after taking some time to think this through. I'm not sure SP would be enough against what appear to be highly motivated editors. It might, per MH10, cause some amount of collateral damage: so, what is the cost/benefit of this? Judging from the vast majority of edits to that talk page, the cost would be minimal, and the benefit would be a much higher barrier to the off-wiki canvassing, which is a perpetual timesink, and is causing more disruption than a few genuine new editors not being able to participate (per Guy, better if they learn their craft in easier areas). Concerned that this might only move the disruption to other pages, but if that happens, we'll have precedent here. Agree with @Hyperion35: that better and less reluctant enforcement of the general sanctions (already authorised by the community, and which explicitly include mentions about MEDRS and other issues) would be a good way to proceed, but seeing that few admins are willing to get involved in this area, this seems a reasonable step. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Time is a valuable resource, and too much has been wasted already. I think RandomCanadian's take on the cost-benefit balance more or less agrees with my own, and I also agree that semi-protection isn't likely to be stringent enough. (non-admin comment) XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support too much of a timesink and a drain on fleeting volunteer resources. Must be pragmatic here. If this remedy doesn't improve the issue, or it spreads to other talk pages, an ARBPIA-like general sanction limiting discussion on the origins of COVID to ECP editors may be a next step. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  This argument to me is acceptable, even if I'm sad to see that it might be necessary. I'd rather not see an entire topic blocked for all new/anonymous editors if it can be avoided, but this would actually help in seeing whether the disruption spreads or if it's miraculously confined to this one article, and then can go from there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support, if this works well it would be another tool in the belt for managing close to unmanageable major ongoing current events pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The Talk pages of these articles have been massive timesinks practically since the actual origin of the virus. JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite Other than some templates nothing on Wikipedia should be protected indefinitely, and I know that it does not mean infinite. A finite period should be used. One year and it can be revisited after that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose There was a high volume of controversy on the talk page, but I disagree on calling it disruptive and umproductive and calling the pro lab leak side a lost cause proved wrong. A fair assesment, in my opinion, was that most of the volume in edits responded to genuine dynamics of discussion on the internet and popular media about the virus origin. Once the final report came out, things stabilized quickly. If people still come to the talk page to edit responds in part to a genuine dissatisfaction with the general representation of the information portrayed in the entry, not solely to wiki-canvassing. Defensive measures should include allowing plurality of opinions and editors to raise their voice, otherwise it will set a precedent for ugly behavior when the same problem arises in other areas and the power is in wrong hands.Forich (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  The final report led to a lot of this disruption - people began saying "well the WHO didn't say the words 'it's false' and as such it's not false it's true!" This is disruptive because people are using the wording of "extremely unlikely" in the report (the lowest out of four possibilities) to say that it should be considered on the same footing as the most likely possibility at this time - when in reality the only reason the WHO didn't say "it's false" is because they can't say that's false until they prove the actual origin - which takes a lot of data and peer review. How long do we need to allow people who are obviously here to right great wrongs and/or advocate for their POV "raise their voice" and make good-faith editors not want to even look at the article before we start implementing sanctions? Sooner or later, you end up with medical articles that are full of POV-pushing, quackery, and flat out falsehoods because people like myself finally got tired of dealing with it with no admin help. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support The disruption related to the lab leak conspiracy theory has gone on for over a year at this point. Enough is enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The article itself is already protected, protecting the talk page indefinitely seems extreme.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unresolved

 – Does not resolve the real problem, which is that there is a need more uninvolved editors here, not less.

El_C, this close did not resolve the issue. ToBeFree, I don't see how your proposal to limit discussion to Wikipedia's ever-shrinking pool of WP:XC editors is a remedy. This has never been our way of resolving WP:CONTENTDISPUTES in WP:GCONT topics. Doing so creates the perfect environment for WP:GAMING by ideologues and partisans.

There have been many edit requests from IPs on the COVID-19 misinformation talk page since the article was semi-protected, which with the 1% rule as a guide, is indicative of a genuine WP:NPOV problem. Many XC and near XC editors have started discussions on NPOV concerns, including Hzh [2], Forich [3][4], ScrupulousScribe [5], Tim333 [6], DeFacto [7] Guest2625 [8], Eccekevin [9], and Hodgdon's secret garden [10]. Numerous XC editors joined these discussions, echoing concerns of NPOV, including 1990'sguy, Adoring_nanny, Arcturus, Bakkster Man, Drbogdan, Feynstein, Hobit, Horse Eye's Back, J mareeswaran, JPxG, My very best wishes, Otto S. Knottnerus, Ozzie10aaaa, NickCT, Park3r and Vaticidalprophet. many IPs and non confirmed registered editors also started and joined discussions, but no matter who starts the discussion and where, the same group of editors always show up making the same fallacious arguments. First it was WP:N and WP:V, then it was WP:MEDRS and WP:FALSEBALANCE, and now they're claiming that the WHO DG's statements aren't to be taken as the WHO’s official position [11] [12]. WTF.

There are also many WP:ANIs in the archives, all of which look very typical of content disputes, with a few displays of bad manners. In one previous ANI [13], I saw heavily involved editor ProcrastinatingReader airing the false claim that selective 2017 quotes from Richard Ebright were being spun to endorse the lab leak "conspiracy theory", when Ebright has made many much more recent remarks in relation to the matter in many RS [14], and I am citing this as an example of how some editors are to trying to turn this dispute on content into issues of conduct for admins to sanction. Ebright is the most quoted academic on this topic, which I see Jaredscribe has made a safe place for us to cover [15], or maybe not [16]. In another previous ANI involving the conduct of another very heavily involved editor on this topic, administrator DGG acknowledged the NPOV problem and evoked Cromwell's rule [17], nodding to the content dispute that it is. Yet editors persist to draw admins into this content dispute with these vexatious ANIs. This ANI was first posted in AE [18], for crying out loud.

The best solution would be for an experienced admin to leave their ivory tower and join the discussions to delineate lines between content, policy and conduct.

Tinybubi (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Tinybubi. Many arguments for and against the measure have been named in the discussion, the proposal did contain an explanation and the discussion consensus has been evaluated by an uninvolved administrator. You had seen the discussion, chose to comment below it on 08:11, 28 April 2021 in a new sub-section instead of joining it directly, and are now complaining about the discussion result. If everyone did this, this page would become unusable. Fortunately, only few people engage in such WP:IDHT behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have brought up some serious points for administrators such as yourself ToBeFree to consider. We are seeing editors form into factions on this issue. The above "vote" proved it. Tinybubi (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Tinybubi. I attest that it is easier to draw a picture of Mahoma in a mosque than it is to insert a well-sourced tiny mention of the lab leak hypothesis in Wikipedia. But many of us who are old editors have learned that communication and persistence leads ultimately to better articles, even if one has to concede on some points. For example, as a result of this ANI I learned that the editor @Berchanhimez: is perplexed by "people who are obviously here to right great wrongs and/or advocate for their POV "raise their voice" and make good-faith editors not want to even look at the article before we start implementing sanctions?". The irony is that he and others who think like him, believe in some conspiracy that a team of editors is trying to push a conspiracy thery with false balance into Wikipedia. The constant call for privileges of authority (reduce the pool of allowed editors, reduce the pool of allowed sources) is to me a sign of lack of valid arguments on content and policy grounds. Forich (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There's ample evidence that the COVID area (and another medical area, namely finasteride) have been the subject of off-wiki brigading of non-editors to come create accounts, and in some cases they've even been instructed on how to get autoconfirmed to be able to edit semi-protected pages. It's not a conspiracy to say that groups of people outside Wikipedia are attempting to push their beliefs into Wikipedia with false balance, and doing so by forming a team of "editors" (who are really just SPAs). You clearly haven't read any of the multitude of discussions where actual editors actually came to a clear consensus on these matters on content and policy grounds and we are simply looking for administrators to help enforce this. And the fact that you call MEDRS "reducing the pool of allowed sources" as opposed to the community consensus that it's necessary to protect Wikipedia's integrity, well, it really shows that you have no business sticking your nose into medical articles. I don't appreciate these veiled personal attacks on me and others here, and your appeal to age is absolutely absurd too. Policies such as MEDRS, FRINGE, and DUE exist to protect the encyclopedia - not to appease your personal view on what should be elevated for people to read. Please don't ping me to this topic again, especially if you're going to continue blatantly ignoring the facts of the situation to make unfounded and incorrect claims about the motivations of myself and other editors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: I'm sorry if my words were received as ignorant or of veiled aggresiveness, it was not my intention. I appreciate your efforts to "protect Wikipedia's integrity", I truly do. I disagree on there being multiple discussions ending up with clear consensus on these topics, and even if it that was the case, editors should be allowed to participate for the Nth time in Talk pages as long as they slowly learn the rules and come from a good heart. I was imprecise in saying that MEDRS equals "a reduced pool of sources", I really meant to call a tendency of a few editors to start from accepting sources as valid for Covid origin only to later move the bar higher, including criteria not specified in MEDRS such as the appearance of the Journal in certain specialized PubMed indexes or if an author has published about eroticism in other unrelated work. That's precisely why I wrote my ironic stamentent (which is not a misinterpretation of your words because its verbatim, sorry if it read harshly) because it turns the arguments upside down: if there is a claim that I am part of off-wiki brigading or that I am instructed to do editing (as you seem to suggest) imagine if you were asked to provide a reliable source for that accussation, and, when provided one, that you questioned it on the grounds that the author is not an authority on calling out wikipedia conspiracies (basically an ad hominem argument). I realize now the analogy comes off as very rude, so I will not use it again. Finally, your suggestion on where to stick my nose made me feel distressed, I hope you never receive a similar invitation from a fellow editor. Forich (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Forich, instead of casting this as a battle between two sides, perhaps you should read WP:MEDRS one more time. Wikipedia has very stringent rules for adding content to medical articles. The reasons why many additions related to the so-called "lab leak" hypothesis have been removed is based on sourcing. You are certainly welcome to your opinions, but I would caution you against speculating on other editors' motives and reasoning...especially when those speculations directly contradict the reasons that those editors have laid out to explain their views. I would finally suggest that you actually take some time to read, and re-read, the discussions and sources that have been offered up to explain why a lab leak is considered unlikely by so many experts. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperion35:, I am familiar with MEDRS: in this diff, for example, I propose to replace information sourced on a non-MEDRS with a valid MEDRS, which got ignored several times in the talk page, and reverted twice. In this diff, to put a second example, I go as far as proposing to edit a supplement to MEDRS so as to explicitely cover the origin of the virus, because many editors have pointed out that, in its current state, MEDRS does not explicitely refer to the aspects of the origin of the virus under contention. In other words, I am proposing that MEDRS actually says what the anti-lab leak guys say it says, so that at least it makes logic to obey the rule. Finally, your statement that I am the one "casting this as a battle between two sides" is wrong, here is an earlier agitator disclosing his veiled tactics, and here he is aiming directly at me five days later. I feel frustrated that this behavior is labeled as "integrity" by some of you, specially by taking the nerve of holding it against my reputation as an editor with integrity.Forich (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, since you pinged me back here after I asked you not to, I'll respond to your diffs. In your first one, you replaced a strong MEDRS with a weaker one - a literature review of many sources is stronger than one thing the WHO said at one time. This may be suffering from "official-itis" - just because a source is "official" does not mean Wikipedia considers them the be all end all. The proper thing would've been to add a clarification that the WHO considers that 1 December case to be invalid (not proven to not be COVID, but not valid for their purposes). The book you call a non-MEDRS was written by a person who I can see no reason is unreliable, and was published by Elsevier, which is a respected publisher of scientific e-literature. I likely would've responded had I seen your attempts at discussion, but I think you're overstating the issue there. Further, MEDRS and its supplement WP:Biomedical_information already say that it covers Population data and epidemiology - further clarification to specifically state "the origin of a pandemic/disease" shouldn't be necessary as that's been in that page for a long time and has had consensus. Regardless, it's clear you're trying to bring content issues here instead of continuing the normal dispute resolution process for those - I am going to ask again that you not ping me again to this discussion and to continue your discussions of content on their respective talkpages. If you feel like people are "ignoring" you it's likely not intentional - you can always post on WT:MED to get some more eyes on something that you feel is being unanswered on a talk page for over a week. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Berchanhimez, I do not know if you will read this and I won't ping you again, at least on this topic. I did not expected that you resort to the this-is-content-and-does-not-belong-here argument in your response. The diffs were clearly addressed at Hyperion35, and for the record, you ignored all my rebuttal against your serious acussations. I agree that we move on. Stay civil and constructive as always. Forich (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned, I'd just like to point out that the stridency with which discussions are closed, and deletes occur on talk pages is something I haven't experienced before. When I first stumbled on this topic area, I noted that the entire business is very unusual: I still hold that opinion. Park3r (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll also add something since I was pinged. I just lost faith in Wikipedia after very bad encounters with conspiracy theorists who thought I was part of an outside group and didn't come to my conclusions by myself. Anything other than STEM minus Biology can go f*** right off for me on here. It became a cesspool of ideology. Good night. Feynstein (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. It also became Uber woke. Feynstein (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Dilemma for closing admin

According to Alexbrn, Wikipedians disagreeing with his POV on the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and his interpretation of WP:PAGs on the topic are "miscreants" who should be dragged to WP:AIN and sanctioned by the "uninvolved community" [19]. Except that the majority of editors here voting to protect the page also voted in a recent RFC to label the lab leak hypothesis a "conspiracy theory", and did not change their vote even after the March 30 report from the WHO confirming it as a plausible hypothesis [20]. So much for Jimbo’s "open community" here. Tinybubi (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have a POV on this stuff, other than it's a bleeding nuisance taking up too much time (which is why I've largely ignored these pages in recent weeks). Wikipedia is not decided by "a majority" who "vote". And yes, we've had plenty of miscreants: puppets, attack dogs, trolls and WP:PROFRINGE obsessives, who have needed to be blocked or banned. What's doubly incredible is that the article does not even just say that the lab leak stuff is "conspiracy theory": it's more nuanced than that. Not paying attention to evidence is a hallmark of the advocates' approach here. Note that Tinybubi is another WP:SPA banging this particular drum. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Just saying, Jimbo hasn't really been relevant on Wikipedia for years. And the few times he does step into a debate, he makes things worse. So an appeal to Jimbo isn't going to mean much. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the RFC you reference happened specifically in the talk for COVID-19 misinformation, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that the answers given on that page might differ significantly in the context of other pages. Most notably, both Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 discuss the topic as a WP:FRINGE alternative theoretical formulation as is appropriate for the context. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the drum banging, "extremely unlikely" (what the WHO report says) does not sound like "plausible" theory" to me. That, in addition to the other MEDRS cited and ignored ad nauseum... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this perspective, as I've mentioned previously. This seems to clearly fit the WP:FRINGE definition of an 'alternative theoretical formulation', not pseudoscience. I'd go so far as to suggest that interpreting a WHO study into the hypothesis makes the hypothesis 'implausible' could be interpreted as a similar level of POV-pushing as the interpretation that the investigation into the lab leak hypothesis was uniquely flawed. Complete dismissal as implausible doesn't seem to match the guidelines in FRINGE, and would potentially prove Tinybubi right if there were content decisions being made on POV rather than policy. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The lab leak story is not pseudoscience. Pseudoscience pretends to be science but isn't science at all. This story could be bad science. It could be wrong, just like many other ideas in science that were duly investigated and dutifully discarded when the ugly facts didn't align with the beautiful theory (see, e.g., most experimental drugs, the use of bone marrow transplants to treat breast cancer, arthroscopic knee surgery for arthritis, etc.). It currently is "extremely unlikely" to have actually happened that way, and there is significant evidence that it did not happen that way, but saying that it was possible for a virus to escape from a lab that contained that virus is not technically pseudoscience.

[NOTE: There is no evidence that any lab, much less the specific one usually named in this story, actually contained any copy of SARS-CoV-2 before the outbreak started. I'm only saying that it's not pseudoscience to say that that it's physically possible for any given portable object, "A", to be ported from one place, "B", to a different place, "C".] WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been using string theory as a useful analogue for how to handle a fringe theory. Both have adherents that see either an element of existing theories that doesn't yet have a satisfying explanation, or are attempting to explain a seeming inconsistency with mainstream theories. But like string theory, the lab hypothesis lacks firm data in its support that can't be explained through the other theories, and struggles to make satisfying predictions with which further research can be based. So, just like with string theory, it should be referenced only when necessary to adequately explain a topic (the electron article doesn't include a string theory representation, supersymmetry does include discussion of string theory as it is the problem the theory is intended to explain problems with). And, to point this out again since it seems to get talked about as if this content isn't present anywhere but the misinformation article, this had led to the addition of references to the lab theory (particularly the WHO evaluation) across multiple COVID articles. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should be comparing string theory, something of legitimate scientific inquiry but that is largely unfalsiable, with a fringe hypothesis primarily advocated by people with no scientific expertise on social media and used as a geopolitical football. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have a more relevant analogue to suggest, I'm open to hearing it. Perhaps climate change, regarding the political football nature. But I will disagree that the lab hypothesis has no 'legitimate scientific inquiry'; if that were the case the WHO report would not have evaluated it. The challenge is, of course, separating those with scientific expertise and strong scientific sources regarding it (in this case, "extremely unlikely"), from those advocating for tangential pseudoscience they hoped to sneak under the umbrella. I'd argue throwing the baby out with the bath water is nearly as bad as allowing the pseudoscience to sneak in. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

None of the people on twitter advocating for the "lab leak" suppostion are virologists, and the virologists I've seen have been vocally against the theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"The people arguing for it on Twitter aren't virologists" is a straw man argument.

Robert R. Redfield is cited in the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as a virologist who is a proponent of the theory (although he doesn't appear to have a personal Twitter account, he can let the mainstream press do the heavy lifting). I had meant to add microbiologist and immunologist David Relman to the section as well, so thank you for reminding me. Relman's published opinion on the topic for reference. The names Nikolai Petrovsky and Alina Chan also come up,[21] though I probably wouldn't consider them prominent enough to include in the text of an article. So that's four serious professionals within the field advocating for at least the consideration of the hypothesis to some extent, which the WHO did. IMO this is evidence it is a legitimate scientific hypothesis being researched seriously by legitimate scientists, just an "extremely unlikely" hypothesis right now. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

per The New York Times it's pretty thoroughly discounted at this point. If it is supposedly an "extremely unlikely" hypothesis, why do you continue to argue that undue weight be lent to it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

An per NPR it has "taken on new life" since the WHO report was published. I'm writing a reply on the SARS-CoV-2 talk page to cover that content specifically. But I'm curious why you characterize my comments as arguing in favor of undue weight? I very much do not want undue weight, and that applies as much to dismissing it offhand as a 'social media geopolitical football' as it does to giving it a place of prominence on a primary COVID article. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As WAID notes, the lab leak theory isn't pseudoscience, though it has other issues. There is a parallel that I don't know if it has been considered wrt Wikipedia editing behaviour. In 1978 there was an outbreak of smallpox in the UK. In that case, the accepted version of events, after a public enquiry, was that the virus did leak out of the lab, through air ducts, and infected someone in the same building, who then died horribly. An alternative version, suggested by some, including Mark Pallen in the book The Last Days of Smallpox, is that this person visited the laboratory, possibly against the rules, and got infected while there. Scientifically, this and the lab leak hypothesis of covid are very similar. I don't see anyone edit warring about this on our smallpox articles. I note that Pallen's book is "independently published", an attribute I think would cause many people here fighting covid wars to snort their tea out of their noses. The book got glowing reviews in some infection-disease journals. In the smallpox case I think reasonable people come to different conclusions, can agree to disagree, and accept we may never know. Nobody, after all that time, is going to re-open the enquiry.

I hope you can see why I'm uncomfortable trying to create a huge hurdle for any "origin of disease outbreak". There are loads of diseases where people are trying to investigate the origin, and publish their findings and speculation in literature of varying authority. The difference between the two outbreaks here is politics, and the kind of politics where the truth is not important. Any solution to this problem has to address that, and I don't think MEDRS is the tool you want to use. -- Colin°^Talk 10:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, I think we have some editors making this distinction (eg yourself & WAID), some who are trying to use policies and the carefully worded comments of the former group for the purpose of promoting this stuff in an undue fashion, and then you have some who take hardline positions to avoid giving anything to wikilawyer with. If I remember correctly, a few SPAs quoted and took out of context some of WAID's earlier comments to try argue their content into articles. Since (unfortunately) Wikipedia's processes often favour hardline positions and argumentation via strict textual analysis of policy, it seems more understandable why some might not wish to give any way to (mostly) SPAs with possibly questionable intentions (given their offwiki commentary). That would probably include the MEDRS application issue. This then also seems to blur the distinction between those engaging in neutral editing vs political POV pushing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Your comment on rule lawyering probably hits the nail on the head. It's incredibly difficult, frustrating, and sometimes counterproductive to accurately apply policy when confronted with a bad actor. Even more when it's multiple bad actors each seeking to inch the line bit-by-bit towards the POV they're pushing. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether it is "truth" or "correct application of policy" there are some involved in this area who are not interested in playing by the rules. There are two consequences though if you try then to make stricter rules (give people a bigger hammer to hit others with). Firstly, those who aren't writing about controversial subjects and who want to follow the rules, find themselves restricted when the sources they can access or find are less than the highest of highest quality. They may be wrongly told by others than you must have a systematic review from a top tier journal, say. And secondly, those who get over familiar with hitting others with a big hammer then go around removing perfectly correct and adequately sourced uncontroversial text from articles, and getting into wars with newbies who are perplexed why some "vandal" is removing information that is, to their eyes, correct and well sourced. -- Colin°^Talk 17:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that in my comment which seems to have sparked this, I explicitly did not use the term "pseudoscience" but FRINGE - which does not alter the recommended course of action whether the subject is pseudoscience or speculation which is theoretically possible but not supported by the vast majority of qualifying sources. That, and my first hand looks at the posts of the Twitter SPAs which obviously doesn't bring any confidence about the methodology or motivations of these editors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I have not seen any significant evidence that it didn’t happen that way in any of the RS or MEDRS we have. Not every virus sampled by every WIV laboratory would have been fully sequenced, and not every virus that is sequenced would have been immediately published. In fact, the WIV took down their database of published genomes in Sep 2019, which they haven’t put back up since. That the WIV did not hold the precursor of SARS-COV-2 is a claim that hasn’t been verified, and if you want to take them at their word, I have a bridge to sell you. The WIV’s partial disclosure of a virus most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 that they held for seven years caused quite a stir, and their leak of a diagram on an unpublished clade of related viruses has only intensified the controversy. This is all in RS now and there are more unsalutary details emerging. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on your response here, I don't think you should be editing articles that touch this subject. That kind of Wikipedia:Original research analysis belongs in some other publication entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I think a better analogy would come from an applied science field, where through the scientific method, we can test a working hypothesis, as detailed in this third open letter published last week [22]. Using the analogy of a plane crash, such as Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 or Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the Russian and Malaysian governments didn’t give their full cooperation to investigators or didn't provide enough data to investigators, which changed the balance in the paradigm layed out in WP:FRINGE. In those cases, the alternative theoretical formulation would not be the correct designation for a hypothesis formulated in the absence of access to flight recorder data or debris. The authors of our articles on those two events have taken care not to present expert opinions as facts in Wikivoice, even though there are very good reasons to believe that the Russian government are responsible for the deaths of 298 passengers and that Captain Zaharie took 238 souls with him on a suicide mission. Those articles set a high standard which we should uphold in the topic area of COVID-19 origins, a public health crisis with geopolitical undertones. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: a better parallel I think would be the 1977 Russian flu, where we have MEDRS with supporting phylogenetic evidence of lab origins. In the WP:MEDASSES pyramid in relation to virus origins tracing, sources with supporting material or forensic evidence should be assessed as the highest quality, followed by those with phylogenetic or serological evidence, and then testimonial or circumstantial evidence. The Chinese government are currently refusing to subject their Wuhan laboratories to a forensic investigation, and they are not providing much phylogenetic or serological data to the WHO for analysis, which is why the US government believes it will take a whistleblower to provide testimonial evidence [23]. According to a report from The Times, the US allegedly has a whistleblower already [24], but it's not clear what they know and a bill was introduced last week requiring the administration to declassify their intelligence [25]. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: this is the earlier comment from WAID that you seek [26]. It was mentioned in a conversation I was tagged in [27]. I echo her point that we should just "not write anything about which no information is available", on COVID-19 origins. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, why are you trying to persuade the good people who are active on this noticeboard that Covid came from a lab? That's not the purpose of this board. I referred to another "lab leak" case as an example of an "origin of outbreak" that isn't causing grief on Wikipedia. While MEDRS does spend some time explaining a pyramid of evidence quality, part of that is to explain to editors why our best secondary sources prefer and give weight to certain studies or research over others. At the very top of MEDRS is a nutshell "Cite reviews, don't write them". It isn't our job to judge the primary evidence, but being aware of evidence-quality is useful. Your comments immediately above sound like someone trying to convince others based on primary evidence, statements, etc. None of us are here to be convinced by such arguments, nor want to read such arguments. None of us here are forensic archeaovirologists or whatever one needs to be. Solving the origin of covid is a hard problem. Let's leave that to other people, preferably lots of bright experty people, to become convinced one way or another, and write about it. And then you can tell us "Most reliable sources writing about the origin of covid say that ....". We'll go with what they are saying now, even if you personally think they are wrong and think will change their minds, and later we may go with something different. -- Colin°^Talk 19:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 to Colin. Anyone who is actually a bright experty person should be publishing their analyses elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Another +1. But, as a further illustration of the issue, WP:LABLEAKLIKELY has sprung up. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

So we've sprung a leak. EEng 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

With the above proposal now closed, that still leaves two out of my original bullet points (which were pretty much ignored, except for some discussion about which venue would be most appropriate for the second point):

• What needs to be done in regards the enforcement of the general sanctions in the COVID area (can we make AE an acceptable venue for this?)
• Whether any additional clarification in regards to the applicability of WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:MEDRS in the COVID area are necessary?

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The first is up to ArbCom, hopefully they will address it during the current DS review, as it has already been suggested there. The second is (probably) a no. I agree with Colin's comment, and the indication that the issue here is editor behaviour not necessarily our content policies. In any case, it is likely better discussed somewhere other than ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself and not for ArbCom or any other arb, the idea of how to make AE an appropriate venue for GS sanctions makes my head spin and so I've just avoided replying to this even though I've seen it. In theory I suppose ArbCom could just say "sure you can if you want". However I suspect that this wouldn't be too well received by the community (or at least a vocal segment of it) or at least not well received without prior consensus from the community that this is a good thing. It also feels like there might be other complications as well to mixing things the arbitration committee completely is responsible for (the current AE scope) and things it is not (community leveled GS) especially given that community leveled GS are a bit of a mess and achieving community consensus to clear up that mess is, I think, actually harder than wrangling 8 votes on the committee when we make a mess with DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• I do think that your second point, about additional clarification of MEDRS might be useful. My view on that isn't limited to this specific page, this is an issue that pops up on a number of other medical pages. MEDRS is fundamentally different enough from the standard Wikipedia RS rules that it is entirely possible for an experienced editor who rarely touches medical articles to make good faith mistakes. After all, normally an in-depth investigatory article in a major reliable news media source, like the NY Time, Washington Post, etc, would be an excellent source of additional material for an article on, say, a military topic. In fact, I remember an excellent Washington Post investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib many years ago. But MEDRS has higher standards than that, specifically because many media reports on medical topics, even from highly reliable sources, tend to contain egregious errors and almost always include false balance (ie "expert A says M&Ms cause cancer, expert B says this is doubtful").

  Now, I don't think that this is going to solve most problems with editor behavior, because at least some of the difficulty here involves non-experts wading into a very difficult field. It will likely reduce good-faith mistakes, and it could count as a warning of sorts that might make it easier to impose sanctions on editors who repeatedly insert non-MEDRS content. Ultimately, though, even if I go to the talk page and discuss the content directly, as someone who is qualified to speak to both the medical and political sides of the issue, I can't teach these editors how to think like a public health expert. And ultimately I think that's one source of these problems, it's a CIR issue. We can persuade them that there is a consensus, maybe, but they won't accept why that consensus exists. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Procedurally, a much better way to proceed here would be to file a new arbcom case regarding COVID-19 area specifically and request that the area be placed under WP:ACDS. Arbcom could accept such a case and resolve it by motion. ACDS would basically replace (or technically, complement) GS in this area, and the main substantive difference would be that WP:AE would then be available as a venue. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• My suggestion is a new stand-alone Wikipedia:COVID noticeboard that supersedes several of the talk pages on this topic, as well as FTN/RSN discussions. The board would certainly need to be semi-protected, and editors who insist that MEDRS should be ignored (not accidentally, but deliberately) should be topic-banned or page-banned. It is difficult to even track down all the discussions on COVID controversies, and I have found (and contributed to) parallel discussions occurring on multiple pages. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  I would support this if there's a decent chance admins would intervene when necessary. Unfortunately, even when issues have been brought to the "high traffic" places such as here, it takes a lot to get action. I worry that segregating it to a less-watched noticeboard would further decrease the number of uninvolved admin eyes and thus make it harder to get action on disruption. I agree that maybe a content board would be a good idea, but that it would still need to be monitored for disruption. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

New proposal: placing the COVID-19 misinformation under WP:ARBAP2

For someone who view the page about misinformation about the COVID-19. I have question, should it be placed under American politics 2 DS and places 1RR on it? I believe the proposal is reasonable because more than 50 percent of the content are more related about U.S., U.S. politics, and related pages despite having international coverage about the disease misinformation. 182.1.53.157 (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's already subject to general sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@182.1.53.157: This sure is a weird place to make your first edit on Wikipedia. That said, I think COVID-19 is already under general sanctions, so there's no real benefit for it to be under two sanction areas at once. jp×g 05:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information

Just a note to everyone in this discussion that a conversation related to the applicability of WP:MEDRS has started at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information. To be useful, I think it needs more people to contribute. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Terry Bean

 Note: I have moved this thread, formerly titled "Possible fraud on Article Page 'Terry Bean'. Article is apparently captured and controlled.", from WP:AN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The following is what I just posted on the Talk page of article "Terry Bean". You may notice that the Talk page refers to a great deal of news about the subject, Terry Bean, yet it is by now clear that editing to include that material is being obstructed. The history of the main article indicates, however, that editing isn't entirely missing. So, the people actually doing that editing must be aware of the problem, yet do nothing. It is useless to merely include complaints on the Talk page, as you will see: They don't respond. They don't explain, or justify, the reason for the write block, or why anybody gets to write on the article nevertheless. I don't know who to complain to, so as a first step, I will include the following material below, to begin to document the misconduct. Allassa37 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"Has this article, "Terry Bean", been captured by the supporters of Terry Bean, and are they misusing that control to cleanse it of embarrassing facts about Bean? Should we report that to Wikipedia as misuse? I wanted to make an edit, but I don't see an indication that the article is write-protected. Yet, write has been disabled, which usually means that an explanation will be placed at the top of the Talk Page. I will be quite clear: Terry Bean appears to be being protected, and the egregious news of his criminal case has been concealed from this article, apparently for many years. There has been a great deal of news about Bean himself, and his Attorney Derek Ashton, and the attorney(s) for "MSG", his rape-victim, and the fraud associated with the handling of that case. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be ideological, although for years seems to be under the control of "those kind of people". (Interpret that any way you wish...) The only plausible explanation is that there are people who think they can control this article, for the purpose of concealing embarrassing events that involve a (BLP violation removed). I am thinking that anyone who feels the way I do should assist me in filing a complaint with Wikipedia for this obvious fraud, which must include some WP administrators, to expose just how bad WP can get when that misconduct is allowed to fester. Notice that there are a great deal of references to news about Terry Bean and his criminal case in this Talk page, and far more information is available through a Google-search, and yet any attempt to put those events into the article seem to have ceased years ago. I say "seems to", because failed attempts to edit the article apparently don't leave a trace. Presumably, somebody tried to do edits, but were blocked by an edit block...but that edit block seems to not include EVERYONE, right? And, I wonder if the list of people who HAVE successfully edited this article in the last 2-3 years can be trusted: Are they a part of a de-facto cabal? I believe they must recuse themselves since they have apparently demonstrated their bias. I am thinking that there should be far more controversial discussion on the Talk page, and that should by now include extensive discussion as to why the embarrassing news hasn't been included in the main article. This is obvious corruption. Who objects to it? Who tolerates it? Tell me how to issue a complaint, and if nobody else does that, I will. Allassa37 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Allassa37 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Allassa37: The article is protected from editing, as indicated by the blue lock symbol in the corner of the article. Your suggestion that the article has been "captured" by a "cabal" etc. etc. seems completely without evidence and is not likely to make people inclined to take you seriously. A look through the article history shows that there haven't been many substantial edits to the article at all since the protection was placed, and given that only 35 people watch the page I suppose it's also somewhat unsurprising that the talk page comments have gone unanswered. It seems to be just an infrequently-edited page.

My suggestion would be to step back for a second, take a deep breath, review the specific sourcing requirements we have for biographies of living people such as this article about Bean, and then use the edit request process to suggest a specific change to the article, complete with sources. Edit requests do not rely on people happening to see you leave a comment on the article talk page, as the template used for them adds the request to a queue to be answered by people who are able to edit the page.

You should also keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to article talk pages, and descriptors such as the ones I've removed for someone who has not been convicted of such a crime should be avoided.

As for I am thinking that there should be far more controversial discussion on the Talk page, and that should by now include extensive discussion as to why the embarrassing news hasn't been included in the main article, evidently not many people have taken as much of an interest in this subject as you have, or if they have they haven't come to Wikipedia about it. There is no edit protection in place on the talk page, so no one has been prevented from commenting there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Taking a look at Terry Bean, it does seem to be in odd shape, with piles of section headers about community involvement and praise followed by "Sex abuse allegations" right at the end. That's not exactly to say adding BLP vios would balance it, but it looks like pre-ECP there must have been some POVing from multiple angles, and the current state is the version with the BLP vios removed but the puffery retained. Vaticidalprophet 00:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the article could undoubtedly use work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've ran through tearing out a bunch of it, and that's with leaning to keeping the stuff I was unsure on. I haven't heard of the man before, and it does seem that if he's as politically influential even on just the local/state level as the article implies, we should make that power clear. All that said, it doesn't justify giant puffery sections. Haven't yet touched most of the actual wording, which was terrible. No comment on whether or how to expand the sexual abuse allegations stuff. Vaticidalprophet 00:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a well-known case in Oregon for years now. Bean is an influential political fundraiser but he is of local, not national, interest. The sexual assault charges against him have been on and off over the past six years and I think at this point, he has yet to go to trial. I read over the article and I think it is as direct and informational as it can be at this point in the case. Once a trial starts, there will be more coverage and perhaps more relevant information can be added. I think what the OP is alluding to is that years ago the victim refused to testify and there was an out-of-court settlement proposed between Bean and the victim. That situation has now changed but Wikipedia will have to wait for trial coverage and its conclusion to make any more statements on his guilt or innocence. We can't post speculation on any subject but most especially not on a BLP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I did, after my original 'no comment', add the last two sentences about the trial to the allegations section. Schazjmd also added the mention of the civil lawsuit just after this was posted to ANI. I can understand the OP's consternation in the context of the pre-ANI article, which ends with In a statement, Bean wrote "I take some measure of comfort that the world now knows what I have always known – that I was falsely accused and completely innocent of every accusation that was made." Vaticidalprophet 02:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think you can consider those additions improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This situation is complicated by the past involvement of a prominent Oregon attorney who is herself credibly accused of unethical behavior and criminal misconduct, specifically charges of defrauding her own clients. This is a tangled web that has been woven, and level headed editors should watch this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that this is NOW being talked about, but so far I don't see much recognition that the real problem is that the main article page has been write-protected for years. That, in combination with the fact that whoever DOES have authority to edit the article, is intentionally refusing to make greatly-needed edits based on news that has been been swirling since 2015. Effectively they are "protecting" the article from embarrassing reality. And if you don't see 'much' such edit requests, is that really so surprising?? Everybody has learned that those editors who CAN edit won't help include any "negative" news about Bean, apparently since after 2015. There isn't even any discussion on that subject! There is simply no legitimate reason to write-protect this article, except in the minds of people who are trying to protect Bean's sorry reputation. Take the write protection off, and let the article be edited for 6 months. Or forever. Allassa37 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The page was protected as a result of considerable BLP violations being inserted into the page, including by sockpuppets, over several years. Your previous BLP violation about Bean does not give me great confidence that you should be editing this page directly; I would, again, recommend you use the edit request process. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Also courtesy pinging Black Kite, who placed the ECP two years ago, in case they have any input here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I have just blocked Allassa37 for 31 hours for personal attacks, including repeatedly ([28], [29]) casting aspersions that the editor(s) who protected the page are "trying to conceal Bean's crimes", "help cover-up news of Bean's criminal (and now civil, too) case", etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And here is my response, and advice, to GorillaWarfare, for having deleted material I added to the Talk Page, AND for obstructing me from participating in this discussion, AND for making numerous false aspersions in her comments here and the Terry Bean Talk Page.  ::Here, I am referring to things you have said and done. Your paragraph extensively criticizes me, or by implication others ('disruption') Sauce for the goose. I suspect you feel free to criticize others, yet not follow your own 'rules'. Everything you said in your above paragraph is biased and distorted. You mention "baseless accusations" but you so far have merely ASSUMED they were "baseless". You investigated nothing. You are completely new here. We are not obliged to assume, or even take your word, that you have adequately researched the past misconduct of 'all' sides. I suspect you were called her to 'put out a fire'. How long have you been monitoring this page? Who called you? Names? Expose evidence of why you arrived here. Also, while you don't identify what you called "significant past disruption", I suspect the reason all that became necessary is that people were improperly 'protecting' the article from the addition of content some 'protectors' did not want to see added. Some people, I suspect, were simply not tolerating the addition of embarrassing, yet accurate, material. You are taking a side simply by calling it "disruption", when in fact the actual "disruption" is obstruction of free editing of the article, that has gone on for 7 years, as I can see. You also hurl a term, "conspiracy theories", when actually you have no evidence whatsoever that the problem IS NOT what I claim. More likely, the editing has continued to be obstructed precisely to inhibit new, embarrassing information from being added. But that wouldn't work, unless simultaneously people were 'neglecting' to follow the edit-request situation you imply is available. You should explain exactly who was responsible for handling editing, especially since you have admitted the article was 'neglected'. I think everybody who is inclined to request edits knows 'the fix is in', the edits they request simply won't be made. If you are now claiming otherwise, I think it is your responsibility to demonstrate that edits actually occurred, including edits the 'protectors' likely wanted to impede. You also rushed in to 'protect' against my attempt to stop the obstruction of the editing, obstruction which you cannot properly defend merely by vaguely referring to other "disruption" in the long past. Even you admitted that this article page has been neglected, which constitutes a malicious act when it is intentionally done in coordination with blocking other editors from editing what you admit is a 'long-neglected' article. 'long-neglected' simply isn't accidental in this case. It has been astonishingly deliberate and persistent. Explain yourself to the victims here, as well as all those that have been so thoroughly discouraged by design. Also, your having deleted material from the Talk page is an attempt to tamper with the record. Other people who will eventually read that tampered record won't see the actual events and problems which you are helping to conceal. In addition, it is malicious to ban somebody from editing a Talk page, as you did, especially if they have already issued a complaint about the misconduct I am referring to. I should have been able to pursue this matter on the ANI, to show that there was indeed a problem that other people are trying to conceal. This problem needs to be discussed. How many times, in the last 7 years, did somebody else attempt to expose this problem? Were their attempts deleted from the record then, too, just like you did to my effort? Allassa37 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Allassa37: You mention "baseless accusations" but you so far have merely ASSUMED they were "baseless" People are not guilty until proven innocent. If you are going to accuse others of misconduct, you need to bring diffs. From WP:ASPERSIONS, which I already linked you: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."

I suspect you were called her to 'put out a fire'. How long have you been monitoring this page? Who called you? Names? Expose evidence of why you arrived here. You called me here, when you made the above post at the administrators' noticeboard to request uninvolved administrator input. That is what you got; until your post on May 3 I had never heard of Bean, edited the article about him, or commented on its talk page.

Also, while you don't identify what you called "significant past disruption", I suspect the reason all that became necessary is that people were improperly 'protecting' the article from the addition of content some 'protectors' did not want to see added. Some people, I suspect, were simply not tolerating the addition of embarrassing, yet accurate, material. Again, your suspicions are not based in evidence. Browsing the past 100 edits to the page shows vandalism ([30]), edit wars (15 December 2016‎–11:55, 4 January 2017‎), and editing by sockpuppets (revert, revert).

You should explain exactly who was responsible for handling editing, especially since you have admitted the article was 'neglected'. You can see in the page history who edited the page. If you are suggesting that I explain who was "in charge" of the page, Wikipedia doesn't work that way—anyone may edit any article, or if it is protected, they may suggest changes on its talk page, but no one is officially designated as "responsible" for one page or another. We are all volunteers and we edit where we please.

I think everybody who is inclined to request edits knows 'the fix is in', the edits they request simply won't be made. If you are now claiming otherwise, I think it is your responsibility to demonstrate that edits actually occurred, including edits the 'protectors' likely wanted to impede. Again, if you want to check that edits actually occurred this is plainly visible in page history. These are the edits that have been made since your request for help at the page. Whether these are edits you think ought to be made or not, I don't know, because you have as yet not requested any specific change to the page.

Also, your having deleted material from the Talk page is an attempt to tamper with the record. Other people who will eventually read that tampered record won't see the actual events and problems which you are helping to conceal. In addition, it is malicious to ban somebody from editing a Talk page, as you did, especially if they have already issued a complaint about the misconduct I am referring to. No, it is quite proper to remove content that violates WP:BLP and casts unfounded aspersions against other editors.

I should have been able to pursue this matter on the ANI, to show that there was indeed a problem that other people are trying to conceal. You are here posting on ANI, so quite clearly you have not been limited in doing that except for the brief period. I hope it was effective in driving home that it is not acceptable to cast aspersions or violate the BLP policy in articles, on talk pages, at ANI, or anywhere else for that matter. I welcome your edits and requested edits, but you do need to tone down the rhetoric a bit or come up with even a shred of evidence of this "cabal" that supposedly exists.

I will, once again, recommend that you suggest well-sourced edits to the page rather than spinning conspiracy theories about cabals. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that the burden of demonstrating coordinated misconduct is on you; your argument that I must provide evidence that this "cabal" doesn't exist is absurd.

I understand that you are new to this project and frustrated with the state of that article. Editors have responded to your call for improvements and updates to be made, and if you make specific edit requests for neutral and well-sourced edits to be made I suspect you will find there is no grand conspiracy to stifle changes to the page as you fear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I've made a thread at WP:BLPN#Terry Bean about the content issues. Vaticidalprophet 21:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Xtools, Allassa37 has 20 edits on enWP (one of which is to mainspace). Miniapolis 22:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Not surprising or, imo, particularly worthy of note. Non-editor readers can't be expected to be familiar with our bizarre habits like extended-confirmed protection (which I hammer in, whenever people treat it lightly like at the minor edits RfC, means restricting edits to less than 0.15% of people who have ever made an account) or even the fact, completely outside the understanding of most of the world, that Wikipedia does not have editorial control. I note that Allassa isn't a SPA on this topic (which I had originally thought they might be, still in the "non-editor reader distressed about being unable to make edits" context) and has some content-related edits to the talk pages of other articles, which in my experience is a fairly common way for new users to propose changes. Vaticidalprophet 00:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Can another uninvolved admin please try to explain things to Allassa37, or otherwise step in? They are continuing to post accusations of bad faith and imagine bizarre plots against this article on the talk page, and I am clearly not getting through to them. Whether or not another admin can, or will just be decided to be a part of the "cabal", I don't know. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Co-ordinated off-wiki disruption at Turkish War of Independence

See here. This probably accounts for the vast number of attempts to whitewash the Turkish War of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the last 24 hours. FDW777 (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• 331dot has ECP'd the page. Enforcement actions may be required against Special:Contributions/Bayramoviç, who is making legal threats, attack pages, and general POV pushing. Also against Special:Contributions/KatayHan for the same. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liberetaecus. There is definitely meat puppetry and probably some socks by the same hand.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Revision deletion per RD2/RD3 should also be considered for some of those comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @331dot: Thanks for block. Please also pull email access, since they've apparently decided to move their harassment to there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Will do. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ProcrastinatingReader.--Visnelma (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is now in the news in Turkey, so I think we can expect further disruption. More eyes on this would be helpful. FDW777 (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Would it be relevant to semi-protect a talk page

As some of you know, the article Turkish War of Independence is today called out as a "Wikipedia scandal" on several Turkish news outlets [31], [32], [33]. The "scandal" consists of good users collaborating to reflect reliable sources accurately (I'm not involved myself, having never edited the article, but hats off to those who have such as User:Buidhe, User:FDW777 and others). Because of this news coverage, the article sees an extraordinary amount of nationalist activity. The article was already semi-protected, and several registered users indeffed, but the talk page is also getting out of hand. Semi-protecting a talk page is unusual, but this is also an unusual situation. Jeppiz (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts myself. There are a whole lot of accounts (possible related: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liberetaecus) posting disruptive content on the talk, involved users' talk pages (one has been protected), and (clearly bogus) UAA reports of all places.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I protected for 3 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

re: disruption, I would recommend not filing SPIs at this point because it's just going to inundate clerks and it's unlikely to be useful. Can we just report at AIV and move on? Also perhaps a filter would do well like we did with the Caliphate scandal a few months ago. Grogudicae👽 13:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Just reverted an IP edit here on the same thing. I have the feeling it's going to be like the Caliphate all over again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Grogudicae, good point. How about a subpage (somewhere, anywhere) to list the various usernames, IP ranges for examination at a later date? I think it might be worth having a central page for co-ordination. ——Serial 15:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure it would be worthwhile re: IPs and accounts since many of them are going to be true SPAs and not the same person (like the WP:CALIPH crap). Grogudicae👽 15:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I have most of them listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liberetaecus, I started much earlier today.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Greek War of Independence

Over at Greek War of Independence, Meambokhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, since 11 April, mirroring the ethnic changing language from the Turkish article. Warring against multiple users. Today this account was joined by Unreadedcontent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 188.57.17.121. I have an inkling suspicion this is all related and merits attention.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend blocking Meambokhe. Edit-warring and disruptive on several articles and talk pages today. Jeppiz (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Now we got an extended confirmed user Aybeg doing the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi! The information I have added is referenced. I don't think there are any mistakes in my contribution. I'm not one to go to an edit war. I have no intention of that. If anyone thinks otherwise about the topic, they can discuss it among themselves. - Aybeg (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aybeg: if, as you claim, the information is referenced please provide the quotes requested at Talk:Greek War of Independence#Quotes requested. I have looked at the relevant pages of two of the claimed refereces and cannot see how the text is properly referenced, and the third reference is likely to be meaningless since it was published in 1897, a long time before "ethnic cleansing" was ever used. FDW777 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I was confused as well. Found this via AIV and incorrectly ECP'd the page as an intermediate measure against sockpuppetry that didn't happen in this way. I'm out; I hope people keep WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN in mind. The content of the article is probably best discussed on the article's talk page. Strictly separating between behavioral discussion here, and content discussion there, is probably a good idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Benjamin2662 NOTHERE

This morning, I tagged User:Benjamin2662 for speedy deletion, because it was a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. It appears to have been deleted, then promptly re-created as an apparently-identical page by Benjamin2662 (talk · contribs). It has now been tagged again for speedy deletion, by @GPL93. This has been contested: see User talk:Benjamin2662#Contested_deletion.

It's sad to see what appears to be an academic abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion ... but whether or not the editor is actually the subject, I suggest a WP:NOTHERE block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• The userpage was deleted, but an IP purporting to be the same person has just spammed the autobiog onto my talk page,[34] with the excuse that Millions of academics promote themselves on Wkipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • IP and named account both now blocked, thanks. GiantSnowman 17:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• This is a long-term persistent autobiographer sockpuppeteer who has been at this since 2012. Start at Stevenbdamelin (talk · contribs) and read the user talk page there. Uncle G (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Uncle G and GiantSnowman. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Uncle G:, I have re-tagged the accounts accordingly so we have a centralised log. GiantSnowman 15:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

He is not quite notable yet, but I wouldn't rule it out in the future. (coauthor of what is clearly a major textbook, and several medium-cited papers in reasonably good journals) Obviously the article would have to be written by someone else. (especially since most of what he did write is a copyvio from the university site). DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Why do people insist on embarrassing themselves like this? It's just pathetic. EEng 06:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Film awards WP:NOR from IP range in Georgia, U.S.

• 2600:1700:4241:C100:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody from Georgia has been persistently adding unreferenced novel comparisons to film, theatre and television awards articles, primarily in the form of daggers and double daggers indicating one award winner has also won another award.[35][36] I have warned them many times but they are uncommunicative, having never once used a talk page. They have returned to articles at which I removed the NOR and have restored it.[37]

The person has been doing this kind of stuff for years, at least as far back as 2015–2016 using the nearby range Special:Contributions/2602:306:CD46:DC70:0:0:0:0/64, with this typical edit adding daggers and double daggers with an explanation of what they mean.[38] Another nearby IP doing this stuff was Special:Contributions/23.25.104.33 in 2016.[39][40] Other indication symbols might include the asterisk, the wavy equivalence sign, the plus–minus sign or the section sign.

All of this would be fine if there were reliable sources cited for the comparisons. For instance, the Burlington County Times has a comparison of how much other film awards might predict an Oscar. But that's a general discussion, not specific to each film entry. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think it's OR by itself, but it's unsourced and does violate WP:NOTSTATS and MOS:NOTES. Waiting for an administrator to block the range mentioned by OP for... 2 years. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Very inappropriate attitude on talk (violates NPA, CIV, BATTLEGROUND)

• Exxess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've recently become aware of some very disturbing edits by User:Exxess on Talk:Szlachta. I've interacted with him very little (disclaimer: while most of NPAs at that talk page are directed at User:Lembit Staan, some are directed at me; reviewing the history it seems I've had some interactions with that editor a few years back), but what I see is very disturbing and seems to breach WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. It seems impossible to discuss anything with that user there given their attitude. I'll note here that their edits to the article itself are mostly ok, but whenever they are challenged, even on a slight matter, Exxess responds with a walls of text in the form of extremly uncivil rant of the scale I've rarely seen in all my years here. Here are some diffs and quotations, from most recent to oldest:

• [41]
  • "to hell with your petty WP:NPA/[[WP:CIV]" <-- self explanatory...
  • "There seems to be a clique that regards Polish articles as their fiefdom. I defeated Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus in a request for deletion regarding the Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki, herbu Radwan family article. Then what Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus did was round up his little clique and posse, and I was accused of sock-puppetry" <-- battleground language/ABF and WP:ASSERTIONS
  • "Now, we have another knee-jerk editor, Lembit Staan, who tried to round up a posse here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta"
  • " Lembit Staan taking umbrage with calling the szlachta an electorate is idiotic and stupid" <--WP:ASSERTIONS, ABF
  • "Forget summoning your friends, and fight your own battles. " <--WP:ASSERTIONS, ABF, battleground
  • "STOOPID - brainless indeed. And mentally disordered. See lunacy above."
• [42]
  • "Knee-jerk editor Lembit Staan strikes again. This editor is bitching and moaning at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta"
  • " This kind of prodigious, knee-jerk stupidity and idiocy is difficult to comprehend, yet alone tolerate. "
  • "Lembit Staan gonna' try to round up a posse and a clique at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta, so he can make some half-assed, idiotic attempt at "consensus" despite what the sources state."
  • ":Lembit Staan, you really think Wikipedia exists to reinforce your ignorance, misconceptions, and prejudices. [...] Then you cry ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:SYNTH when your idiotic, knee-jerk deletions get challenged. There is no way to dance around the idiocy of this one. "
  • "Keep an eye on this editor Lembit Staan. Really takes umbrage if editor's edits are challenged, particularly when they are stupid"
• [43]
  • "I disagree with everything. It's a reflex" <-- not a good attitude to have by default
  • "let us have a war about that" <-- BATTLEGROUND
  • "stop the trespass, and let me work" <--WP:OWN attitude
• [44]
  • "a superlative brainless example of Lembit Staan's statement, "brainless replacement of the word 'szlachta' with 'nobility'", and all this after a debate determining the title of the article should not be "Polish nobility"; but the lead sentence is in direct contradiction to the article title "Szlachta." Brainless and confused indeed. Knee-jerk editing" (also note the edit summary)

Just today, this spilled into WT:POLAND:

• [45]
  • "Lembit Staan, what is dubious is you contradicting the obvious. You are wasting time with trifles and the immaterial. At first I was questioning your intelligence. Now I am questioning your sanity. "
• [46]
  • "Pal, (Lembit Staan) you want to talk bullshit and nonsense, so let's demonstrate yours "
  • "Wrong, you cannot read."
  • "You have a primordial misunderstanding regarding facts, which requires countering your knee-jerk deletions and crap with forthrightness."
  • "Pal, here is some advice for you - do not fight facts and secondary sources with stubbornness and knee-jerk deletions."
• [47]
  • "I revert your edits because your edits are knee-jerk and idiotic."
  • "So, because the great Lembit Staan does not comprehend history, or law, he is going to cry"
  • "So, what you are bitching and moaning about is the fact you're publicly being shown you do not know what you're editing about, and when you PERSONALLY do not agree with something you DO NOT UNDERSTAND, or ever considered, you just knee-jerk delete, and start flinging accusations of original research and synth, and stumble right through the secondary sources, and pick yourself and keep going, then you try to round up a posse to support your half-assed, knee-jerk edits. I told you to take it to talk. You ran away. Then you come here and try to round up a posse."
  • "You knee-jerk editors who think anything on Wikipedia regarding Poland is your personal fiefdom get stopped dead in your tracks by the secondary sources. Then, you try to round up your little clique, but fail."
  • "Stay away for good, Lembit Staan, because you do more harm than good with your limited capacity to read English and comprehend what the secondary sources state"
  • "Do the world a favor, Lembit Staan, and stay away from this article, which is too complex for your limited powers of comprehension"

There is more but I think the above is sufficient to demonstrate a problematic pattern - one that has been going on for years. Note that this editor was inactive for a while, sometime taking wikibreaks that last over a year, but he displayed a similar, problematic attitude when he was active at the talk page of the same article in the past:

• in 2018:
  • General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Szlachta
  • also that year, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Szlachta (ping User:Korwinski)
• And more ancient history from 2011:
  • • Civility warning from User:Vecrumba instantly deleted by Exxess as "Deleted meddling" in the next diff. I actually forgot about this but this complain was apparently related to a personal attack against me: "You know what, Konieczny?  The thought of my comments from yesterday being here nauseates me.  Your archive will be the edit history.  Your conception of what nobility is, particularly Polish nobility, is so underdeveloped and ignorant, callow and juvenile, it's laughable trying to have an intelligent discussion with you in regards to its significance" and more
  • "Too ludicrous on such a fundamental, primordial level to even discuss without boggling the mind. DELETE IT ALL, like washing cow crap off one's self." (in edit summary)
  • and "You really do enjoy coming across with an authoritarian tone, don't you?" ... ":You do read, right, or is that demanding too much?"... "You and the little group of editors you canvassed and rallied around yourself"
• Also note that this topic is within the old discretionary sanctions that this editor was informed about all the way back in 2008: [48]
  • And last, a CIV warning from all the way back that year too: [49]

Just in case, let me point our recent attempts at dispute resolution: Lembit Staan asked for assistance at WT:POLAND a bit over a weeks ago, and yesterday I asked User:El C for review and mediation at Talk:Szlachta, but he declined to get involved. Exxess was aware of both of those requests, since they responded in their usual wall-of-text uncivil style in both places. Since community discussion at WikiProject and ping to an admin who was (until recently) active in related topic areas failed to provide any resolution, I see no recourse but to come to ANI.

While we can always use some more active editors in the obscure topic area of pre-20th century Polish history, and Exxess seems to have some knowledge about the topic, this kind of attitude and behavior (BATTLEGROUND, OWN, personal attacks, and the wall-off-text style they are wrapped in) cannot be allowed to continue: it leads to 'winning' disputes by making everyone else leave: recently, Lembit Staan mentioned at WT:POLAND "If the community does not participate, who I am to want more and I am removing szlachta from my watchlist for 2 months; not worth my mental health". Therefore I'd like to ask the administrators & community for intervention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, you forgot to put in here Lembit Staan calling what I put in the article "bullshit" despite the secondary sources, because it is something "he never heard of." Once again, I do not consider being forthright a problem. The goal is to improve the article. And, a detailed discussion is not a "wall-of-text" style with the intent to stop discussion. I am inviting discussion and challenging your behavior, your edits, and Lembit Staan's edits. Stick to the facts. You personally knee-jerk deleted something I was in the middle of editing. Based on what? See detailed discussion. I do not recall reading any policy on a character limit for talk discussions, so I personally think you are taking matters out of context, and painting a very misleading picture, just like when you lost a deletion debate, then you gathered a posse, and accused me of sock-puppetry. False claim. Stick to improving the article and the facts. The extent some editors will go to when they are challenged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - you are always appealing for outside help. Consistently. - Exxess (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There is an article called Royal elections in Poland. I do think it is stupid for Lembit Staan to object to the szlachta being called an electorate. Being forthright. I think that particular assertion is stupid. There is no way to dance around that one. - Exxess (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - deletion meddling? That was an honest mistake and you are a disingenuous editor. You are very good at ignoring the rules when it suits your purposes, like canvassing, until you are challenged, then, upon your edits being challenged, you rigidly assert violation of the "rules." "Deletion meddling" - that was an honest mistake. Korwinsky was another editor who just knee-jerk deleted a reference because he thought it would "mislead readers." Presumptuous in the extreme. - Exxess (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that Exxess has replied three times without denying that they have engaged in personal attacks and harassment. Perhaps that is because the diffs provided above show quite clearly that Exxess has repeatedly engaged in that type of misconduct. I have blocked Exxess for one week. Exxess, when you return, abandon personal attacks and harassment. If your misconduct resumes, the next block will be for a much longer time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the editor's comments on their talk page, this might as well be extended to indef. They've indicated they see nothing wrong with their behavior & will resume it when the block ends. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, Cullen328, Given Lembit Staan's comment below, I proposed a ban on post-size limit (nobody can be reasonable expected to read those rantish walls of texts Exxess mass produces). Given his later talk page comments, Exxess now demands an apology from editors he offended, while simoultenesly asking for a longer block. Sigh. I have serious doubts he is learning anything from this. This reminds of this mini-essay I wrote a while ago. Editors convinced of their own perfection are hard to reform. PS. All that said, I hate blocking people who show a willingness to reform, which is why my suggestion was the word-size limit. It's plausible Exxess could be an asset to the project, IF his talk posts were civil and readable. But said willingness to reform is hard to see right now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, I have withdrawn their talk page accesss and warned them that they will be blocked again if the personal attacks resume when their current block expires. I am not a fan of highly customized editing restrictions, but if the community disagrees with me, so be it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I am amused by how my accuser, wrongdoer _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}, writes about me as if I am in a larval stage of development, while all means of countering, resisting, and destroying the false claims hurled against me were forced from my fighting fingers, upon the deprivation of my Wikipedia-given freedom to edit.

You may measure an editor by observing the editors aligned against him.

I am also amused by how my accuser, wrongdoer _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}, is attempting to govern my Wikipedia-given freedom to edit. By what right, does my accuser presume I wish to have him administer and govern my Wikipedia-given freedom to edit?

I am sure I will now be accused of harassment for courteously notifying my accuser Piotrus his wrongdoing is being discussed in a public forum.

Does not Wikipedia state, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."? Does not Wikipedia state, "Be bold can be explained in three words: 'Go for it.' .... Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it."

I saw a Wikipedia problem, and I Wikipedia boldly fixed it. I did no wrong. But wrong was done to me. My faultless 14-year record was besmirched with a one-week block, for Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy, and now I will forever be evaluated in light of that besmirch, while my accuser, wrongdoer Piotrus, was allowed to accuse at will, while all means of countering, resisting, and destroying the false claims hurled against me were forced from my fighting fingers, and I was tossed into a Wikipedia pillory (my talk page), and deprived of my Wikipedia-given freedom to edit, to counter wrongdoer Piotrus' willfully made false claims. I question the neutrality and impartiality of the one who forced me into a Wikipedia pillory (my talk page), and removed all means of countering, resisting, and destroying the false claims hurled against me by depriving me of my Wikipedia-given freedom to edit, while allowing wrongdoer Piotrus to edit at will.

As I attempted to be heard, to counter, resist, and destroy the false claims hurled at me, my ability to be heard was limited by accusations of "walls-of-text," "walls-of-text," "walls-of-text."

I did not know all principles of equity and fairness were tossed aside for hasty and reckless justice upon my creating my Wikipedia account on 26 May 2007. - Exxess (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record: My major problem with the article "Szlachta" was not the belligerent editor, but the apparent lack of interest of the Polish community to the subject. I admit I may be in error, and asked them for a third opinion several times, but got none, and the article continues to be dominated by a WP:OWNer. Heck, I even did not complain then they violated the 3RR reverting my "knee-jerk" edits. I understand that only a community can handle a WP:OWNer. But the community seems to be deterred by the repetitive walls of text generated by this editor. Forcing this editor to be more polite will not solve the problems with the article text they generated. When I come back there in 2 months, I feel I will have to go in a hard way of the procedure of formal dispute resolution for each and every dubious statement this user introduced. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Exxess has returned, and gone right back to walls of text. Thankfully no insults yet. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite - well, look at that. I'm not defenseless anymore. Looks like I'm going to have several ANI cases of my own soon.

Hey, since you mentioned the wall-of-text, and you pinged me, do you think Lembit Staan is right? Take it over to Talk:Szlachta#Wikipedia:No_original_research;_Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. I hope that looming wall-of-text is not terrifying anyone. It is dark under its shadow. Would not want an ANI case for terrorism by way of "wall-of-text"... Notice the editors mentioned there, and how polite I am - Piotrus and Lembit Staan.

And, while you are there, look at this paragon of brilliance, "obsolete sources." Anything prior to World War II, is an "obsolete source". That should be applied Wikipedia-wide. When _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} deletes something, that could never be "deletion meddling". I can't be accused of not trying to be polite before we got here, but I never got a chance to mention that before being put in the pillory (blocked) and deprived of my Wikipedia-given freedom to edit. - Read: Talk:Szlachta#Please_avoid_using_obsolete_sources

I have to compliment Piotrus. Since I first joined Wikipedia 26 May 2007, 14 years ago, whenever Wikipedia is causing me nauseating, severe migraines, Piotrus has always been there for me. I cannot thank him enough. And now, I have Lembit Staan, too, so the migraines disappear twice as fast. After I get banned, no more migraines at all. - Exxess (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD - Inciting a mob because no editor of their own accord took this editor below's position, or rallied to his side, upon his bad-faith presumption Exxess is "dominating and screwing up the article and talk page", because the editor below presumed so, because the editor below's logic could not possibly be wrong. Wrongdoer Piotrus did not cry, "Foul, foul, foul," or cry, "Personal attack", or "Incivility," or file an ANI report, or drop a hint the editor below is an example of an editor who thinks they are perfect, with an admonition that this editor read the pontifications in the essays of wrongdoer Piotrus. There was no possibility Exxess was trying to help and improve the article. Exxess has spent 14 years waging war on Wikipedia, as if that was a rule, not an exception, so shows the picture wrongdoer Piotrus presented. Of course, there is no possibility Piotrus could ever be anything but perfectly equitable and fair. Wrongdoer Piotrus comes with clean hands:

"No it is not. This user [Exxess] keeps pumping bullshit his own interpretations into the article: More precisely, the szlachta were not a nobility nor a gentry, but an electorate. Really? I keep repeating that edits of this user [Exxess] must be monitored. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)" - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta

"<sigh> For God's sake, really? Nobody has a say against all this illogical rambling [by Exxess]? Shall I file WP:RFC for very nonsense this guy [Exxess] introduced? (Coming back there in 2 months). Lembit Staan (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)" - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta

FOR THE RECORD - NOT an Extended Discussion, or Talk, on a Page Called "Talk"; But Another Repetitive, Bullshit, Illogical, Rambling, Nonsense "Wall of Text", which, to quote wrongdoer Piotrus, "nobody can be reasonable expected to read those rantish walls of texts Exxess mass produces", on an article where it is obvious Exxess is claiming ownership:

Evidence - Talk:Szlachta#Wikipedia:No_original_research;_Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS

Of course wrongdoer Piotrus painted a picture of a battle-hardened Exxess, and the hands that painted that picture were perfectly clean, and wrongdoer Piotrus, being nothing but perfectly equitable and fair, would wish me to present this about my accuser, also in the interests of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight:

Regarding wrongdoer Piotrus: "In my view the A.M. part of your appeal demonstrates.. what to call it... a lack of forthcoming-ness. The remainder of the appeal, in which you speak of WP's losses from your lack of participation, that's a different story that others can think over."

Novickas (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=next&oldid=406722192&diffmode=source

Wrongdoer Piotrus went through 14 years of my Wikipedia history and could only site a possible clash with two editors in 14 years - wrongdoer Piotrus and Lembit Staan, but as concerns wrongdoer Pitorus, wrongdoer states himself, "I've interacted with him (Exxess) very little," so, for all intents and purposes, one editor in 14 years - Lembit Staan. Both editors I stated I am neutral about. - Exxess (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Uh. Does anyone have time to read all of that?--Jorm (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I read it, and I also read Talk:Szlachta. I don't know how it's possible for anyone to work on an article with Exxess. The haranguing, the condescension and snarkiness, the needless repetition...it's exhausting, just reading it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sooo... are the three dozen uses of "wrongdoer Piotrus" just a particularly inept attempt at being insulting? Because if so, I think the block just expired would seem not to have registered to any noticeable degree. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• I vote to indef block Exxess. Wikipedia is not some social media site where people score points by mocking and insulting those with whom they disagree. It is a project to build an encyclopedia, an endeavor that requires maintenance of a level of not just civility, but professionalism. BD2412 T 00:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef block. The comments in this thread are a pale echo of the editor's behavior on the article talk page. That they are participating on the talk page rather than edit-warring their preferred content is a point in their favor, but what happens on the talk page is not a civil, collegial attempt to reach consensus. Until Exxess can find a new approach to working with others, the other editors should not have to endure that treatment. Schazjmd (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef: Clearly the block has not had any effect, with them still engaging in WP:TLDR-violating posts and veiled personal attacks as mentioned above. Enough WP:ROPE has been extended. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding user Knewdates for bad faith editing and what I see as intimidation Daniel Lee (designer)

Firstly, I left a note on user Knewdates page that I would be asking for arbitration. Though I don't have social media, this user is attempting to link me to a twitter account as a part of their argument that I cannot edit a certain page on wikipedia. Posting here is already too much social media for me. This user has failed to read the articles in question and is making claims about the event in question that do not hold up to scrutiny (such as, there are no videos of the event in question),

My original edit reads:

In April of 2021 at the Soho House (club) in Berlin, Germany, in the middle of a COVID-19 pandemic-lockdown, Lee was involved in staging Bottega Veneta-sponsored parties without social distancing or masking. ref ra.co Fashion label Bottega Veneta receives criticism amid reports of a Soho House party following their Berghain Fashion show April 12, 2021/ref It was also reported that he did not wear a mask or respect social distance during the fashion show (billed as a business meeting) which took place in a Berlin night club rented for private use for the occasion.ref highsnobiety.com BOTTEGA VENETA’S SECRET BERGHAIN SHOW WAS A GLIMPSE AT CLUBBING'S GRIM FUTURE April 18, 2021 /ref ref bz-berlin.de revolt against Soho House April, 2021 /ref

Their current edit reads:

Since early April 2021, the Berlin police is investigating rumors* that Bottega Veneta staged afterparties at the Soho House (club) without social distancing or masking.[14] According to sources, "the event's legality and hygiene concept is unclear" and "whether the afterparties were official Bottega Veneta events or not is unclear" [15]

"rumors" is entirely innacurate see https://www.rtl.de/videos/gaeste-feiern-im-soho-house-mitten-in-der-pandemie-60755f431782501d2a71d7c2.html, also they deleted other citations which go beyond "clearity" into confirmation. This seems like bad-faith editing to me. Further, they edited out the actual involvment od Daniel Lee while leaving perhaps the least important information out. I am a neurodiverse person and this kind of machiavillien-behaviour garbage is meaningless to me, I have no idea how to deal with it. Help! talonx78.55.186.185 (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not a party on the case, but I would like to bring up the conduct of Knewdates on Talk:Daniel Lee (designer). Sadly I can't provide any diffs as it has been revdel by an administrator. Knewdates seems to engage in WP:HARASSMENT by publishing what could be the social media handle of the IP editor, which I see as a more serious issue than the content dispute. Also this statement: It would also be better if an actual user of Wikipedia added this type of content, instead of IP users. is a WP:BITE, though not as serious as the WP:OUTING, is also a concerning conduct.SunDawn (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

SunDawn do you have any recommendations to help me protect myself, can I do anything more? I can promise I won't be getting an account anytime soon, especially after this. The last thing I want is to make myself more accessible to people who are aggressive and unfortunately my editing interests (i.e. controversies and people who are marginalised) seem to make me a target. Being a neurodiverse person in this case means I really don't have the ability to judge this kind of threat accurately, but I would like to continue editing without distress. I am open to recommendations. Talonx77.183.83.196 (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The only really practical way is to get an account, and work on different subjects. It takes a considerable amount of resilience to work on controversial articles here. They're not really a good place to start for anyone. Once you've built up some confidence, you might want to broaden out, very carefully. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Mikeymikemikey

Mikeymikemikey (talk · contribs) With this edit [[50]] I think enough is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven I don't know what you're expecting to achieve by doing this? It's been two days, today is day two. Today I have merely replied to those who have @ me on the talk page. You were secondary comment to someone one who actually engaged in discussion.

I have not been abusive, I have not edited the main article, have not harassed individuals, I merely stated my argument and I explain it further to those who engage in discussion. This attempt to report me is in bad faith and wastes the time of administrators who need to deal with vandalism and abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeymikemikey (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion had been closed [[51]] Despite this you choose to continue [[52]], refusing to accept policy. You have questioned the use of wp:rs (as a policy) [[53]]. Accuses users (note this is just one example) of stonewalling and wikielayering (for arguing based upon policy) [[54]]. Accusations of being part of a cable [[55]]. Nor is there any evidence you will stop until you get your way (despite the third diff).Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven"Nor is there any evidence you will stop until you get your way?" It's been two days and you assume I'm some evil doer. Is not ridiculous one can just close a conversation at a whim within a hour of it's posting? First close, the person didn't understand my point, so closed it erroneously assuming I was saying sources aren't reliable, I explained and he just ignored me at first. So I expanded. But then another closed it with a few hours because I bolded the quotes. Sorry, I didn't realise bolding that was closable offence. The point was never engaged nor debated, so the close was not due to a natural end either.

So I left, I said "I give up". Because clearly the talk page was hostile. I didn't reopen it as you accuse, I just responded to posts directed at me, which involved explaining my point I guess. Then you rudely accused me of badgering when I haven't badgered anyone.

Also, I said "Cabal" on MY page. It was not a formal accusation on the talk page of the article in question, it was just an acerbic jest because I was vexed by this hostile behaviour. The use of these Wikipedia Alerts/reports, or whatever you call it, is a blatant over reaction to a very simple request for a definitional change had the smell of partisan intimidation. As we are here, I now don't think that it's outlandish.

fyi, Stonewalling is the refusal to communicate or cooperate, I've done neither. You're using your interpretation of the Wikipedia policy to shut down communication and avoid cooperation, how is that not stonewalling?

So that's it. Two days, and this is your behaviour.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(Note I am involved in this dispute, not commenting as an uninvolved admin). This probably ought to go to AE, but I agree that Mikeymikemikey has been disruptive with repeating the same arguments over and over, and seems either unable or unwilling to accept our policies. Their comments on the talk page appear to be demands that editors find sources to satisfy an arbitrary standard of detail in a source describing why PV is "far-right", rather than accept that many high-quality sources use the descriptor. They also seem unable to understand that, much how a square is a rectangle, a far-right organization is right-wing (or conservative), and have been repeating the argument that sources not describing PV as "far-right" but using the broader terms are somehow contradictory. Mikeymikemikey is a new editor who seems insistent on wading into a fraught topic area. While I admire new editors who wish to do this, they also need to be willing to make a good-faith effort to understand and follow our policies. Their misunderstanding or rejection of WP:RS and the suggestion that they can make personal attacks at their talk page because it's not a "formal accusation" suggests they are not.

As some background to any admins who review this, there have been multiple recent AE discussions (Vojtaruzek, filed April 16, indeffed; Pkeets, filed April 17, warned; Plebian-scribe, filed April 18, AP topic-banned; Airpeka, filed April 21, indeffed) all involving disruption at Project Veritas and its talk page. The talk page even had to be protected recently because of the number of IP editors and SPAs coming there to either soapbox or repeat the same arguments. The protection has just expired; we'll see whether the disruption resumes. But either way, PV has been a hotbed of disruption lately and Mikeymikemikey is just the latest in a long string of such POV-pushing accounts. Any extra admin eyes on the page would be appreciated, particularly given the protection expiry. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, whatever, if the article with a lead like that is considered unbiased writing, then I guess it's a good thing I don't frequent Wikipedia often.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

And yes, a load of IP's and/or SPA's have fetched up to ask the same questions over and over again.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheesy McGee

Cheesy McGee (talk · contribs) was blocked by me on 6 October 2020 for 48 hours for repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs. That block was increased to indef by @Yamla: later that same day, and then the block was removed by @ToBeFree: on 11 February 2021 (following a number of failed block appeals) pursuant to ROPE.

Today Cheesy McGee has re-appeared on my watchlist adding more unsourced content to BLPs (e.g. 1, 2 - but there are many more diffs). After I issued a final warning, they tried to source the changes - but only by adding references which do not even mention the individuals in question. Either they haven't checked the reference to see whether it applies, or they know it does not but are adding it any way in an attempt to deceive is.

Based on this recent and their past conduct, and the clear indication that they do not understand or care how to adequately reference content about BLPs, I believe Cheesy McGee should be indefinitely blocked. GiantSnowman 11:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. Based on the unblock conditions, I believe Cheesy McGee agreed to an indefinite topic ban from editing articles (including drafts) about living and recently deceased people and from making statements about such people in other articles, broadly construed. It's hard to find a single edit from them that did not violate this topic ban. If the problem was just the two edits pointed out by GiantSnowman, meh, maybe I wouldn't support an indefinite block. But it looks like they agreed to unblock conditions with no intention of following them. Cheesy, am I misreading anything here?!? --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I added, and sourced to the best of my abilities. For this it is LITERALLY impossible to give sources for the final because it was cancelled and both teams were named winners, so obviously nobody will be mentioned. I'm not going to lie, but I would say it'd be rather unfair to say "they've obviously accepted the rules with no intention to follow them, so we should indefinitely block him", this is so far from the case. When I made the initial, unsourced edits, I was rushing through it, and then I reverted snowman's edit by adding one of, maybe a handful, sources. I'm not sure how you want to go about it regarding the 2019-20 Challenge Cup Final and Honours, but as I said, it's not really fair to suggest an indefinite block when there's no sources naming names, except ones which show the squads for previous rounds, which is how I determined who would get it in their "Honours" section. Do what you want with me, but an indefinite block for adding a title when no sources actually give individual names, is far too harsh. As for other articles, while yes, I agreed to stay clear of them, I have followed the rules and have provided sources when I create or edit player articles. I fully own up to that. Cheesy McGee (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If you can't find a reliable source for something to the best of your abilities then simply don't put it in Wikipedia. And read the condition that you accepted when you were unblocked. You have very obviously breached it by making edits (whether sourced or not) about living people. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop but I am a member of WP:FOOTY and I don't see how a football biography can be constructed without sources which, in turn, must be cited as part of the construction. It isn't difficult and it is essential per WP:V, so why not just do it? A recent example is Gregg Hood which has attracted the refimprove banner. You must have got the information about his time with Caley and Partick from somewhere, so why aren't the sources cited? No Great Shaker (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

For Gregg Hood, I have sourced what I can, but as you know, the further back their careers go, the harder it is to find sources for most things, and I was unaware that you can make a special draft or whatever it's called, until I made the Neil MacDonald page. But I believe the above is related to the 2019-20 Challenge Cup Final, which kinda falls into the cracks in regard whether to include it or not to. One one hand it can be included because, well, it's a final, and they're getting medals for it, but on the other hand there's nowhere naming who gets the medals. As I said previously, I own up to it, but when certain sources don't exist (or are dead) or name names, an indefinite block seems harsh. In terms of Gregg Hood, I felt that he was deserved of an article due to playing full time for Inverness and playing in a professional league, however again, Match Reports that can be used as sources from the early 2000s don't seem to exist anymore and likely haven't for a good few years, if at all. Cheesy McGee (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

No, you haven't provided citations for Gregg Hood's Caley and Partick careers, leaving two sections completely unsourced. You must have read that content somewhere and per WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS you must provide inline citations so that we know it isn't WP:OR. This applies to all articles you create or expand. If you are in the position where you know something is true but can't find your source immediately, add a cn tag and then look it up as soon as you can. Or, as Phil said above, if you are really stuck for a source, don't input the content until you can find one. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, Gregg Hood is a living person, so Cheesy shouldn't have been writing about him anyway. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP especially, yes. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. Having just copyedited Gregg Hood and tagged it for citations, I believe WP:CIR is going to be an additional concern because the editing standard is very poor and, on the basis of that article, it won't just be citations that are needed but extensive revision of prose, grammar and structure across many articles. As a result, and given what seems to be a "can't be bothered" attitude shown here, I agree with GiantSnowman and Yamla that the editor should be indef blocked. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  (deleted per WP:G5 with explicit consent from the copyeditor; see deleted history) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block, support explicit topic ban instead (struck per comments below Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)). Cheesy clearly wants to contribute, but is not hearing that information on living persons must either have a reliable source, or if there's no source then it must not be added. Those are the only two options - writing about stuff you "just know" and leaving it to be sourced later is not acceptable for BLPs, period. A topic ban from BLPs is all that is needed here, not an outright ban. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheesy is already under a topic ban for BLPs, right now. It didn't work. --Yamla (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I had forgotten that, thanks for raising. So they have been flagrantly breaching their topic ban for 3 months now? Definitely cause for an indef because they don't seem to get it. GiantSnowman 15:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, then, why are we even having this discussion? If they're under a topic ban and they've repeatedly violated it, you don't need a community discussion to drop the banhammer. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

1) I was unaware when I posted here; 2) I am under ArbCom sections which mean I cannot re-block a user; 3) even if 1 and 2 were not factors, I would still seek community input on something like this. GiantSnowman 16:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, those are good reasons (I probably argued in favour of #2). Anyway, I had to log in to my admin account anyway, so Cheesy is now blocked indefinitely for so flagrantly violating an unblock condition, for their edits being BLP violations in and of themselves even absent the topic ban, and also for the personal-attack-laden WP:NOTTHEM rant below and elsewhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

As, probably, the only one who does work on the Inverness CT pages, I'd kindly ask you didn't make this an indefinite block. I've tried to ask others to give assistance when I'm not able to edit for whatever reason, but it seems the pleas have gone to waste. So indefinitely blocking me means those wiki pages will dry up until someone can actually be bothered doing it, as appears to have happened in (if memory recalls, the 2007-08 season), which was left not even a third done, and was only finished by me the other month. But sure, if you want fixtures and goal stats to go un-updated due to nobody being arsed enough, by all means, block me, but it's your loss. Can't see half of you editing it through the season, cos you seemingly more care about blocking people than actually doing anything worthwhile. If I had gone absolutely bonkers and started claiming the guy blew up the moon and kicked an old lady, then I'd see your point for wanting me blocked, but I haven't, I've stated what mere slivers of sources I can get my hands on, and if it means I'm repeating the Soccerbase website as a source, then so be it. You complain about segments being unsourced and "don't include information if it's unsourced" but then throw a tantrum because "It's not long enough to be worthwhile" like where the fuck is the middle ground here? Seriously, touch some fucking grass rather than spending your lives behind a keyboard complaining about this that and the other on a footballer from the early 2000s, that like most players on this website, nobody gives a flying shit about anymore. You got mad that I didn't provide sources, now you're getting mad that I AM?!? Seriously man, it's jokes. I trawl through Google trying to find a CRUMB of information, but all this shit is so old that there's no articles, but guess what, I STILL need to provide sources out my arsehole because some newspaper company didn't have a website in time to put out an article, or better yet, expect me to be able to time travel so I can get a source before the article was pulled 5 years ago. Apologies for the rant but dear jesus do you take the enjoyment out of a minor hobby that's taken me through lockdown, it's a fucking encyclopedia, stop acting like you'll be executed by the owner because someone didn't manage to fish out a source because the thing happened before the internet was common. Cheesy McGee (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Rant continued here. --Yamla (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, Yamla, can easily provide a source for that 😉 Cheesy McGee (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If Cheesy had said "sorry, won't do it again, help me get better at this" I would have had sympathy. This means an indef block is the only option. Shocking. You've brought this upon yourself Mr McGee. GiantSnowman 16:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cheesy McGee: either you didn't understand the above discussion at all which strongly supports a block since you're still not getting it. Or you need to explain a lot better what your plan is going forward. Even if you are not indefinitely blocked, your BLP topic ban is not going to be lifted. Instead you need to respect it from now on or you will be blocked. So kindly explain how you plan to work on Inverness CT and footballers from the early 2000s without violating your topic ban. I can't imagine there are that many footballers from the early 2000s who passed away more than 2 years ago Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy info: 16:38, 5 May 2021 Ivanvector talk contribs blocked Cheesy McGee talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Violations of the biographies of living persons policy, and repeatedly editing in violation of an unblock condition topic ban from all BLP edits) Tag: Twinkle Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

All  Done. Thanks for the ping and the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Chelston-temp-1 and rapid page moves

Today, in the last 2 hours, Chelston-temp-1 has moved at least 40+ pages with no discernable consensus to confusing, lengthy games which I will detail in a moment. I wanted to start this to stop the disruption as they haven't listened to the 4+ editors on their talk page here or to the warning they received from an admin in 2019. This disruption needs to stop so we can determine what, if any moves are actually legitimate. YODADICAE👽 15:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I took WP:BOLD too far and have tried to be helpful when doing edits. I've actually put one request in at WP:RM --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You say that, and then continue months or years down the road. You were warned after an admin warned you here and didn't bother stopping. You created a huge mess including creating weird subpages in mainspace and haven't bothered to clean any of it up. YODADICAE👽 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to try and stop, I'll go to WP:RM; hopefully this doesn't need Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "I'm going to try and stop"? (my emphasis) - either you stop or we make you by way off a block. Which is it going to be? GiantSnowman 15:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll stop, but I am trying to make good mainspace contributions, even if small. Yes, I fucked up. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite brisk at it, between 14:29 and 14:59 they made 62 moves (+62 corresponding talk page moves) approximately a move every 29 seconds.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering, given the talk page full of notices about non-notable subjects, what else should concern us. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I did try and source articles, wrote about things that I thought were notable due to third-party sources. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see I was not the only one bothered by this. I would like to express my support for the move for Volkswagen Golf (sixth generation), otherwise I see no useful moves. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to ask, what assurances will there be that you won't make a massive mess again in the future? Because apparently being asked by myself, Mr.choppers, Serial Number 54129, Gricehead, Amakuru, Paine Ellsworth and Magnolia677 didn't help. I'm glad you admit you screwed up but knowing that you did and continuing to do it until it was brought to ANI is a problem and leads me to believe that a topic/pban is appropriate. YODADICAE👽 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Chelston-temp-1, what made you think that moving 2017 Las Vegas shooting to 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las Vegas would be a good idea? If anything it is known for Mandalay Bay Hotel, the Harvest Festival isn't even in the lead.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Esoterix I had the same question when they moved Trolley Square shooting to 2007 Trolley Square shooting, Salt Lake City and Doping in Russia to Use of performance-enhancing drugs by athletes in Russia, among others. I keep ecing here (it took me 14 tries to get my last comment in) but i'm working on putting all the moves in my userspace to show what was moved where more clearly than just the move log) YODADICAE👽 15:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to be topic banned/permabanned, that article move was a bad idea now in hindsight. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that there was a copy/paste move included in the mess of moves covered here. That probably needs sorting out. List of equipment of the Austrian Army →List of military equipment used by the Austrian Army. Can we not just get the whole lot reverted? Gricehead (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

We may as well just revert, this was a STFU of my own making. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I suggest a topic ban from all page moves, to be lifted only if Chelston-temp-1 demonstrates that they fully understand WP:AT and that they know the difference between an uncontroversial move and one that requires an RM. It seems these were made in good faith, but given that it isn't the first time it's happened, we need to put a measure in place to ensure it doesn't occur again in future. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I will re-read WP:AT, even though I tried with the page-moves, and it didn't work; I don't want a topic ban. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked this user indef. As I said at his talk page, "I would really, really recommend that, if this user requests an unblock, the reviewing admin look at their long history of page move disruption, which continued for several years even after advice/warnings/blocking, and their long history of creating inappropriate pages. At an absolute minimum, I'd recommend a permanent or near-permanent ban from page moves as an unblock condition. Making mistakes because you're new is one thing; making the same mistake over and over after multiple warnings, over the course of several years, especially making mistakes that are going to take several hours of other people's work to clean up, is another. Complete lack of respect for other people's time." The final straw is noticing that they made the exact same apology ("I guess was a little to WP:BOLD, sorry") for the exact same disruption a year ago, April 2020. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. It sounds like the WP:IDHT runs strong there, and your conditions seem sensible.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I found this after seeing his move. The move that really struck me was this move, where Killing of George Floyd was moved to Police shooting of George Floyd. Making similarly disruptive moves repeatedly after being told to stop multiple times is grounds for a ban on any page moves. If the user wishes to be unblocked they can at a minimum be banned from moving any pages, and must use WP:RM if they want a move. While I have no doubt that there are in good faith, they simply fail to grasp how and is moves should be done on Wikipedia.

aeschyIus (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

List of moves

I've started the list here but also posting here as I update. There are some that might be okay but by and large they don't look appropriate and are overly detailed/long:

• Rowing at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's lightweight double sculls -> Rowing at the 2000 Summer Olympics/Men's lightweight double sculls
• Department of Defense appointments by Joe Biden -> Department of Defense appointments by the Biden administration
• Political appointments by Joe Biden -> Political appointments by the Biden administration
• 2021 United States inauguration week protests -> 2021 United States Inauguration Week protests
• 2020–21 United States election protests -> 2020–21 United States Presidential election protests -> 2020–21 United States Presidential election protests -> Protests against result of 2020-2021 United States presidential elections
• Smooth Radio -> Smooth Radio (2012) -> Smooth Radio (2014)
• 2019 Dallas courthouse shooting -> 2019 Earle Cabell Federal Building, Dallas courthouse shooting
• St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin -> St Patrick's Cathedral (Dublin)
• List of equipment of the Myanmar Army -> List of equipment used by the Myanmar Army
• Tomoki Suzuki -> Template:Tomoki Suzuki (footballer) -> Tomoki Suzuki (footballer)
• Time in Albania -> Time zones in Albania
• List of twin towns and sister cities in China -> /List of twin towns and sister cities in China -> List of twin towns and sister cities in China
• List of equipment of the Indonesian Army -> List of military equipment used by the Indonesian Army
• List of equipment of the Malaysian Army -> List of military equipment used by Malaysian Army
• List of equipment of the Argentine Army -> List of military equipment used by the Argentine Army
• List of equipment of the Tanzanian Army -> List of military equipment used by the Tanzanian Army
• List of modern equipment of the German Army -> List of modern military equipment used by the German Army
• List of United States Marine Corps individual equipment -> List of individual combat equipment used by the United States Marine Corps
• List of equipment of the National Guard of Ukraine -> List of military equipment used by the National Guard of Ukraine
• Volkswagen Transporter (T4) -> Volkswagen Transporter T4
• Volkswagen Transporter (T5) -> Volkswagen Transporter T5
• Volkswagen Golf Mk6 -> Volkswagen Golf (sixth generation)
• Volkswagen Type 2 (T3) -> Volkswagen Type 2 T3
• List of equipment of the Australian Army -> List of military equipment used by the Australian Army
• List of equipment of the Republic of China Army -> List of military equipment used by the Republic of China Army
• List of equipment of the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina -> List of military equipment used by the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Cebu Monorail Transit System -> Cebu Monorail
• List of equipment of the Albanian Armed Forces -> List of military equipment used by the Albanian Armed Forces
• List of equipment of the Royal Netherlands Army -> -> Wikipedia:Sandbox/List of military equipment used by the Royal Netherlands Army -> List of military equipment used by the Royal Netherlands Army
• List of deaths due to COVID-19 -> List of deaths with COVID-19 as cause
• List of members of the Parliament of Norway, 1945–49 -> List of members of the Parliament of Norway 1945–1949
• William Whitaker (1629–1672) -> William Whitaker (Puritan ejected minister)
• List of equipment of the Egyptian Army -> List of military equipment used by the Egyptian Army
• Canoeing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification -> Canoeing at the 2020 Summer Olympics qualification
• 2017 Las Vegas shooting -> 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las Vegas
• Rowing at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's single sculls -> Rowing at the 2000 Summer Olympics-men's single sculls
• Rowing at the 2000 Summer Olympics/Men's single sculls -> Rowing at the 2000 Summer Olympics-men's single sculls
• Effects of Typhoon Bopha in Micronesia and Palau -> Effects of Typhoon Bopha on Micronesia and Palau (GA!)
• List of World War II weapons of Ireland -> List of World War II weapons used in Ireland
• Trolley Square shooting -> 2007 Trolley Square shooting, Salt Lake City
• List of equipment in the Russian Navy -> List of military equipment and vehicles used by the Russian Navy
• Use of performance-enhancing drugs by athletes in Russia -> Doping in Russia

YODADICAE👽 15:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried to reverse the List of modern equipment of the German Army move and made it worse by accidentally moving to List of modern military equipment of the German Army. If someone could reverse my cockup at the same time, that would be much appreciated. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett - Looks to be  Fixed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Nadans

In this they were published adityans were the oldest and highest nadans but it is not truth adityans were one among the nelamaikkarar nadans. Like that many nelamaikkarar nadan family's were living in the surrounding of tiruchendur. Adityans were one among today's richest nelamaikkarar nadan family so they use to donate to tiruchendur temple because of this the temple people used to gives more respect to adityans so that they are not only the oldest and highest nadans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me1420 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy note: this user, Me1420 (their contributions), has made repeated disruptive edits to the page Nadan (Nadar subcaste). The user has been warned several times today and has not justified their edits. Not familiar with the subject at all, but user has not provided sources yet seems to be well-versed with WP pages (such as this page). PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. on Nadan (Nadar subcaste). Me1420 go to Talk:Nadan (Nadar subcaste) and explain there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hectoring comments in a RM discussion by Dicklyon

I'm concerned about Dicklyon (talk · contribs)'s behaviour regarding the Battle of the Mons Pocket article. They are unhappy with the capitalisation of the article's title. After some move warring ([56]) during an initial talk page discussion, they did the right thing and started a RM discussion. However, during the initial discussion and the RM they have repeatedly insulted me and hectored the other editors who disagree with them about this rather minor issue. Diffs and quotes:

• Insult directed at me [57] ("Maybe you're often distracted by titles?")
• Hectoring an editor who opposed the move while insulting me again [58] ("What do you mean, "per Nick"? You just want to repeat what he said that was demonstrated false?")
• Hectoring another editor who opposed the move while insulting me further [59] ("That's a rather preposterous presumption, given how wrongly he characterized the case usage in the sources he cited. He is obviously not up to speed on WP's capitalization guidelines."

This aggressive behaviour over a minor issue seems utterly unnecessary - it's obviously entirely possible to have differing views about capitalisation of a word without throwing insults around and needing to hector everyone who disagrees with you! Dicklyon has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, and this suggests that there is an ongoing problem which I would be grateful if an admin could follow up on. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The "maybe you're often distracted by titles?" comment does not read as an insult to me. I think they were just suggesting that you came to the wrong conclusion because you were misled by some occurrences of the term in the context of titles. (Incidentally, the addition of the "maybe" hedge plus the question mark makes this read as a very mild/polite form of contradiction.) Unless there's some more context missing, I think you've been a bit quick to impute bad faith there. Colin M (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Dicklyon is often forceful during move discussions, and I've been on the receiving end of that forcefulness before, but frankly I'm not seeing an issue here. That said, Dicklyon should keep in mind that many Wikipedians are not, in fact, up to speed on capitalization guidelines and that he is often the ambassador for those guidelines. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but even after I subsequently followed his suggestion and started an RM discussion, he repeated the error and two other guys seconded that. Definitely they needed some pushback, as you can see there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

If other people support a particular capitalisation then they don't "need pushback". When people disagree with you it may mean that things are not as clear-cut as you believe them to be. According to WP:RM "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested" - given the history of disputes about the capitalisation of this sort of thing you must surely know by now that these moves are likely to be contested. I suggest you use RM from now on. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, since Nick disagreed, we are using the RM process. The guys who joined him without saying why needed pushback because they gave no argument based in sources or guidelines, just an "opinion" that Nick liking capitalization there is better. That's not how an RM discussion is supposed to work. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually provided multiple sources to support the capitalised usage here, so was not relying on my opinion. It is beyond me why this editor is so aggressive about this minor matter and is continuing to attack me and the other editors who oppose the move. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe because what you "provided" there was shown to be false, which you have not acknowledged, and the others have failed to account for. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to rehash the merits of the ongoing RM discussion. In my view, as per Mackensen and Colin M, Dicklyon can sometimes have strongly held convictions, but although his comments may not have been especially polite, they seem basically within the bounds of Wikipedia routine discourse. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333 and SnowFire: since your comments at the subject RM are under discussion here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• That's not "hectoring". The complainant has some history of accusing Dicklyon of aggression, hectoring, etc., when the complainant isn't getting his way. This kind of escalation is a waste of ANI's time. Tony (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't recall ever encountering Dicklyon before, so I'm not sure what history you're referring to. It's a bit odd that you're accusing me of Trumpian escalation while throwing muck at me here. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Probably Tony refers to the section just above the RM, which he chimed in on, where you accused me of insulting you a few days before this "hectoring" accusation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

      Yeah, that would probably answer it. D'oh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that what's needed at Talk:Battle of the Mons Pocket#Requested move 2 May 2021 is more hectoring, not less. Look at the crap that Nick's Milhist project buddies are now adding, supporting his position based on false claims, not adding anything to the discussion but wind. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

"what's needed ... is more hectoring not less" "look at the crap" "not adding anything ... but wind". If that's collegial, good-faith editing then I'm a Dutchman. Dicklyon seems to to be taking every "oppose" as an insult and an opportunity to insult. Just chill, bro, as the Young People say. DuncanHill (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you disagree with my assessment of your arguments there, or you just think I should have found a more polite way to put it? Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You've already been pointed to WP:BADGER. I'll point you there again ⇒WP:BADGER. DuncanHill (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I attempted to suggest above, gently, that as an ambassador you should try to be more polite. Let me be clearer: your approach does not encourage the unconvinced to accept your point of view (and yes, I agree that the MOS is on your side). To the extent that you're seeking to convince people to follow the MOS you should adopt an approach that does so. Failing that, you should at least adopt an approach that doesn't have people muttering darkly on ANI about topic bans. Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they are the ones to convince. They are not open to facts, guidelines, sources, etc. My comments are really to challenge them to put up or shut up, to make it clear to a closer that they have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Yes, I have a long history of people who want to ignore the MOS muttering to ANI about me. It's disgusting. Why don't they grow up? If an ambassador is what they need, that's probably not going to be me. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Look at the crap that Nick's Milhist project buddies are now adding, supporting his position based on false claims Oh so we're Nick's cabal now? Never occurred to me. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know about you, but he did canvas the project to get some of the traditional Milhist MOS-ignorers like SnowFire and Thewolfchild and Keith-264 to back him. Thank you for your comments there. We persuaded the closer. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: I'll accept that there are often people at MilHist that share like-minded opinions, but Nick-D's post which you characterized as canvassing was simply Members of this project may want to participate in the requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of the Mons Pocket#Requested move 2 May 2021. This is a very innocuous message and was liable to be read by everyone in that project, even people who didn't necessarily agree with their interpretation such as myself. I more often than not find myself disagreeing with User:Thewolfchild, but unless you can provide diffs which proves Nick was specifically soliciting the assistance of "SnowFire and Thewolfchild and Keith-264" for "traditional Milhist MOS-ignor"ing purposes, you really should do as wolf suggests and apologize. Or at least stop making the accusation. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Dicklyon's comment on MilHist of "Fortunately, the vacuous and false arguments of Nick-D, Thewolfchild, Keith-264, SnowFire, DuncanHill, and a few others were weighted appropriately by the closer there. When sources use lowercase, the preference of these editors to use caps should not be what determines the outcome. When Nick-D falsely states what sources use caps, and others simply second him even after the error is pointed out, it degrades the credibility of the project." certainly struck me as inappropriate. I know from experience that they can discuss disagreements collegially. Perhaps they need some encouragement to do so more consistently? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  And Dicklyon didn't even have the courtesy to ping me when he called my arguments "vacuous and false". I'm not a member of the MilHist WP, it's only because of @Gog the Mild: mentioning it above that I saw the comment. DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• "They are not open to facts, guidelines, sources, etc." "Why don't they grow up?" "to make it clear to a closer that they have nothing to contribute to the discussion." - these phrases don't look like Dicklyon going with the fourth pillar Wikipedia:Civility, and seem to denigrate RM closers' ability to analyse the arguments presented. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, you can feel that this whole RM/ANI experience pissed me off pretty good. I'll try to get back to my usual calm self now. And I was not trying to "denigrate RM closers' ability to analyse the arguments", but rather to "help RM closers' ability to analyse the arguments" when I pushed back on the opposers and challenged them to say something meaningful. Dicklyon (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• You know, I wasn't actually going to say anything originally, as this seemed like pointless drama for the sake of it - Dicklyon has his stridently held opinions, whatever, move on. And hell, despite voting oppose, if I'd closed that RM, I'd have done the same thing as buidhe and close it as "Moved", so it's not like I think Dicklyon's comments or points are illegitimate. However, apparently Dick has found the time to call me out as part of the "traditional Milhist MOS-ignorers", because anyone who votes differently from him is part of an evil plot, after the RM was already closed. This is some severe sore winner behavior. I almost never look at the MILHIST talk page, and found the RM via the usual way of checking WP:RM's list, and had no idea that Nick-D posted it elsewhere. Additionally, you misrepresent my point in the RM (and probably others). I wasn't saying "ignore the MOS." I was questioning the veracity of whether sources really do predominately lower cap "pocket" and think that for obscure topics, we should defer to the experts, which would be the article creator. And, put bluntly, based on your comments on other RMs, you've made clear that you see any sort of non-capitalized use anywhere as reason to remove the capital letters, so it's hard to just take your word for it that Nick-D is "wrong" on the source usage. Nevertheless, you convinced others that the reliable source usage really was mixed, so whatever, I can move on with my life - maybe you're even right, I'm certainly not an expert myself on the specific battle and its terminology in history.
  As a more general comment, article titles are to some extent arbitrary. Both the Manual of Style and article titling policy are essentially guidelines, suggestions. They aren't irrefutable rules like WP:RS or WP:NPOV. As such, editors can't really be wrong with them. Their opinions are, at worst, different from the prevailing consensus, and consensus can change (the Manual of Style in 2021 is not the same as it was in 2006, and it won't be the same in 2036 - that's healthy and good). As such, people should chill out if somebody is "wrong" in a RM. If they really are out of step with the consensus, than the RM will be closed against them (as arguably happened to Nick-D here!). If the "wrong" side actually succeeds in a well-attended RM, then maybe the consensus was different than expected, but it's no tragedy either way. Dicklyon, if you're reading this, your constant assumption of bad faith in others is frustrating; please accept that not everyone will agree with you every time, and that's okay. You have your opinion, let me have mine. SnowFire (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I hear you justifying that it's OK to ignore the MOS; OK, you can have that opinion. But your comment to trust the article creator, who said 3 of 5 cited sources use caps, even though the actual number was 1 of 5, devalues my own contribution. I wasn't expecting you to necessarily take my word for it if you doubted my creditibility, but if you're not going to look into it you can at least notice that Nick's distraction by titles in the Google book search he linked makes him much less credible. You threw your weight behind a person shown to be spewing falsities. Yeah, like I said, you can feel that I was pissed. Nick opening an AN/I thread in parallel with the RM discussion was a big part of that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  "Your comment... devalues my own contribution." No! No, it doesn't. We don't round up the "wrong" side of an RFC and mock them for devaluing the "right" side of the RFC with their wrongness. The whole point of these discussions is for editors to offer their authentic, good faith !vote. If it's a weak or unconvincing !vote, the closer gives it little weight. That's it. If there's zero disagreement, there probably wasn't need to open an RFC / RM to begin with. SnowFire (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Why should anyone take the word of someone who spews so much bile? Life's too short. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Raising concerns, at a wikiproject, about why participants in that project keep making arguments that defy our WP:P&G and directly contradict the sourcing, is not any kind of problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Also — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [60].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

break

Need to get back on track here. This is not about the RM itself, or which sources said what, this is about Dicklyon's behavior towards others, here, in that now-closed RM, and even now at an otherwise benign notification at milhist about said RM. Just because he doesn't agree with other editors, doesn't give him the right to badger his "opponents" with personal attack after personal attack, all with seeming impunity. Even if he is self-admittedly "pissed off", the MOS does not require such ardent defense that it gives a free pass to violate NPA. This ANI was filed 3 days ago, and as of an hour ago, the battleground mentality of this editor continues as he heaps more insults at others. - wolf 21:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Wolf, I have no problem with good-faith pushback on my MOS work. But this should have been a cut-and-dried case, or at least a simpler RM discussion. Go back and look at how it should have finished up after my May 1 comment. Nick could have checked his "After the Battle" source and noticed that there too he was "distracted by titles"; he could have said OK, done. Instead he took it as an insult and withdrew from the discussion in a huff, so I did the move again. He still objected, so we went to RM, where he again posted "evidence" (from a Google Books search) that was again nothing but being distracted by titles. OK, this happens, I get it. So I pushed back on him, and on those who seconded him without looking at evidence or apparently being aware of capitalization guidelines. OK, this happens, I can deal with it. Then he opens an AN/I case to complain about my "behavior". That's going way beyond any normal discourse that the situation required. Then he invites the Milhist project (which already had it on their article alerts for any of them who cared, so was really an "extra" appeal beyond their ordinary), bringing in more long-time MOS-dislikers like you and @Keith-264:. So, it's me that should take shit for being very pissed off over all this? Sure, pile it on. Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So now you're the victim? Have you even read your previous posts here, at the RM, and at MilHist? You abuse all and sundry and then blame your behaviour on them? DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I blame them for most of the drama here and elsewhere, caused by the ridiculous things they wrote. Yes, including you, whose comments I quoted at the project talk page and reaffirmed that I considered them to be "vacuous". And I got to look up both "hectoring" and "vacuous", so it's not all bad. Dicklyon (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Those who make poor arguments are not in a position to complain they're being mistreated when called on the poor quality of those arguments. We do that 24/7, and that is what is happening here. This is an encyclopedia-building project not a social network, so all this overly emotive "hurt feelings" posturing is sorely misplaced.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest and Dick is waving a straw man. You should quit while you're ahead. Keith-264 (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Huh? You don't seem to have read WP:Conflict of interest or straw man, since neither of them seem to be pertinent to this discussion. Happening to agree with Dicklyon's criticisms of some of the MILHIST participants' transparently bogus and anti-source, anti-guideline argumentation, which increasingly borders on disruptive, is not any kind of conflict of interest, it's simply sensible. Dicklyon making observations that others are unhappy about isn't a straw man, even if they disagree with them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have a short memory. Keith-264 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is just another non sequitur. Do you have any actually meaningful input into this thread, or are you just going to try to pick more fights? This is hardly a good venue for such an activity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack by Thewolfchild

In addition to blatantly canvassing his buddies at MILHIST to come to this ANI [61] (cf. WP:POVRAILROAD), Thewolfchild complains about Dicklyon's alleged "behavior towards others". Let's look at some behavior like Thewolfchild calling him a dick [62] and implying that he is incapable of civility, which is obviously a false accusation, and grossly hypocritical. Probably blockworthy in and of itself: he's clearly trying to make a penis joke out of Dicklyon's name, in a addition to calling him a dick in a jerk sense. The WP:DICK shortcut was deprecated years ago, so Thewolfchild is going out of his way to use it in this case, against community consensus to not use it. I have delivered [63] to Thewolfchild a {{Ds/alert|at}}, since this kind of behavior is not permissible in discussions about article titles, which are covered by discretionary sanctions. It's not at all like raising issues, as Dicklyon did, about editors making arguments that defy the sources and the WP:P&G; Thewolfchild's behavior is just verbal aggression for its own sake. If Thewolfchild will not learn from this (questionable, given this childish and again hypocritical tit-for-tat and missing-the-point behavior [64]) and will not refrain from similar uncivil behavior in future article-titling discussions, then it should simply go to WP:ANI for swift resolution next time. Thewolfchild would hardly be the first editor topic-banned from such discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by SMcCandlish

In a post which can only be described as hypocritical and disingenuous, SMcCandlish (SMc) has left out his own personal attacks; one the false accusation of canvassing (isn't that how all this started?), the other conveniently hidden in an edit summary on his talk page, while reverting an edit I made so that only I would see it. This is right after abusing a DS sanction notice, with the clear intent of having a chilling effect on further posts by me to this ANI. An ANI he now tries to derail with this sudden "stop-looking-at-my-friend-Dicklyon-and-instead-look-at-the-Thewolfchild!" left turn. WP:DICK is a redirect to an active Meta essay on behavior. As SMc's diff shows, it was used as a redirect, piped with the word "nature", as in "the nature of Dicklyon's behavior is addressed by the 'don't be a jerk' essay". There was absolutely no "dick joke" being made at the expense of Dicklyons first name, I think the accusation is crude and obnoxious, and not only does SMc owe me an apology for this blantant lie, but one to Dicklyon as well, as it seems SMc will stop at nothing, including the humiliation of his own friend, with this nonsense. Lastly, this ANI is about Dicklyon's behavior, not mine. If SMc really feels I committed "blockable behavior", then that should merit it's own ANI report, not an attempt-at-distraction subsection of this report, that had the obvious additional benefit of not requiring a notification to my talk page (I wasn't even pinged). If SMc is going to preach the high road, he should also walk it. - wolf 00:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This kind habitual (see previous diff above) "No I'm not! You are!" schoolyard-style parroting/projection tit-for-tat is not constructive, and is simply further strong evidence of Thewolfchild's ingrained battleground behavior and NOTGETTINGIT approach to criticism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

And yet, I've actually had very little involvement with this entire matter. A !vote at the RM, then a couple of responses to the badgering that was taking place, and then I disengaged. I posted a comment at the milhist notice, was again badgered, and again was the one to disengage. I only posted 4 brief responses in total, on both pages. Then 2 whole days go by. Then I post a single comment here, at the subsection "(break)", asking that this ANI stay on point, and all of a sudden you are on me, with your wiki-wp:essay-salad, battleground attacks, accusations, bogus sanction notices, (iow: threats), all seemingly with zero self-awareness. You keep posting repeated personal attacks while claiming I'm somehow... disrupting... something...

All I can say is, this isn't about me and you need to stop making it about you, this particular report is about your friend, Dicklyon. You seem really desperate to derail this report into the typical tl:dr dreck that admins usually don't bother with. Multiple editors have asked that Dicklyon's behavior be reviewed, how about you just let the process run through without the detours. Can you do that? Can you stop the must-have-last-word-posts with every. single. editor. and just let this report run it's course? I think we're done here. - wolf 07:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's have an RfC and be done with it

This thread seems to be getting to the part of a Monty Python skit where a policeman shows up and stops it because it's getting too silly. Clearly, there are larger issues going on here than this specific editor, or this specific RM.

I'm currently involved in a very long argument with Dicklyon, at Talk:Extremely_Online#Requested_move_27_April_2021 (for the record, I think he's wrong, and that the article's title should be capitalized). Nevertheless, he has made reasonable arguments, and been honorable about it. He's been insistent, which is not the same thing as acting in bad faith. In fact, I wish that everyone I argued with on Wikipedia were this reasonable about it.

One thing I'd like to point out here is that, if you look on his talk page (or even in this thread) you can see that he is far from alone in his opinions about capitalization in titles. Maybe he is right, and maybe he is wrong, but it certainly doesn't seem like he is just some lone yahoo.

Since it doesn't seem like there is a project-wide consensus one way or the other, and everyone seems to think that the PAGs support a different point of view, I think we should have an RfC somewhere (perhaps at WT:MOS) to clarify the scope of MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. This seems to me like the only way that anyone is going to be satisfied on the issue (least of all an increasingly Mad Online thread at AN/I). jp×g 05:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess that means you don't have a long memory of all the RFCs we've had on the MOS, including CAPS. There's a pretty strong consensus behind it, historically, though it's a continuing job to uniformly implement it. Almost all new articles that aren't obviously proper names still get created in title case, as most editors just aren't that familiar with the MOS, or they just like to cap things important to them, like Extremely Online. And yes, I appreciate your civil discourse there, though I disagree with the crux of your argument ("There is a difference between a simple conjunction of two words and a coherent concept being referred to by their conjunction.") since that's not how our MOS says to decide what to capitalize. If that was the criterion, almost every two-word concept that we name an article for would get caps, including Mons Pocket. For example, I just clicked "random article" until I found a two-word title not capped: Prague derby; now, I'm sure many will look at that and say that's the name of a thing, it should be capitalized. But if you look at news, or books, you'll see it's usually not; so we leave it lowercase (this one was not created in title case, but many are, and get moved to lowercase, like Extremely Online will). Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the call for a content RfC is outside the scope of this ANI report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Outside the scope, yes, but not a bad idea. To the extent that issues continue to crop up with how policy is interpreted, we should have a process to refine those statements of policy to make it clear how it is to apply in those particular situations. BD2412 T 16:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a bad idea, because it's the wrong process. Article titles are not determined by RfC, but by RM, which are near-identical processes. That is, WP:RM is RfC, for titles. That is to say, the RfC you want to see happen has already happened. Ergo, you are effectively asking for license to WP:Forum shop to a variant process any time someone doesn't like the outcome of the proper process.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: That's why I specifically said it should be started somewhere (perhaps at WT:MOS), which is where content disputes (i.e. the majority of this thread, unless I am missing something) belong. jp×g 19:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

As a side point: There is in fact a site-wide consensus on this sort of matter, named MOS:CAPS. The distilled gist of it (and its first rule) is: if reliable sources do not near-consistently capitalize something then it should not be capitalized on Wikipedia. Various editors dislike this rule and will engage in both logic contortions (and in this case even source denial), and a "never give up, never surrender" approach to get their way (in a vein of "It didn't work this time, so I'll try again later, again and again until I WP:WIN"). A few editors make the same already-rejected arguments in favor of over-capitalization dozens of times at RMs spanning years, and refuse to accept the lower-case results that emerge again and again and again. The fact is that as a WP:P&G matter they are in the wrong about the vast majority of capitalization questions. The seemingly dire urge some people exhibit to over-capitalize things (especially jargonistic terms particular to certain fields/interests, because people steeped in them tend to capitalize them when writing to/for other people steeped in the same topic, versus how general-audience sources – like Wikipedia – are written) is the no. 1 cause of disputation about article titles, and also the no. 1 source of strife about all MoS matters combined. This really needs to wind down, and that's not going to happen if we continue to permit individuals like Thewolfchild, and WP:GANGs of editors at habitually over-capitalizing wikiprojects, get away with aggressive "style warrior" battlegrounding about their pet topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"This really needs to wind down, and that's not going to happen if we continue to permit individuals like Thewolfchild...". So, specifically naming me and me only? Out of all of this, the ANI, the RM, the MILHIST notice, how do you even remotely justify this? This just equates to another attack, bordering on some bizarre WP:GRUDGE, and if anything is the antithesis of "winding things down". If that is really your intention, then you need to let this go. - wolf 17:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

S, thanks for changing "Many editors" to "A few editors". It really is just a few. The vast majority of Milhist editors are non-problematic (except that maybe they hang back and are afraid to contradict some of their fellows). Some do speak up in favor of following MOS:CAPS on occasion, which is good to see. If I've come across as criticizing the project or its members, I apologize for that. But the project is the place where some of the over-capitalizers find each other and support each other without evidence, sometimes. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the number of "defy the MoS until I die" sorts can be counted on one to two hands; "Many" got left in accidentally because the original setencence was going to begin something like "Many of these problem can be traced to editors who ...". Anyway, it's entirely appropriate in my view to take concerns to a wikiproject's talk page when they involve what amounts to organized activity on behalf of the wikiproject by some of its more vociferous participants. Wikiprojects – the principle purpose of which is centralizing topical discussion – can't have it both ways. If they want topic-related discussion that makes them happy to be gathered there, they're going to have to accept some critical commentary there as well, when it pertains to more than sole-individual behavior but pertains to group activity, which is the case here. It's always the case (cf. the bird capitalization fiasco, most memorably) that various wikiproject participants are not going along with whatever the "anti-guideline rebellion" is, if one is happening and is centered on a wikiproject. Being critical of the group for entertaining such unconstructive antics is not an individual crticism of much less an attack on every single wikiproject participant. People in wikiprojects also have to remember (and sometimes need to be reminded) that they are not walled gardens, private parties, or separate membership organizations. They are nothing but pages at which editors – any editors – can collaborate, provide information, and raise concerns that are on-topic (or in this case, on-meta-topic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Thank you for clarifying your remarks about MilHist. @SMcCandlish: For the record, I closed the RM discussion notice on MilHist talk because it wasn't about "critical commentary" but a mudslinging contest. And I still strongly object to Nick-D's original comment being characterized as CANVASSing. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that mudslinging. As or the canvassing, I don't know how else to see it. These things get automatically posted to the project's article alerts, and when a member makes an extra special appeal for participation, it brings in mainly those who agree with him, as it did here. Nick-D's notice of 10:05, 4 May 2021 was followed by comments from members Keith-264 and Buckshot06 (and DuncanHill, not a member, who echoed him). They said nothing useful, but added fuel to the fire. Also SnowFire and Thewolfchild seem to be (in my past experience) associated with military stuff, members or not. I don't know who watches that page, but it didn't really need this extra call to action. Thewolfchild perhaps still carries a grudge from when one of his ship names lost its comma after a protracted discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I posted a single comment about what I felt was an unfounded accusation and personal attack. It seems some others agree with me. I didn't initiate this and there is no ulterior motive. The whole comma thing was five years ago. I'd forgotten about it, perhaps you should let it go. - wolf 17:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that closing that thread was a good idea. Has anyone suggested otherwise? What is Indy_beetle complaining about, in other words. Well, beyond the repeated obvious: yeah, Indy_beetle, you've made it clear already that you're upset about the canvassing claim. No need to beleaguer the point. And just being huffy about it is not a convincing argument. While the wording of the notice – delivered only to MILHIST not to any other wikiproject or other venue – was neutral, the intent and effect of it clearly was not, or the same notice would have gone to other venues, at bare mimimum WT:WikiProject Belgium. It was a rallying cry to MILHIST. It not having been the worst kind of canvassing doesn't make it non-canvassing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: That wasn't meant as a "complaint". In response to your previous comment involving "appropriate in my view to take concerns to a wikiproject's talk page", I wanted to make it clear I wasn't attempting to shutdown the expressing of concerns by closing the thread. The point about CANVASS re Nick-D and Milhist is because you are discussing the behavior of Milhist. When you are confused about something I say, you can always just ask me for clarification, instead of posing rhetorical questions to the whole discussion group and then condescend me. FTR, posting notices about RfCs, AfDs, etc. in milhist even though they are already listed at project notifications is a very common thing. Also, MilHist is actually active enough to where a notice will at least be read by someone who will go and comment. Speaking for myself, it usually doesn't occur to me post a notice involving a milhist topic in other wikiprojects because most simply aren't very active. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A contrarian view

Well, I'll call it a contrarian view here, though I'm not sure I wouldn't be in the majority if a truly site-wide survey could somehow be taken. I've never really understood why the editors within major groups of articles, with demonstrated subject-matter expertise, shouldn't be relied upon to decide the capitalization of those articles. A site-wide MOS that avoids repetitious subject-by-subject or article-by-article or even sentence-by-sentence debates over the same issues is desirable on many usage topics. Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki. The efforts for MOS-driven uniformity in this area therefore strike me as unattainable, and the emphasis on the importance of uniformity as excessive. There have always been a handful of editors, I will mention no names, who push for lower-casing of article titles even where the editors active in creating and maintaining the articles, and with the greatest expertise in the subject-matters of the article content, all assert and offer ample evidence that upper-casing is the convention in those areas. For more than ten years, forced lowercasing of such titles has demoralized some of these editors, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has weakened some of their good-feelings for and interest in Wikipedia as a whole. With all respect to everyone's good faith here and elsewhere, I'm not convinced that these aggressive forced-capitalization-uniformity efforts are a worthwhile overall contribution to the well-being of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I totally agree. It would be much better for the encyclopedia if those with a super-human interest in fixing six million titles were kept well away from the dwindling community of content builders. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hey, John, if you're referring to me, note that I've created over a hundred articles and uploaded about a thousand photos, among other things. Besides creating content, I have a focus on style. Hope that's OK, too. I don't think I'll get to looking at millions of articles, but I've done case fixes in thousands at least; maybe tens of thousands. Do let me know if you see any I got wrong. Thanks for your interest. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Indeed. Forced uniformity tends to have more downsides on a community level than advantages, especially when our house style is at odds with scholarly style. (The German Wikipedia's disgusting (to me) house style is one reason why I don't contribute to mathematics articles there: they follow some "official" recommendations that nobody else uses). —Kusma (t·c) 09:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree (per my comment below). jp×g 01:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  If you can take a bit more "hectoring", please say what you agree with here, and why; maybe reference what I said to NYB below. I can see how one might legitimately agree with "I've never really understood...", but are you agreeing that "Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki."? If so, do you have a reason for such belief? Or do you believe that "forced lowercasing of such titles has demoralized some of these editors" is a sensible thing to assert? Is there any evidence of "forced lowercasing" (against consensus in RM discussions)? I remain puzzled. Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

NYB, I hear you, and acknowledge that sometimes project members want to have their own project style that deviates from the central consensus as embodied in guidance such as the MOS. But members with that idea have not convinced even the larger project, in discussions where they've tried. And I disagree with your premise that "Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki." That's not what's happening here. Military historians have varying styles among them, but do not generally capitalize "Mons pocket", or any of the other things that I've worked on moving toward Wikipedia style. A few do, but that's not indicative of anything about the "topic or profession or area of expertise". Rather, what you see is the tendency, in all topic areas, for editors to capitalize what's important to them. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me like there is a "central consensus" in this discussion, or indeed, in most of them, on what constitutes a proper name (which is the subject of most of the contention, if I understand correctly). I think that a guideline (or a guideline section, or a supplement) specifically outlining what a "proper name" is would go a long way toward resolving these; even in the case that consensus wasn't established, having the guideline say "consensus isn't established" would be better than having it say something vague (or nothing at all) which everyone interprets as obviously agreeing with them. jp×g 01:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, a consensus on "what constitutes a proper name" is a tricky one! That's why at MOS:CAPS the consensus is around the more practical criterion "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason for the kerfluffle here is that an experienced expert editor/admin wouldn't admit that the term he wanted to capitalize was capitalized in only a small minority of sources, argued that it was "close to half" (which it was not, as I showed him) and that that should be enough in spite of the guideline, and then came to AN/I because I pushed back on his nonsense and those who jumped in with support with no reason given. This thread should never have been opened. But as long as you want to keep it going, I'll keep explaining and pushing back on nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect to NYB, the line between "expert" and "fanboy" on Wikipedia is not easily discernable, and I don't think it sets a good precedent to allow a small group of people to contravene MOS according to their own style preferences. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

MoS

After reading up on all the various pages, to see what the kerfuffle's about, and yes, I believe that much of this is well-intended, but really, the thought that keeps coming to mind is: are you all intentionally trying for a listing at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars?

If the issue causing contention is some policy or guideline, and in good faith you all believe it should be amended, then please start an RfC at the VP. It doesn't matter how longstanding - if it needs to be amended, then it needs to be amended.

Policy and guidelines are only healthy if they are living documents, not stone-engraved aedifaces. - jc37 07:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're proposing to amend, or in what direction. The MOS is amended continuously based on discussions and RFCs and such, and the capitalization guidance has evolved to have wide consensus support. It is indeed a healthy living document, not a stone tablet. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's no edit war related to this thread, so going for the "lamest" would be lame. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of Hectoring (capped in honor of my old bud Hector Levesque, author of "The Winograd Schema Challenge"), I just downcased Winograd schema challenge. Is this "forced"? Is it wrong? I don't think so. I do such things every day, and seldom get any pushback, because it's right, within Wikipedia style, to not cap things that aren't consistently capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Persistent posting of unreliable sources and unreferenced edits regarding TV ratings

User:Superastig has been told in his talk page [65] not to post unreliable sources such an unverified Twitter account. He insists that "he stands up" to his edits and continues to use the unreliable Twitter account as a reference.[66][67] [68] He also restored unreferenced TV ratings in two separate articles ([69][70]) and claiming his fixed something in the article.TheHotwiki (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• This clearly cannot continue. If this were a brand new editor, I would say point them at WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, leave a uw- template about it, and have a talk conversation with them about why proper sourcing is important. But this editor has been here since 2009 and absolutely knows better already. A topic-ban might be in order to prevent more improper sourcing in these articles, and the behavior does seem localized. It could even be a very narrow and specific one, like: "prohibited from using unverified-account social-media posts as sources, from citing sources challenged as unrelialble, from adding information without a source, and from using misleading edit summaries", rather than a broad ban from Philippines TV articles. This edit [71] and one diffed after it are of especial concern as obvious original research (either that, or they're relying on some actual source which the editor WP:POINTedly refuses to divulge, perhaps because it is known-unreliable). While WP:V permits insertion of non-controversial information with no source at all, on the good-faith expectation that it'll be sourced later, in this case these claims are obviously being controverted so that cannot apply. Since Superastig postures as "stand[ing] up" for their edits, they must assume responsibility for them and for the negative pattern they are forming. This all seems especially boneheaded because the Twitter account in question (some random non-notable person going by Yera Calma and whose profile pic is a dog) is just parotting or claiming to parrot an actual publication which looks ostensibly reliable (Philippines Nielsen ratings), so the obvious thing to do is find that publication and cite the real thing. If it or another reliable source cannot be found, it is perfectly fine for WP's article to lack information on the relative ratings of these shows; WP:THEREISNODEADLINE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:LouiseFeb1974

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe that the following accounts are operated by the same person and all accounts have a history of disruptive editing:

• User:LouiseJVickers1974
• User:AlanberkeleyBC
• User:LouiseFeb1974
• User:LouiseVickers74
• User:Alanberkeley
• User:Aberkeley49
• User:Kevinasp
• User:Adderallhead
• User:Adderallpusher

User:LouiseFeb1974 was recently blocked from editing Edward Hallowell (psychiatrist) and Russell Barkley on April 9, 2021 for continued disruptive editing. User:AlanberkeleyBC was created 3 days later on April 12, 2021 and has made 6 edits similar to the past edits by User:LouiseFeb1974 on the Edward Hallowell (psychiatrist) article. User:LouiseJVickers1974 was created today and has edited both the Edward Hallowell (psychiatrist) and Russell Barkley articles.

Here is a full list of where those accounts overlap.

Editing similarity examples:

1. LouiseJVickers1974 on Russell Barkley & LouiseFeb1974 on Russell Barkley
2. AlanberkeleyBC on Edward Hallowell & LouiseFeb1974 on Edward Hallowell here and here
3. LouiseVickers74 on Russell Barkley and LouiseFeb1974 on Russell Barkley
4. Aberkeley49 on Edward Hallowell and LouiseFeb1974 on Edward Hallowell
5. Kevinasp on Russell Barkley and LouiseFeb1974 on Russell Barkley
6. Adderallhead on Edward Hallowell and LouiseFeb1974 on Edward Hallowell
7. Adderallpusher on Edward Hallowell and LouiseFeb1974 on Edward Hallowell here and here

68.105.180.251 (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Is WP:SPI not working? --JBL (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure looks broken to me - I resolve cases and more keep showing up anyway. We have an SPI for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kevinasp, but I'm not sure that Kevinasp is the same person. Fairly confident that the Berkeley family and the Louise family are all related to each other (there's a particular behavioral quirk they all share), SPI handled at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aberkeley49. Adderallhead/Adderallpusher look more like unrelated attack accounts to me. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sandbox deletion

Hello. Some of this I've copy pasted from the talk pages. I was working on a sandbox page for an article and it was deleted by Jimfbleak for “Unambiguous advertising or promotion." He repeatedly has accused me of working for the company and having a conflict of interest. I am an editor for a rather well known crypto news org. So was the person helping me edit the sandbox page (I believe it was ColonelCrypto). To avoid a conflict of interest, neither of us has any crypto investments nor are we affiliated with any crypto company (at least in a COI sense). I simply believe 0xProject are notable and wanted to improve Wikipedia. I believe 0x technology could revolutionize DeFi. They could fail miserably too though. The sandbox page had a criticism section based off research from Cornell. This critique was publicized in an article in Forbes which was also referenced in the sandbox page. I completely agree some of it sounds far too promotional. This is because most of the available information on the 0xproject is promotional. I dumped text and sources in the sandbox so I’d have it all in one place. The plan was to make it encyclopedic but the page was deleted. I was not even allowed to address these issues with Jimfbleak before he deleted the page. After I asked Jimfbleak if he could please restore the page or provide me with a copy of the page he said there was "no evidence of notability and no references." I don't think he took much of a look at the page. There was a list of references at the bottom including articles from Forbes, Bloomberg and many others. I'm sure I could find more but the page was deleted. Could someone please restore the page? Thank you. DaxMoon (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You could try asking for undeletion at WP:REFUND. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

DaxMoon, thanks for ping. I asked twice whether you had a COI without a reply until I saw this ANI. I now see that you have denied having a COI on your talk page as well, but since you didn't ping me from there, I wasn't aware of that. However, what you chose to copy to you sandbox wasn't just factual stuff, some of it was absolutely blatant spam. Why did you think that would be useful. I'm happy to abide by any decision made here, assuming you don't take up Beyond My Ken's suggestion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You bet. You never asked if I had a COI. There was never any room given for a dialogue. First you said I needed to declare if I had a COI. I didn’t so I didn’t declare anything. Then you stated, without reservation, that I had a COI. If you would’ve asked I would’ve told you. I completely agree some of it sounds like spam. Never meant for any of that to actually be part of the article. I was just copying and pasting from various sources so I’d have it all in one place. Some of it was from 0x promo material. Purely there for ease of access to info. Didn’t foresee it being an issue since it’s a ‘sandbox’ of sorts. Jimfbleak it looks like we got off on the wrong foot. Could you help me try and sort this out? If you restore the page I’ll do a spam sweep in the next day or two and perhaps you could take another look and tell me if there are any other issues? DaxMoon (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

DaxMoon, please ping me when you post a message you want me to see, otherwise it's just chance if and when I see your messages. I agree, I don't think this needs ANI and I'll continue on your talk page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Prolific Edit Warring and Disruptive Editing by Amigao (11RR)

Amigao (talk · contribs) is engaging in prolific edit warring and aggressive revert behaviour across a number of controversial China related topics, where he appears to be pushing a specific POV.

He has a habit of repeatedly dictating the flow of changes to specific articles, making changes which are controversial/disputed and subsequently reverting any other user who challenges them. He makes changes unilaterally, but then requests anyone who challenges him uses the talk page [72] [73] [74] [75]

This has also involved up to 11 reverts on a single article, CGTN (TV channel) in the space of than a week [76] against a number of users. He also reports those who challenge him, but receives no consequences himself.

This behaviour needs to be taken into account. He has been blocked before and received warnings- 1.210.71.154 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added full protection to CGTN (TV channel) and Genocide denial while this is being looked into. This user does have many warnings for edit warring, but I don't see where they've gone as far as needing to be blocked. If I'm wrong, let me know and point me to the article that I need to look at. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing et al.

Can someone please rein in User:Pigsonthewing. His incessant hostility and disruption is extremely offputting (which is probably the intention). Their latest is the TfD of a new template with a very misleading or uninformed nomination statement (at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Template:Authority control (arts) Master, which is an attempt to disrupt the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: look of Authority Control, where they add their usual belittling and attacking comments (see also the discussions at Template talk:Authority control.

If the comments were only against me, oh well, but it seems to be the same against everyone who opposes them. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Authority control:

• Out of the blue, they threaten an IP who made a good-faith suggestion with a vandalism block[77]: "We tend to block people for vandalism."
• I objected to this threat, as did the IP[78]
• They ignored the IP and replied to me with some sophistry, so I reiterated my point.
• Their reply? Poppycock, changed afterwards to a flat-out denial that they threatened anyone with a vandalism block, despite it being right there in the discussion a few replies earlier.

Inbetween, they decided to throw around some insults[79] about me around a template I created and they nominated for deletion, but which got kept. For good measure, they repeated it in their next reply, but now in italics. Way too many of their replies are in the same vein, from the very start of the discussion (calling the OPs post a "diatribe"), to "farcical", "stupid", "asinine change", "is disingenuous at best" (in Template_talk:Authority_control)

User:Mike Peel, while usually a bit more civil than Pigsonthewing, adds fuel to the fire. In the same VPP discussion, their first comment calls the opening post "ridiculous", and further down replying to me with "If you're going to persist in deliberately misunderstanding and trying to put words in my mouth, then just go away". At the template talk page, they also sarcastically claim "But no, we must have drama!!!" because they disagree with Pppery

Similarly, User:Tom.Reding feels fine declaring "There's been no progress on the above implementation issues, despite your lying/mischaracterization of the situation." (in Template_talk:Authority_control#Anyone willing to implement this?), and now claims that opening an RfC about the design at VPP (as asked for by Mike Peel and Pigsonthewing!) is Forumshopping.

This all harks back to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 26#Template:ACArt, which Pigsonthewing nominated without understanding what the template did, and for which they canvassed at some offwiki GLAM page[80]. And then of course the RfC on the redesign of Aythority Control[81], which two of these editors opposed (no problem there): both felt the need to immediately personalize things unnecessary though, with Tom.Reding ("I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but that hasn't stopped Fram before, either.": when called out on this, their reply was "Nothing personal, just facts about your person.", and later on "For an RfC, you are stunningly misinformed"), Mike Peel (first sentence: "While the the template could definitely be made better looking, I don't trust Fram to do it. " and later "Assuming good faith with them has long been worn out").

Basically, it is neigh impossible to have a constructive discussion with Pigsonthewing, and Mike Peel and Tom.Reding regularly add their oil to the fire (although they also have constructive contributions). The way Pigsonthewing treated that IP (with the block warning for no good reason, and then ignoring them), and the way they then denied even making a block treat, is just unacceptable. The constant attempts to paint everything in the worst possible light, deliberately using provocative, uncivil, over-the-top words instead of having a reasonable, civil, adult conversation, is extremely offputting. I noticed that I exhausted my patience and started replying with sarcasm, so I have just stopped replying to them at all wherever possible. Fram (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This is part of a long-running issue with Fram's behaviour. They have been actively hostile for a very long time (going back to at least 2017), not just with this template but with anything to do with Wikidata (which is why I said AGF has "long been worn out" as quoted above, as well as "I don't trust Fram to do it"). There was a respite while they were blocked, but since then they seem to have gotten worse, particularly with this case, but also others (e.g., see Template_talk:Cite_Q#TfD_warning, which I took to 3RR). I recently said "But I'm going to re-adopt my policy of not bothering to reply to anything you say" (I was doing that before they were blocked and unblocked), which has mostly been helping (and Fram appears to have done the same in reverse). On the other hand, Andy and Tom seem to be quite reasonable in discussions, and are raising points that should be addressed. Mike Peel (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, on the same discussion, Tom.Reding accused me of Willful ignorance and/or intellectual bias at its most obvious (Special:Diff/1020417845). At the time, I let the matter drop and implemented his suggestion, because I still believed that it was possible to write code in the sandbox that would satisfy everybody and then non-controversially implement it, a belief I now realize was wishful thinking. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't recall encounters with the other users, but I agree with Fram that Pigsonthewing's attitude and behaviour are abhorrent. GiantSnowman 14:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that Tom.Reding thought it wise to start an EW report asking for a topic ban of me for longterm disruption (without any evidence of such) nearly half an hour after being informed of this ANI discussion. For someone concerned about Forumshopping, this seems like a strange move. I have asked there to refer the issue to this ANI and to close the EW case.[82]. Fram (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't help but think you informed us of this discussion (1, 2, 3) TWO minutes prior to 3RR'ing. Kinda seems intentional, as if you thought that would absolve you of WP:3RR (of which I had no part, mind you).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Uh, no. I wrote this lengthy (and rambling, sorry) report, which took me quite a while, then looked at my watchlist, and saw that this was again reverted. I reinstated my version, after which you reverted it[83] and started the EW report. Claiming that you had no part in the edit war is not really true, yours is just the latest in the series. Fram (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• There are a few 'heavily involved' editors on the authority control templates in recent proposals (one of which I started) who seem to be in conflict over a longer period of time[84][85] (I'm not familiar with the broader background). In the recent discussions, Pigsonthewig and Tom.Reding most notably have personalised the dispute, or bludgeoned/derailed the discussion. These issues stretch back to the initial RfC.[86][87][88][89]. In the most recent discussion, a couple of vocal editors seem to feel the need to air their (apparently) personal conflicts, somewhat hindering others from getting a word in and making it difficult to keep the discussion on track. I had a feeling this was going to happen, which is why I didn't open my WP:VPR section as an RfC in the first instance. I don't think Fram has done anything poor in these discussions. There is a problem here, but I'm not sure how it can be solved. Disclosure that I also participated in these conversations, and my own opinions align closer to Fram's, but I don't think my summary is biased. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Re:

1. Re my comment "There's been no progress on the above implementation issues": Fram agreed. So I replied, given the evidence.
2. Re my claim that "opening an RfC about the design at VPP [...] is Forumshopping": yes, it is, given Fram's own comments. No consensus was reached @ Template talk:Authority control#Discussion example of the new look after the RfC, Template talk:Authority control#The new version takes up too much space, nor Template talk:Authority control#Taking out all the wikilinks doesn't seem like improving user-friendliness, as suggested it should be prior to any followup RfC.
3. Re "For an RfC, you [Fram] are stunningly misinformed": yes, given that:

1. Fram was not aware that {{AC}} wikilinks doubled as parameter names (or Fram refused to tell participants, which is worse, but what I suspect to be true, to further their already-badfaith RfC, started without any discussion with regular AC participants),
2. not aware of/ignoring (again, I suspect the latter) a category relevant to, and against, the discussion, and
3. not aware of WP:Authority control's own guideline on redirects;
4. so "stunningly misinformed" is the kindest possible interpretation of Fram's actions, which are better characterized as hostile to {{Authority control}}, given Fram's failed TfD from 2017, and editing tenure back to 2005 (i.e. ignorance is not a reasonable excuse).

Below, Fram has acknowledged that they knew about wikilinks doubling as parameter names, yet they purposefully omitted this from the original RfC, supporting my suspicions.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Given:

1. all the above background,
2. Fram's recent edit warring @ {{Authority control (arts)}},
3. prior edit warring @ Template:Cite Q/doc (also Wikidata related),
4. original no-prior-discussion RfC,
5. followup no-consensus RfC,

I think a WP:TBAN re WP:Authority control, {{Authority control}}, & WP:Wikidata are appropriate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to take this comment by Tom Reding serious. I quoted their post "There's been no progress on the above implementation issues, despite your lying/mischaracterization of the situation." as evidence of the uncivil, personalized comments and attacks. They reply about the first part of the sentence (which isn't an issue), and completely ignore the second part, which is the actual issue I raised here. They repeatedly make a claim that apparently an RfC about the template can't be started without prior consensus at the template talk page. I have no idea where they get this idea from. They claim that this post by me is evidence that the RfC is forumshopping. When there is no agreement on an article talk page, it is standard procedure to bring the dispute to a wider audience, certainly when it impacts so many articles and when the previous discussion was held at the same forum. As the previous RfC showed, the regulars at the template talk page are widely out of sync with the larger community.

Their claims of me being "stunningly misinformed": the first link given as evidence is a comment by Tom Reding, from which he draws conclusions about me. I was well aware of this functionality, seeing that I used it extensively in my version of the template (it is barely used elsewhere though). His second link[90] is about the exact same issue, but it looks more impressive if you make two issues out of one of course. His third link is again not to anything I said, but to Wikipedia:Authority control.

So, they make a three-bullet version explaining why they called me "stunningly misinformed", with 2 links to their own comments, one to an information page, and none to edits made by me. And that is supposedly enough, not only to defend personal attacks, but to demand a topic ban. They reiterate this with a 5-point argumentation, including not only the current, ongoing RfC (where apart from the 3 people discussed heren, so far most people tentatively support the proposal, but it's early days still), but also the previous "no prior discussion" RfC, which was closed with a strong support for my proposal and a strong consensus against the position of the same 3. Trying to get someone topic banned because they made an RfC at the village pump which was closed with "strong support" only goes to show the WP:OWN behaviour Tom.Reding (and the other two) establish for their templates. I don't know if a topic ban is necessary here, instead of just some strong warnings, but if any TBan are handed out, the people trying to subvert consensus and abusing fellow editors are probably the first in line to receive one. Fram (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read all the diffs.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• The perfect storm. Fram's obsession with this template is probably the only thing to equal Andy's obsession with microformatting. IBAN maybe? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Probably wrong solution, as the dispute is topical. Whatever Fram's historical behaviour on this template (which should be clearly evidenced if relied on anyway), his conduct in these discussions has been just fine IMO. In the discussion labelled "no prior discussion RfC", his proposal gained near unanimous community consensus, even though it was shot down by the maintainers, some of whom relentlessly attacked Fram and his 'motives'. We can't start sanctioning people for being on the receiving end of PA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  For background, Fram nominated this template for deletion in 2017, campaigned for removal of properties from it (e.g., Musicbrainz), and created {{ACArt}} to systematically remove content from it. They have not discussed any proposed RfCs at Template talk:Authority control, and their "near unanimous community consensus" was based on 'make the template prettier', not a solid proposal - they had to go find someone to implement it afterwards, and this led to the current RfC. Fram's replies to messages are often sarcastic and designed to annoy the person they are replying to (and I haven't figured out if they are deliberately misunderstanding things or not). Mike Peel (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  I see four RfC/TfDs over the course of four years, two of which passed in Fram's favour, a third was evenly divided (8-8), and the fourth rejected? As I say, evidently the maintainers disagree with Fram's views, but surely Fram holding views the maintainers don't like is not a conduct problem.

  More generally, while there are a lot of allegations made about Fram (here and elsewhere), I haven't seen any of them be clearly substantiated. See Tom's reply above, which can be summarised as little more than a distraction. For example: labelling an ongoing RfC started one day ago as a "no consensus RfC" simply because a few maintainers disagree, alleging forum shopping based on posting a proposal to the wider community at VPR rather than bringing it to the maintainers (a fictional definition of WP:FORUMSHOP & sounds more like ownership), and some incomprehensible rationales for the personal attacks Fram is concerned about. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Here's the thing: on one side we have [what seems to be] a years-long, multi-fronted effort to chip away at various elements of data/Wikidata on Wikipedia, of which the several authority control template discussions are just one front. And on the other side we have lots of brusque assumptions of bad faith and insufficiently substantiated allegations. I seriously doubt either is sanctionable based on these reports, but some real talk for the "[wiki]data is not always terrible" crowd: ANI isn't good at dealing with the long-term stuff, and based on the diffs available (and the ongoing conversations), the only possible sanction is for those personalizing disputes, making allegations, and assuming bad faith. In other words, if anything comes out of this thread, it won't be a tban for Fram. I say this as someone who thinks we really can't spare any of the voices who actually know a bit about this stuff. If you think Fram is being intentionally misleading, using bad faith framing techniques, etc. that will probably require a lot of work to address, and will probably involve digging around those past discussions to show a long-term pattern (and there may not be enough even then). I don't think there's anything all that problematic just looking at Fram's involvement as of late, even if his approach is frequently frustrating. The reality right now is we have is an RfC with consensus to make authority control more user-friendly. I think you have some points about the way Fram has been framing some of these threads, but I think Fram also has some points about some of the objections you're raising, too. What's needed is working with Fram and others you disagree with, realizing that we can't afford to lose the people who know that most about this stuff. On Fram's end, it would probably be both productive and a gesture of good faith to commit to collaboratively drafting RfCs in the future, since whether intentionally or not there's clearly some dispute over the wording of yours. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the numerous arbitration cases regarding Pigsonthewing (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review); the case regarding Fram Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram, and this declined case request regarding Wikidata and some of the same players [91] - moving this to ArbCom may be appropriate. --Rschen7754 17:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Or may be we can topic ban him (Pigsonthewing) here from everything related to templates broadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC) I see one of the above Arbcom cases is related to me, so I would rather shut up--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Spamming of airport articles with useless charts

User User:Legion23 has added "Airport pax stats charts" to hundreds of airport articles. While the majority of them is useful, there are also dozens of others which are virtually useless.

Many charts present just 2 years of passenger numbers like for Braunschweig or Braganca.

Several others are showing only 1 (one) year, see here for Tortola, Qabala or here for Vila Real.

Historical data might be useful for someone - but in case of old data with just 1 or 2 years in plain figures instead of charts.

A 20 year old chart with 1 or 2 years does not make much sense, the same applies for charts like "2016-2017".

Unfortunately, a discussion on my talk page led to nothing. Instead, this user reverts corrections in irregular intervals, always repeating "please stop deleting".

Besides, the vast majority of his charts do not have a directly accessible source, but sources are only accessible through several steps via Wikidata. That means there is no instantly available proof of their correctness. I am not sure whether this is compatible with Wikipedia:Verifiability.

While many of his edits do make sense, he appears to be on a mission to put in such "charts" into as many airport articles as possible. Since the discussion has become stuck, I would like to hear the opinions of neutral readers. Thank you. --Uli Elch (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Everyone - please read the discussion on Uli_Elch's talk page first, with the template developer's comments. These charts will update themselves in the future as more data is added to the database. This template queries the Wikidata database and displays the data in it dynamically, when the user displays a Wikipedia page.

Line charts must have at least 2 data points (for 2 years). Otherwise a line won't be displayed. I didn't add empty charts (yes, I went through all European airports and checked what would be displayed, and didn't add charts to those airport pages that would have empty charts).

Braunschweig had 3 data points: 2015, 2016 and 2017, Vila Real 2016 and 2017, Tortolì 1999 and 2000, Bragança 2016 and 2017.

In Qabala, the table below the chart also presents only 2 years - by the same logic, is the table useless as well? Legion23 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Reply - Please note: "2 data points (for 2 years)" is wrong - they represent just 1 (one) year, as in the Tortola example, from January 1999 to December 1999. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

In the Tortola Tortolì TTB example, the chart might indeed be unuseful as the airport is very small and looks to be closing/closed. But open airports have to get their own chart, be them small or with few data. It might be a signal to help find data and collect it, to improve data quality. Bouzinac (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, we have uncovered an interesting issue with the Tortolì example. The data is available for even 3 years (1998-2000). Unfortunately, it is not passenger numbers that have been added to the database, but aircraft movements: 660 and 923. I suggest to go through all Italian airports that use this source and check for the same issue. In this source, page 32 (23 printed as the page number) shows comparison between years 1998 and 1999:

* 1998 - 923 movements, 44,412 passengers

* 1999 - 660 movements, 33,266 passengers

Page 44 (35 printed as the page number) shows data for the year 2000:

* 2000 - 906 movements, 37,039 passengers Legion23 (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether to include charts or not should be something agreed upon by active editors on an article; a decision like open airports have to get their own chart is something that needs to get consensus somewhere - probably the relevant WikiProject. As far as sources go, I agree that a Wikidata query is inadequate, especially since it links to bare URLs. Actual sources should be cited here. Guettarda (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Bare URL' (for Wikidata) are the very place where you can find the relevant number and check it. Better to have "www.someone.com/file/somefiledata2020.xls" than "www.someone.com". By the way, I've corrected Tortolì data (my mistake when converting the pdf). --Bouzinac (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah, a bare URL on Wikidata is a stopgap - it doesn't include an accessdate, or any information about the source. A proper reference over there should be an item that fully describes the source page - there's a reason you can use a Q number to generate a reference over here on Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The tendency for people to use inadequate references like that on Wikidata seems to be a big part of the reason some people over here are so hostile to incorporation of Wikidata over here. Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

From my experience as a DABfixer, I consider the quality of information in Wikidata to lie somewhere between Discogs and IMDb. Errors imported from Wikidata into English Wikipedia sometimes need a specialist to fix (which I am not, but I know one). Narky Blert (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Just looked at one, Brussels South Charleroi Airport. The numbers in the chart from 2010 and earlier are completely unsourced. In a normal, onwiki chart, I could now remove these ones, or tag them with "source needed", or something similar. Here, all I have is the nuclear option, removing the graph completely. This is the same issue we had with e.g. Listeria lists, which have been removed from the mainspace. Fram (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

TrottieTrue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• TrottieTrue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since the closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TrottieTrue, this editor has filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#Incivility by User:FDW777, which was closed without action. Unhappy with the closure of that thread, they started a new one at the closing admin's talk page, as well as emailing other admins. The thread can be seen at User talk:ToBeFree/A/3#User:FDW777.

It contains one post from me at 07:35, 5 May, where I explain precisely why this dispute is, in their words, "more heated", namely their persistent attempts to flout BLP policy regarding the dates of birth of living people. At 21:07, 5 May in that discussion they said, amongst other things, That is my perception of the editor, an opinion. It is not "casting aspersions". It is therefore strange that, according to them, my opinion of them is a personal attack/incivility/casting aspersions, yet their perception of me is not. I chose not to highlight this point to them, since in the same post they also said I am attempting to disengage from the conflict so I decided further reply from me would simply prolong matters and chose to ignore them.

Since that post, the only potential interaction I have had with this editor is three posts to Talk:List of living former United Kingdom MPs.

• 07:46, 5 May 2021. I said The BLP policy is discussed at WT:BLP, not at a WikiProject talk page.
• 08:25, 5 May 2021. I added or WP:BLPN to my previous post
• 11:49, 5 May 2021. A reply to someone other than TrottieTrue, and (hopefully) without any incivil content.

After the close of the thread on ToBeFree's talk page, they started one at User talk:Peacemaker67 at 12:55, 6 May, currently visible at User talk:Peacemaker67#User:FDW777, and includes the rather telling reply to them at 08:44, 7 May, which says Have you considered that your own behaviour is the primary cause of your situation?

Since then, they posted a harassment warning on my talk page at 03:25, 7 May. I am unclear as to what this refers, since I've had zero interaction with them for almost 48 hours at that point. At 12:17, 07 May they decided it would be a good idea to edit war after I had removed it, asking them not to post there again. I legitimately walked away from this editor over 48 hours ago, yet their forum shopping and poking the bear continues unabated. Perhaps someone could encourage them to do what they said on 5 May and disengage from the conflict? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd have appreciated a talk page notification about this thread, FDW777. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Apologies. As you'd already attempted to get the editor to drop the stick, I didn't want to be accused of summoning people who may have any degree of bias, since even awarding barnstars is problematic. FDW777 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  No worries, reasonable thought. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to do a point by point rebuttal to the reponse below, but However, as the last three messages at my Usertalk have been left by FDW777, this feels like the latest in a line of targeted attacks on me is worthy of a reply. 07:35, 3 May is a discretionary sanctions notification, which can be given if an editor is making problematic edits relating to BLPs. As they were adding dates of birth in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, it is hardly an unreasonable notification. 15:46, 03 May is the notification of a report at WP:AE, this is a mandatory notification. 14:44, 07 May is the notification for this thread, again this is a mandatory notification. There are no targeted attacks of any description. FDW777 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Response from TrottieTrue

This is really getting very tedious now. I think FDW777 knows the rules of WP inside out, and spends more time on that part of WP, rather than the editing of articles, which I what I have spent most of my time on WP doing. It appears, therefore, that I am an Exopedian, and FDW777 is a Metapedian. I think there is a lack of perspective from some WP editors and admin about how their decisions may appear to an Exopedian: if someone like myself has spent most of their time engaging with the encyclopaedic content of WP, they may not have spent time reading up on policy and guidelines in full. My aim in editing WP has been to improve the project, and share information with others. I did fall foul of this recently by violating BLP policy, but it was done with the aim of improving WP, and perhaps because I didn't fully understand the policy, which might appear illogical to those outside the Wikiverse.

However, I prefer a more consensual, collaborative approach, and this is not the way that users like FDW77 work: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We all have different personalities and ways of working; WP is, in many ways, a project largely run by solo working, so we don't have the set-up of a real-world project. The approach of FDW777 is to WP:Assume bad faith and tick me off, without attempting to improve the articles at hand, or even politely engage to explain the problem. The approach of other administrators is to place BLP Policy violations above everything else, which means that in pursuing my "misdemeanours", FDW777 is allowed to commit several policy violations: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Harassment and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

Witness the way that FDW777 raised the details of the arbitration enforcement in a user talk page even after I had accepted the decision and the case had been closed. My complaint about them at ANI was not about that decision. It was about their general conduct: as soon as an editor published a list article which they felt violated BLP policy, the first thing they did was criticise it, which I think is somewhat disrespectful of the editor who created it. Their comments at that page are snappy and unhelpful: other editors at that Talk page and the ANI have mentioned that they weren't aware of list articles needing to be fully referenced, so I am not alone in querying this (although I am the only one FDW777 has chosen to target).

FDW777 is continually trolling me by repeating the baseless allegation that I have an "unhealthy fixation" with MPs' dates of birth. This is a personal attack, focusing on the content creator, not the content. FDW777 writes of their one post at ToBeFree's talk page: ...where I explain precisely why this dispute is, in their words, "more heated", namely their persistent attempts to flout BLP policy regarding the dates of birth of living people. They fail to mention that this one post features the comment your stubborn refusal to listen in order to pursue your unhealthy interest ih the dates of birth of UK MPs. I am told that this is 'casting aspersions': "It's clear that their mission seems to be to police others on WP, and complain." That is completely different to continually being told I have an "unhealthy interest" in something, which is a rather snide accusation.

I think FDW777 is "Wikipedia:Gaming the system": they know it inside out, they have admin and other experienced editors "on side", and therefore, they know how to misbehave in a way which is likely to be unhelpful to me. My defensive reaction (especially when it appears I am not being listened to) therefore helps their case more.

I would argue that this post is actually an example of Wikipedia:Assume bad faith, even if it isn't out-and-out incivility (their other comments on that talk page are rather uncivil too).

My harassment warning posted at the talk page of FDW777 was to politely raise the issue of their behaviour and ask that they stop, since no-one else is interested in doing anything about their behaviour. FDW777 could have taken it on board; instead, they removed the comment altogether, and issued the instruction not to post there again (again, thinly veiled threats seems to be their style). That it had apparently been over 48 hours since any interaction between us is irrelevant: I felt the impact of their behaviour needed pointing out. I had hoped an administrator might be sympathetic, but as this has proven not to be the case, I raised the issue myself. Regarding my reversion of that removal, I readily admit that I was unaware of the protocol around removal of posts on an editor's own talk page. Again, to an Exopedian like me, this is a guideline/rule buried deep in WP which I had not seen. I am prepared to admit when I am wrong, something that FDW777 does not seem able to do. Metapedians expect that everyone else (ie. Exopedians) know WP Policy inside out; in my sixteen years of editing, I have focused on trying to improve the content of WP, and received very little thanks for my efforts (and yes, I'm aware that's not why people volunteer). It doesn't help when admin et al constantly bamboozle me with "WP:xx" links to pages, as if beating me over the head with bureaucracy and guidelines.

My notice placed on the talk page asking FDW777 to refrain from harassment (which is what their behaviour feels like) was an attempt to draw a line under this conflict. FDW777 is playing the innocent party by acting as if they have done nothing wrong. I think there is a lot of WP:GASLIGHT at work here.

FYI, I am only too happy to "disengage from the conflict". However, as the last three messages at my Usertalk have been left by FDW777, this feels like the latest in a line of targeted attacks on me. At the List of living former UK MPs talk page, they wrote: The only reason I knew about this article was becuause I had Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom on my watchlist. Not because of any pressing interest in the vast majority of UK politics, but because of the discussion you started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Dates of birth for politicians and an IP User to try and circumvent the BLP policy in order to feed your unhealthy interest in the dates of birth of UK MPs. The list article arose from a suggestion I made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. That FDW777 does not have "any pressing interest in the vast majority of UK politics", yet they were watching the Project page because of a discussion I started there, strikes me as incongruous. That comment features a baseless accusation in bad faith, and suggests that they decided to criticise the list article as soon as it was published, because of my input into it. I do not believe that is "casting aspersions". It is an interpretation the comment, not an accusation.

I placed the warning template on the editor's talk page because it was clear that no administrators were going to take their behaviour seriously, and therefore I thought I should raise it myself with the editor.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

Assuming that FDW777 is fine with this, I propose an indefinite two-way interaction ban between TrottieTrue and FDW777, or at least a one-way interaction ban that prevents TrottieTrue from pushing their point again and again, on multiple administrators' talk pages and at User talk:FDW777, the former of which is forum shopping and WP:IDHT behavior, and the latter of which has now reached a harassing level of persistence. Per WP:IBAN, "a no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

As I've said, I walked away 48 hours ago. The only person carrying on any disupte right now is TrottieTrue. I would have no problem with a two-way ban, providing I am still able to edit articles about politicans in Northern Ireland without any impediment. FDW777 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a large degree of bias from ~ ToBeFree above, and they are clearly taking sides (again making me out to be "the bad guy"). As before, they are singling me out as the guilty party and ignoring any wrongdoing by the editor in question. FDW777 is also practicing forum shopping (see their comment here. To claim that I am guilty of "WP:IDHT behavior" is patronising, and dismissive of my justified POV. If there is any harassing, it comes from FDW777 (again, I repeat, they are gaming the system by behaving badly in a way which they know admin will overlook, and then when I complain, labelling it "harassment"). In this situation, I am prepared to accept an indefinite two-way interaction ban, providing that I am still able to edit articles about UK politicians without any impediment.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, I would actually say that ~ ToBeFree is bending over backwards not to take sides here, by proposing "a no-fault two-way interaction ban". As you won't even accept that without demanding conditions I think that we need to look into who is at fault (a clue - it is not FDW777) and impose sanctions against that editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"I would have no problem with a two-way ban, providing I am still able to edit articles about politicans in Northern Ireland without any impediment."--FDW777

"In this situation, I am prepared to accept an indefinite two-way interaction ban, providing that I am still able to edit articles about UK politicians without any impediment." I'm not sure there is any difference between either of these "demands".--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There is little difference between the demands, so, as I said above, we need to look at who is actually at fault. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

So I make a similar demand to FDW777, and you're implying I'm at fault. Clearly no bias going on here.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• All things being equal—notwithstanding TrottieTrue's wall-of-text reply in the section above, but very much noting their BATTLEGOUND response here (accusations of partisanship, gaming etc., total lack of introspection)—I think I'd see more use for a one-way I-ban against TrottieTrue; it seems unfair to entangle FDW777 with an I-ban over a situation not of his making, that he is no longer part of, and that another party reignites. If there is blame to be apportioned, it seems pretty one-directional to me. ——Serial 16:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course, FDW777 is completely innocent, and it would just be "unfair" to do anything to them. I don't appreciate the aspersion being cast by saying there's a "total lack of introspection" - given that I've admitted where I'm wrong, that is patently untrue. I think FDW777 has evidently brought this situation on themselves. The "lack of introspection" perhaps reflects more on this editor; ToBeFree has previously stated that "FDW777's behavior may not be ideal".--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't work: the same admin later in the same conversation commented, apropos you, that there may have been misconduct on both sides, but you're currently not in a good position to request sanctions against the person who has enforced an important policy regarding your persistent breaches of WP:BLP ——Serial

I wasn't specifically requesting sanctions; and as you've quoted, "there may have been misconduct on both sides" is a tacit acknowledgement of FDW777's behaviour. Just because one party has been sanctioned, it should not preclude the other party's behaviour from being looked at.--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Since both editors agree to an indefinite 2-way interaction ban, there's no need for any further discussion here. *poof*, by the powers vested in me as an uninvolved admin, your wishes are granted, there is now an indefinite 2-way interaction ban. @FDW777:, @TrottieTrue:, please indicate below that you've seen this, and that you've read WP:IBAN. It is possible for people editing in overlapping areas to continue to do so while an IBAN is in effect, but it is not painless, and you need to be aware what is OK and what isn't, or it just comes back to ANI again with dueling "He violated the IBAN. No, she violated the IBAN" reports. I'll log it when both of you have agreed below (and when I can remember where to do so). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have seen this and read WP:IBAN. There are exceptions, including "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons", which should satisfy FDW777.--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well that's weird and annoying. I opened my edit window before SN's post; I don't know why 5 posts by FDW and SN didn't cause an edit conflict. Anyway, it unfortunately looks like I just plain ignored SN's comment, when really I didn't see it until now. Still, since they both agreed, I personally don't think discussion on 1-way vs 2-way is useful. If they both agree below than I'll enact it. If not, then I'll walk away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  WP:Editing restrictions, that is. :)~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have seen this and read WP:IBAN. (See above.)--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Given the small number of editors presently editing articles relating to Northern Ireland politicans, I don't believe it's fair to saddle me with an editing restriction that prevents me from reverting, or even mentioning why I may consider the edit to be problematic, any of TrottieTrue's edits. As Serial Number 54129 said, the current situation is not of my making. FDW777 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

    Then you might want to strike "I would have no problem with a two-way ban" above. Good luck, both of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly fair to truncate my post, which continued with providing I am still able to edit articles about politicans in Northern Ireland without any impediment. FDW777 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

A two-way IBAN could potentially impede your editing about Northern Ireland politicians. It's up to you, but in your position I would not accept it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: It's not a matter of fairness; I'll admit it did not occur to me to interpret your caveat as "I accept a 2-way iban, as long as I can continue to interact with TrottieTrue if I think she's doing something wrong". I just assumed you meant "as long as I can continue to edit in that topic area". Perhaps my suggestion to strike that part out was snarkier than I intended. My bad. Since you made it clear now that is what you meant (and she's kind of made it clear her his acceptance was similarly limited), my simple "nip it in the bud" action is no longer acceptable. To be honest, the smartest idea in this thread is your suggestion buried somewhere below that you both agree to walk away with no official anything, although I kind of suspect that wouldn't have worked out either. It's just that 1-way ibans seldom work, unless they're treated as 2-way ibans in practice. This seems like a setting you up for a future "FDW777 is following/reverting/commenting on an editor who cannot respond to his comments, thus taking advantage of a 1-way iban" thread here. I would definitely stay far away from her him, if I were you, even if a 1-way iban is enacted. But like I said, good luck to both of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happiest if I never have to mention TrottieTrue's name again, so I have no intention of taking advantage of any one-way ban. I'd prefer to simply move on to more constructive things. FDW777 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: According to User:TrottieTrue they are male, so you might want to fix your misgendering. FDW777 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops, not quite sure what made me think that. I originally misread their username as "TrudieTrue", and I think maybe even when I realized I had the name wrong, the gender had already stuck in my head? Anyway, thanks. Fixed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I am male. "To be honest, the smartest idea in this thread is your suggestion buried somewhere below that you both agree to walk away with no official anything, although I kind of suspect that wouldn't have worked out either." That could have worked, except that some very vindictive editors would rather punish me. I've given a lot of my time for free to the project (yes, I know the counter argument that everyone has), but punishing me in this disproportionate way will put users like me off. Fair enough, you'll have WP to yourself. I think you're right that 1-way I-bans are fundamentally problematic; it punishes one user, and allows the other to take advantage. No matter what FDW777 might say, they could easily use this to their advantage. I actually think a number of editors on this thread are behaving in a bullying manner; if I don't play ball and accept everything FDW777 says, then they will punish me. Is that a constructive course to take when dealing with an editor who has contributed a lot to the project? Doubtless, it counts for nothing, but this is not how a volunteer organisation treats people who give up their time for nothing. The fact that civility and avoiding personal attacks are seen as less important is deeply concerning.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• FDW777 as the OP do you have a proposal to make to resolve the issues you're raising? May I suggest posting something short with a few clear and recent diffs that we can !vote on. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll suggest a simple propsal without the need for any I-bans. TrottieTrue said here on 5 May I am attempting to disengage from the conflict, which I took to be a good point to stop discussing with them. All I ask is that they stop forum shopping this issue that has been addressed already, return to editing and I'll do likewise. Since they already said they want to disengage, just do so and stop creating threads about me. FDW777 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I had stopped "forum shopping", but it seemed reasonable to point out how FDW777's interactions come across to me in the form of a template warning, especially as no administrator has been prepared to call out their behaviour (had that been done, I wouldn't have left a warning template; wilful ignorance of FDW777's policy violations hasn't helped the situation, making it appear as if there is bias, and pushing me into a corner). I've made my point, even if FDW777 saw fit to remove it. Perhaps FDW777 can disengage too, and stop creating threads about me. What I ask is that FDW777 engages with editors in a civil manner, and in good faith, without making personal attacks, such as referring to my interest in a topic being an "unhealthy fixation".--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Serial's analysis on the situation. On sourcing, Companies House is absolutely unreliable as a source for BLP DOBs. I believe CH acts solely as a registrar for the record and publishes whatever is given to it. It does no fact checking. It can't even be acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF because it's not necessarily the BLP publishing the information (it could be a company secretary etc, it could even be mistaken identity) (and indeed, CH does no identity verification either IIRC). I think this situation has been blown out of proportion, but I don't see any evidence of misconduct by FDW777. (if it exists, please provide it, succinctly). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The BLP violation has already been resolved, and I have moved on from that (it's a distraction from the real issue to keep referring to it). What I have raised is FDW777's misconduct - which was tacitly acknowledged by another editor. Namely, Wikipedia:Personal attacks: here, repeated here and here. I have listed other violations elsewhere. this illustrates harassment (admitting they are watching a Project page they have little interest in because of me, then criticising that page as soon as it is published). See also the topic suggesting that the ArbReq be reopened. This is threatening language - see WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and WP:Civility.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with ProcrastinatingReader about Companies House. I have registered two companies there and it accepted whatever I said about the directors with no fact-checking at all. Just a few seconds' thought should tell you that they would have to increase their staff by orders of magnitude if they were to check everything that was written on the registration form. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

TrottieTrue has moved on from using Companies House to UK Who's Who, which has similar issues regarding the subject proving information to the publication. WP:RSNP lists it as 'no consensus' on the reliability of the source. Better than Companies House, but certainly not ideal, especially for trivial BLP details regarding hobbies such as "McNair-Wilson's recreations are sailing, pottery and flying". I don't find any fault with FDW777's follow through on the BLP concerns at all. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have barely used CH at all compared to WW. This is beginning to feel like a smear campaign against me and my editing. The point is that CH are regarded as "public records"; WW does not fall into that category, so it is irrelevant to raise it here. Who's Who, a widely respected long-running publication, evidently does not regard Recreations as "trivial". I think it adds some human interest to those articles. Few people can find any fault with FDW777, it seems.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

FDW777's objection to formal I-ban

The reason I object to a formal I-ban is as follows. As the history of John Finucane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows, nobody even bothered to remove the blatant WP:BLPPRIMARY violation, apparently showing the lack of people interested. So, if for example TrottieTrue made another edit, that wasn't an obvious violation of BLP but I still disagreed with, I'd have no way of reverting the edit or even discussing it. I consider that an unfair restriction when the current situation is not of my creation, and the ongoing nature of it is not caused by me. All TrottieTrue has to do is stop posting about me, something they implied they'd do at 21:07, 5 May but then ignoring when forum shopping by creating a new thread at 12:55, 6 May. This situation can be resolved quickly and simply, just by TrottieTrue stopping talking about me. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, FDW777, the two-way I-ban would undoubtedly disrupt your work on the subject. But what Levivich, Phil Bridger and myself are proposing is a one-way I-ban: this would prohibit TT from interacting with you, but not you from your article work. ——Serial 17:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Where is Levivich proposing a one-way ban? I can't see that.

FDW777, what we would not be able to do is "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". I don't think it stops us from changing each other's edits in a constructive (ie. non-reverting) way, or discussing it (without mentioning me). Your concern over John Finucane was a BLP violation, which a two-way I-ban would not prevent you from reverting. "This situation can be resolved quickly and simply, just by TrottieTrue stopping talking about me." If by "talking about" you, you mean creating discussions about you on WP, I have already stopped doing so. Accepting the warning template on your usertalk page would have resolved this.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I confirm that that is what I would propose. I don't see any reason why FDW777's editing should be restricted in any way. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: thank you. However I am not solely confirmed about my work, as John Finucane's history shows nobody else seemed to care about the blatant BLPPRIMARY violation (other than the people at AE), so where are the people who would deal with lesser issues? If these were articles with lots of people keeping an eye on them that's one thing, but it seems wholly unfair to hamstring me with an editing restriction that prevents me even discussing why I object to a particular edit. FDW777 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777:} To confirm, the one-way I-ban will not hamstring or otherwise constrain your editing whatsoever. ——Serial 18:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

One-Way IBAN Proposal

whereas TrottieTrue is restricted from interacting with FDW777 per WP:IBAN per The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban forbids one user from interacting with another user.

• Support as proposed. — Ched (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and my various comments above; thanks to Ched for cutting to the chase with this one. ——Serial 18:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the misconduct by FDW777 has been completely ignored. They have started several topics about me. There is a lot of bias from other editors in this situation.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, when you say bias from other editors you're pretty much admitting that multiple "other editors" have an issue with your editing. If there are multiple other editors taking issue with what you're doing - then perhaps you need to take a good look at what you're being told. Stop doing what others object to, and maybe you won't have these problems. Just IMO. — Ched (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

And yet I haven't had any problems of this nature with other users in sixteen years of editing. Multiple editors are taking the side of FDW777; that isn't the same thing as them having an issue with my editing generally. My POV is being completely shut down by other users, who have a blind spot when it comes to FDW777, or simply place BLP above any other misdemeanour.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, i almost forgot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive332#Disruptive_and_uncivil_IP_user%2C_including_vandalism and just noticed that was you too. ANI thread archived to your dismay, AN thread created to complain about incivility. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

What's your point? That editor has actually vandalised at least one article, and you agreed that in future you should be notified of their behaviour.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, I, for one, don't have a "blind spot" when it comes to FDW777, an editor who I don't remember having any previous interactions with. It's just that nobody has provided any links to any of that user's edits that are problematic, as opposed to yours. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That previous discussion is particularly enlightening. For example this post where it is stated I accepted their initial post on my Talk page about not using Companies House as a DOB source, but the editor in question has since appeared to have an obsessive fixation on this issue. Clearly TrottieTrue did not accept the post about not using Companies House as a DOB source, otherwise we wouldn't be here. And it further beggars belief that they object to my use of unhealthy fixation (which with hindsight, could have been expressed better) when they themselves describe another editor as having an obsessive fixation. Pot, meet kettle! FDW777 (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

We've finished the discussion about Companies House. At least you admit that your wording "with hindsight, could have been expressed better". An "obsessive" fixation is rather different to an "unhealthy" one, the latter making judgements about a person. "Pot, meet kettle!" is also rather unhelpful. You may well be successful in preventing me from interacting with you, in which case that would mean you could do or say what you like to me. This whole incident feels like a pile-on against me, in which editors suffer from a lack of perspective, being unable to see the forest for the trees. There is no need to continually attack me for a closed incident. Personally, I think personal attacks and incivility are far worse than BLP policy violations.--TrottieTrue (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I had detailedly warned you that exactly this would happen, and you chose to ignore the advice completely. Your last sentence is concerning, as after all tbe warnings you still question the importance of the BLP policy. There is no civility exception at WP:3RRNO nor at WP:WHEEL nor at WP:BANREVERT nor at WP:BE nor at WP:CSD nor at WP:Notability nor even at WP:BANEX, but all of these policies and guidelines have special rules for BLPs. On Wikipedia, civility is objectively not more important than removing BLP violations. I don't understand how this can be unclear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, you're trying to bamboozle me with endless WP pages. I am perfectly entitled to think that incivility and personal attacks are worse than BLP violations: the latter is not always directly targeting someone. There's a lot of Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!" going on here, and a distinct lack of empathy in this situation from other Wikipedians; they can only see it in black and white, with me as 'bad' and FDW777 as 'good'. There are evidently a lot of editors who wish to punish me for my procedural 'transgressions' (which have already been dealt with) and overlook anything that FDW777 does. It's very unbalanced. It's coming across like a clique ganging up on me - and please don't tell me to do some introspection. This is classic gaslighting by a powerful clique. And yes, any clique will deny they are a clique, and my response will be painted as 'sour grapes'.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@TrottieTrue: By definition a BLP violation affects a defined living person. While BLP can apply to groups, it's only when that group is small enough that it can be reasonably construed that the issue affects them. 'All Democrats/Republicans are traitors' is not a BLP violation. 'Joe Biden/Donald Trump is a traitor' is potentially a BLP violation, possibly also 'All members of Biden's/Trump's cabinet are traitors'. Maybe the person making the edit isn't intentionally trying to cause harm, but that doesn't make it much better. Uncivil comments often aren't trying to cause harm either. I'm horrified by your attitude so that comes across in this post and maybe it's uncivil in parts. But it's not my intention to cause you harm. It's just because I'm horrified by what you're doing and saying and my anger comes across sometimes. My only hope is that you stop with your horrible attitude and the harm you are causing other living persons via your editing, but my wish as with nearly everyone I meet here is that they have a great day and long and happy life. And even if I think they aren't welcome here, I would hope they find something which works for them. And posting claims unsupported by a reliable source sufficient for BLP purposes is not a "procedural 'transgression'". It's a major violation which no experienced editor should tolerate. I originally had some sympathy for you because your clearly mean well. Indeed I was originally thinking of posting something like 'hey you clearly mean well, but BLP is very important, even if you don't understand why you need to accept that to edit here which means you need to accept our stringent sourcing requirements and not simply add stuff because you think it's important to a biography even if you haven't yet found a suitable source' and without commenting on the iban. But that's gone out the window with your latest comment. An editor like you, who even if they want to improve Wikipedia doesn't give a fuck about those living people they harm with their terrible editing should not be welcome here. And to be clear, I don't give a fuck whether you think this is uncivil. You are the one harming others by your editing and not giving a damn about the harm you cause. You chose to edit here, so you should fully expect that you will have to engage with editors here when you edit poorly. If sometimes those interactions are slightly uncivil maybe that's not ideal but editor's have differing ideas of what's uncivil, and also we accept that editors sometimes lose their cool when dealing with major problems. If you're clearly in the wrong, you could also avoid it by not being clearly in the wrong. The living people you are harming mostly didn't choose to have an article here, and they definitely have no choice when someone like you adds nonsense or stuff which isn't supported by a reliable source. They shouldn't have to come here to tell us to remove the crap you are adding. We should be doing it for them since we are the ones who chose to edit here. The fact you care about the harm you suffer from these uncivil comments but have such utter disdain for the harm you are causing the living people who aren't involved and had no choice (other than possibly in becoming notable and maybe in whatever it is you're trying to add although clearly someone's birthday was never their choice) just shows how ridiculous your argument and attitude is. And I have zero power here, half of the editors here I disagree with a lot about other issues and sometimes even BLP issues. I don't recall the name FDW777 other than from this post, for all I know I've never interacted with them. So fuck off with your clique nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support, and it's true, I simply place WP:BLP above any misdemeanor. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support By the way, a BLP violation is more severe than a misdemeanor, because it can adversely affect a person's real life as opposed to someone's anonymous online persona. I recommend that Trottie True study up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I also second Cullen328's suggestion that Trottie read WP polices. When they started harassing me for having reverted one instance of their harassment of FDW777, they said they were unfamiliar with the policy and then sought to excuse why they wouldn't follow it in future. Cambial foliage❧ 20:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did not harass you. That's a huge misrepresentation. I posted a couple of comments in response to your reversion. Anyone who looks at the links above can see that. Forbidding me from interacting with FDW777, but allowing them to interact with me, is incredibly unjust.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per Levivich, BLP vios place far above any other misdemeanours, and this is the appropriate action. I strongly suggest TrottieTrue starts using reliable sources for their edits on BLPs or this will escalate. Their action in seeking me out because I had a disagreement with FDW777 over an article they had nominated at GAN was also poor wikibehaviour. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support As I articulated above, the editor clearly doesn't give a damn about BLP. Whatever else minor violations by others their editing is the problem. I would also support a topic ban from BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic-ban TrottieTrue from BLPs and a one-way iban with FDW777. The time for dropping the stick was a long time ago, although it's never too late to stop digging. (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ListeningBronco

• ListeningBronco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I recently noticed mass changes to the Nagorno-Karabakh articles with regard to the location map, similar to the one's made by sockpuppets of EljanM such as JavanshirAliyev, made recently by ListeningBronco. The issue of the map was recently raised by ListeningBronco on Talk:Stepanakert#RfC, seriously misleading map AntonSamuel (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have never even heard of those accounts. AntonSamuel has been trying to get me banned since the day I arrived here. At first when I slightly changed his map which was seriously misleading, he refused to discuss with me despite several pings and then reported me to admins for c:COM:OW for overwriting his file. After a discussion was stalled I've decided to boldy change the misleading map which confuses readers by showing the former boundaries of a state which is internationally recognized as a part of Azerbaijan. Now that he can't report me for overwriting his file he has resorted to accusing me of using blocked accounts. ListeningBronco (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have explained pretty clearly what is problematic with this user's contributions with regard to the changes that were made to the updated location map for Artsakh/NKR that I created on Wiki Commons and on Wikipedia - and it has also been raised on the RfC this user started and which was later shut down, I would say it's not likely that this is a new/inexperienced user that starts RfC's, pings regular editors and creates new vector maps for Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

And you only recognized these after I started doing edits against your POV, gotcha nothing personal in your report. ListeningBronco (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It was me that removed the {{rfc}} tag; but I didn't shut it down - indeed, I stated that people should continue to discuss in the usual way. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, the matter was not ready for an RfC: I have observed that far too often, people reach for RfC without first trying the easier alternatives, and this was one such case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Perhaps I could have phrased it better - I didn't mean that you put an end to any discussion of course. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

And in addition - the editor in question is continuing the same type of edits with regard to the map after I raised this issue, on more Nagorno-Karabakh articles. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

So? Am I not allowed to edit because you are accusing me of something. ListeningBronco (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• ListeningBronco's mass change is self-evidently controversial and there almost certainly wouldn't be a consensus for it if they'd discussed it first, especially given the entrenched standpoints of editors in the AA2 topic area. The map portrays the smallest possible boundaries of Artsakh, which looks like WP:ADVOCACY to me. Notably, they recently proposed a different map at Talk:Stepanakert which more reasonably included Artsakh's claimed borders in a lightly shaded colour; I was the only editor there who expressed support for this change. To then go and insert an even more controversial map into multiple articles, rather than continuing to engage with that thread – where there was very little support for even that (less one-sided) proposal – is completely unproductive. I agree that ListeningBronco is probably a sock of one of the editors previously blocked or topic banned from AA2. I certainly don't believe they're a new editor, and I noted as much in the discussion at Stepanakert. Although I think an SPI is warranted, I'm not familiar enough with previously blocked editors to confidently conjecture who the sockmaster might be. Jr8825 • Talk 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC) edited for clarity Jr8825 • Talk 06:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• I have now restored the previous Artsakh/NKR location map with multiple layers of borders to the concerned articles by reverting the edits of ListeningBronco, referring to this discussion and the one on Talk:Stepanakert, as these changes were done without consensus. I hope it was within my bounds to do this - I don't intend to edit war, but I thought I would step up with regard to this matter as these changes were made without consensus, since I've pinged admins about this with the hope that someone would take a look sooner rather than later, since I started this thread yesterday and since the user that made them participated in the discussion on Talk:Stepanakert and was made fully aware that there wasn't consensus for removing the additional layers of borders to the map. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• @ListeningBronco: while we're here, could you explain why you made the redirect Republic of Artsakh (de facto) to Republic of Artsakh? Seems Tendentious to me as it provides nothing other that POV pushing, it's not a valid redirect. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Lil Pablo 2007

Resolved

• Lil Pablo 2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please try to get through to this editor, who is repeatedly insisting on changing "British" to "English" on multiple biographical (mostly BLP) articles. It is a problem that has occurred before with this editor, who has been advised of the accepted practice (of describing UK nationals as British unless there are good grounds not to do so), but seems very unwilling to take the advice to that effect. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

18:24, 7 May 2021 Discospinster talk contribs blocked Lil Pablo 2007 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia) Tag: Twinkle. User has submitted an unblock request. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite block for User:Sportsfanrob

• Sportsfanrob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This person is clearly not here to contribute, given their behavior. Their edits have largely been disruptive in nature, and this person recently made even more disruptive edits, after he was blocked for 3 months and entered into a period of inactivity on his main account. During this period of "inactivity", he engaged in multiple instances of block evasion, via IPs, which can be seen on his SPI page, and some of which CUs are aware of (including instances that aren't in his SPI archive). As such, I am requesting an indefinite block on their account. This person is a sheer net-negative, and net-negatives do not belong on this site. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Widr, Favonian, ToBeFree, and Spencer: Can someone please take a look at this report? This person just continues to cause more and more problems. Their history of block evasion and IP socking is also a real concern. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Tendentious editing and general WP:NOTHERE behavior at Talk:Quantum entanglement

• 47.201.194.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a bit of genuine entertainment value in being called one of those 'entanglement' freaks and seeing a decades-old physics subject summarily dismissed as all Voodoo, and a fairytale, but when the response to pointing out policy is You guys stop making lame excuses, I don't think the discussion is going anywhere. IP was blocked for edit-warring, then came back to cast aspersions, promote self-published sources, and insinuate a conspiracy theory on the Talk page. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

How could you leave out the best quote of the section: The reason you want to censor the following sentence that I wrote into wikipedia is that it is an existential threat to everything you have been pushing for years? I mean, I'm used to hearing these kinds of things from the alt-med cranks, but I didn't realize that physicists had to deal with it too. Now I'm curious what nefarious conspiracies Big Physics (Big Particles?) is up to... Hyperion35 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sure, we have quite a lot of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the same IP that was the subject of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065#IP_disruptively_editing_at_Quantum_entanglement which is what got them blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

N-rays are so passé. Narky Blert (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The IP has been quiet for a couple of days so action now is unlikely. Ping me if problems resume. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Understood; will do. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: it seems to be starting up again. Apparently now all physicists are in a conspiracy to hide the truth from ourselves. XOR'easter (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95 and template redirects (2)

Following on from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#Jonesey95 and template redirects, Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) has today continued to create template redirects to the cite templates[92][93] knowing that there are multiple deletion discussions[94][95] continuing about such redirects. Continuing with a series of edits after being asked to stop and while discussion is ongoing is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If editors here refuse to impose a topic ban, can we at least agree that such redirects should not be created while discussion is ongoing? DrKay (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This harassment and failure to follow dispute resolution processes needs to stop. In both of these instances, editors have come straight to ANI without attempting to discuss these redirects with me at my talk page. Getting dragged to ANI, even when the accused editor is judged to be innocent, harms the reputation of the accused editor.

The current discussions about template redirects are about redirects from typos. I have not created any redirects from template typos since the current discussions were started. The redirects I created today, e.g. Template:citar ref are uncontroversial redirects from foreign-language versions of those templates, of which there are many existing examples (e.g. {{Bokref}}). In each of those redirect pages, I explained that the templates should be changed to their English-language equivalents. I don't see this exact guidance at WP:NAVNOREDIRECT, but it should probably be added there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

comment, these are clearly not typos, but redirects that assist in translation (similar to {{cita web}} and all the rest). I have no idea why this has been elevated so quickly to ANI. Frietjes (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Note that I closed the previous discussion, and was asked by Jonesey95 to review this thread. I would be inclined to close this one much the same way. Although I probably disagree with Jonesey95 and agree with DrKay about the benefits of these redirects, I really don't understand the repeated decisions not to discuss it with him first. Particularly DrKay's decision to come here after the first ANI discussion closed the way it did. ANI sucks. It should be used after other options are exhausted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue has been raised with the editor multiple times and this is the fifth or sixth discussion on the issue to which I have contributed. Discussion at the other venues has been circumvented by Jonesey95 or met by sarcasm and scorn (as on his talk page now), thus leading to the post here. DrKay (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue of Jonesey95 creating redirects in general has been raised multiple times? Or the issue of Jonesey95 creating redirects from foreign-language templates? If the issue of Jonesey95 creating redirects from foreign-language templates has been raised multiple times, then that would have been an excellent thing to link to in the opening post. Or now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue of creating redirects to cite templates, as mentioned and linked in the opening sentence. DrKay (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Then you should have realized this was different. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• These strike me as reasonable ways to deal with translations, but regardless of whether they are or aren't, this seems to be something quite distinct from the previous ANI issue - and even there, the close didn't say Jonesey95 shouldn't create template redirects. This shouldn't have been brought to ANI. Guettarda (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• The previous (rejected) complaint was narrowly centred around typo redirects (and a certain alleged pattern of behaviour around them). Alternate language redirects for templates - although I personally think they need to go for similar reasons (this is the English Wikipedia; we do not need German template names in wikitext) - is a content dispute. One that has not yet been discussed in any content/policy venue AFAICS, and the creation of these is not explicitly barred by any PAG, consensus, or ongoing discussion. There are no grounds to raise a conduct complaint. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Epictrex

Despite multiple warnings (if they didn't keep blanking them, they'd have around 10-15 for the last month to 6 weeks by now, here's a sample, with their reactions), editor User:Epictrex behavioral problems continue, and have been escalating into personal attacks and random nonsense:

• The latest [96], not just once, they edit warred over it, [97] and [98]. When warned at talk, here was their response [99] and [100].

But that's just today. Here's the last month:

• Donald Albury was being rude and ignoring me, while blanking an article talk page. Warned here

• What’s wrong, did I catch you ref handed? You dummie., while responding to an admin who had warned them for disruptive editing. Warned here.

• Stop undoing my edits you asshole, while edit warring across 3 pages to insert unsourced material, despite having been asked repeatedly for cites, for weeks, and never having at that point used even one. Even when how to format and add references had been pointed out to them in excruciatingly minute detail, User talk:Epictrex#WP:CITE. Warned here Talk:Hohokam#Culture vs Civilization and here

• And let's not forget this little escapade where they used IPs to have an edit war with themselves on History of Nevada : [101], [102], [103], [104], and [105]. Both IPS geolocate to the same place, which also happens to be the same place as the IP they used to vandalize 2 user talk pages several days earlier while in the middle of some kind of meltdown, [106], [107], and [108]. Also at the point the edit war started, the editor had not been on wiki in several days, but timestamps confirm they used their named account within one minute of the first IP vandal. This whole thing resulted in an ANI report (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064#Epictrex in an unusual edit war with themselves), but when they hadn't edited for 24 hours, and no admins seemed interested in pursuing it, was withdrawn.

• "WTF IS YOUR PROBLEM?!!!! WDYM YOU “TRIED TI BE PARIENT WITH ME”?!!!! YOU GODDAMN KNOW THAT I AM NEW TO THIS GODDAMN WEBSITE!!!! DON’T BE SO RUDE!!!" and this, which was in response to this

• I initially began interacting with the user after they started editing multiple Native American and archaeology articles that I watchlist, and noticed they were being templated for many of their edits, most of which seemed to be inserting uncited WP:FRINGE material into articles or random changes that looked like experimenting with syntax/grammar/adding useless flag icons. I tried to walk them through a few things, stressed the need to read up on the policies everyone kept linking for them and that they seemed to be wholly unfamiliar with, stressed that they needed to experiment in the sandbox to get the hang of editing syntax, and pointed to the location of the sandbox multiple times. I also gave them the most detailed explanation of "how to do a cite" I've ever had to do in the 13 years I've been an editor here. (User talk:Epictrex#WP:CITE). As the last several weeks has passed, I've wondered if this is a WP:CIR situation. They aren't editing maliciously, they are not a vandal, and I don't think they are trolling us. I suspect the user is young and may not be mature enough to handle editing here yet. They are combative, they name call and engage in personal attacks at the slightest perceived provocation, they do not take criticism well, and so far seem almost entirely uninterested in learning what the policies are. And this latest incident calls into question if they can be trusted with the editing tools at all. At best, their edits where they actually add content with references are bits of information copied from other articles (cites and all, if they ever manage to copy a whole cite, Talk:Native Americans in the United States#I gave a citation, yet a bunch of people keep on undoing my edit.). At this point I'm wondering if a short "wake-up" block for them to contemplate policies and to realize if the persist in their current direction that their actions have consequences. I don't like writing reports like this, I don't like having to take the time to look up the diffs, and in all the years I've been here I've only resorted to ANI a handful of times. But after this latest instance (bulleted point one above), after repeated warnings from multiple other editors, this user needs a wakeup call. Heiro 06:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

At this time, Epictrex has deleted this case twice. This is precisely why they were brought here in the first place. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 06:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

DarthBotto, Make that 3 times, as seen here, they seem to just be here for malicious purposes. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 07:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

An IP editor (now rangeblocked) has been trolling and edit warring on this noticeboard, but the timing is a coincidence and Epictrex has nothing to do with it. I'm collapsing the unrelated comments to prevent misinterpretation and distraction from the actual topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

He is now trying to delete the comment directly above mine.[109][110] — Czello 07:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Czello, Should we just ignore their edits and not revert? Because there is a very high chance of an edit war starting, and that is not wanted by any of us. If we keep reverting, so will they. Opinions? ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 07:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC) @Czello and Ronjapatch: For clarification, those edits were made by the unnamed troll from Auckland and not Epictrex. This thread simply had the misfortune of taking place directly before the troll's nightly routine, several days running. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 07:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC) DarthBotto, Thank you for that, clears it up a bit more. What are your thoughts on how we should approach this? I would prefer a calm and gentle approach if possible. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 07:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Concur. Epictrex is not in New Zealand, see above, the IPs they have socked from all geolocate to Nevada. Heiro 07:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Heironymous Rowe, For clarification, are the trolls separate people, or are they all a sock of Epictrex using a VPN? ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 07:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC) I do not believe they are Epictrex, they only reverted here twice with their named account. They nave not socked with VPNs yet to my knowledge. They were socking earlier today on History of Arizona, more IPs from Nevada. Heiro 07:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Heironymous Rowe, Thank you, the clarification is much appreciated. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 07:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The diffs provided show Epictrex (talk · contribs) veering between the extremes of over-aggression and over-sensitivity (a total inability to cope with the mildest rebuke or upset). I'd go along with ThadeusOfNazereth's suggestion of a "a short "wake-up" block for them to contemplate policies and to realize if the persist in their current direction that their actions have consequences" except for Epictrex's assertion that there's a deeper underlying reason - "I just have bad anxiety and get panicked very easily". It looks to me that WP:NOTTHERAPY is the frame in which this should be handled. Cabayi (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi, Very good, I second this. A short wake up call seems to be exactly what the user in question needs at this current moment. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 07:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As an addendum, they also tend to IP sock when ducking out, just look at this today, [111], there are 4 or 5 IPs right there, all geolocate to Sparks, Nevada, same as the IP s mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heironymous Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months for currently not being compatible with a collaborative project. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Appreciate that, thank you. Here is to hoping they come back and make productive edits. ~ Ronja (u • t • c) 08:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries, and I hope for the same. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

Anyone want to take bets on this new account (Rui Beech (talk · contribs)) that has made 2 edits to an Epictrex draft is a brand new sockpuppet? Heiro 00:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Y do u think Im Epictrex? I ain’t no Dino. Also, I just know about the Kings Beach Complex and decided to add a pic of Lake Tahoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui Beech (talk • contribs)

@ToBeFree:, quack quack? Heiro 00:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• The two posts to Kings Beach complex, a draft page that new user would not be able to just happen across, and not searchable. It was their first two edits.

• Rui Beech to Teahouse ([112] and [113]), see Epictrex to Teahouse here Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1104#What should I do if I am being falsely accused of sock puppetry on Wikipedia? Can I get into legal trouble for anything I do on Wikipedia?. They have several more at Teahouse, all with the same pattern of overly long similarly worded titles, if I really need to go hunt them down.
• And now they have taken to trolling my talk page, [114] and [115] Heiro 03:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t troll your talkpage, I was answering your question.

Rui Beech blocked indef as sock, per loud quacking. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: While we're here, meet Zapientus, who magically appeared two days after Rui Beech was blocked and made the exact same edits to the draft page. What a magical coincidence. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

JustANameInUse back on IPs attacking users as being paid "vegan activists"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The blocked JustANameInUse turns up on new IP's every few weeks to accuse editors of being "vegan activists". This has been raised 3 times at ANI previously. He is now using this IP [116] to accuse editors of being vegans. Can an admin please block his latest IP? On his own talk-page he has confessed to being blocked before [117]. This user is very disruptive he previously used these IPs [118], [119] that have been blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

An ANI complaint was filed last month against this user [120]. The admin blocked his IP and agreed to extend the block. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As can be seen on this IP talk page, the user Psychologist Guy is not being truthfull and is using wikipedia rules to wage war against what he sees as an attack on his ideology while addmiting to being in contact with a known vegan activist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Greger&diff=991010461&oldid=990995208 93.141.96.10 (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me you have been block evading, using more than one (at least three) accounts of IP's and have had a battleground mentality that has led to blocks.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Since it can be seen by this IPs talk, you are ready to make accusations based on nothing but supposition and an assumption of what happened. I dont think you are qualified to decide anything and it looks like you are protectin one of your own. And your accusation of battleground mentality is just an opinion, not an argument. Standing for yourself is not combatative, it is normal. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

93.141.96.10 you can just drop me an email and I will let you know what diet I eat in my personal life. It is not relevant to Wikipedia who you think is a "vegan activist". You have been going on and on about this for months which seems to be an obsession of yours so instead of block evading repeatedly calling me and others "vegan activists" just can personally email users who have made their email public if you really need to discuss it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

So you can doxxx me? Are you serious? You even admitted to being in contact with a known vegan activist doctor on his talk page to straigten out a rumour. That in itself should be bannable. Forgive me for connecting the dots. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

IP address blocked for one month. No need for checkuser tools to see this is a clear case of WP:EVADE. --Yamla (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Forgive the post-close comment, but I think the IP has a point: last week I found a vegan activist living under my bed, ready to pounce on a moment's notice. (Apparently the communist infiltrator who used to live there had moved on.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

IP

Resolved

IP account(s) keeps adding back Transylvanianism to List of active separatist movements in Europe and Regionalism (politics) even though I explained to them (with links to newspapers and journals) why Transylvanianism is not relevant for those pages (see the messages here). They replied to my first message to them but not to the following ones and they are now just reverting me without justification. IP I interactuated with the most is 2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but 2A04:2413:8003:B380:B54A:99E2:5B5F:61E1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has also reverted me on those pages. The person behind has way more IPs, as one can see on the histories of List of active separatist movements in Europe, Regionalism (politics) and Template:Stateless nationalism in Europe. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partially blocked the range from the Main article space. Likely, they're just having difficulties keeping up with their changing IPs/new talk pages. I noted to the user that registering an account will resolve this. El_C 13:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User not discussing changes, continuing to make changes

Hi all - reposting as this didn't have replies - I have a very new editor, SkunkaMunka (talk · contribs), who has decided they like geographic relief maps in settlement infoboxes, which is nonstandard. They also continually edit warred with me for a little over interactive maps, trying to remove or supplement them with outdated or inferior maps. I opened a sockpuppet investigation because it's clear they are abusively using multiple accounts. There has been no activity there yet. I also received and responded to an email from this user, hoping to discuss and stop edit warring. I have not heard back, and since then, they have proceeded to revert any un-reverted changes and continue to convert additional articles.

In short:

• User changes maps to nonstandard or poorer maps with no discussion
• Short edit war ensues
• Brief email conversation
• I stop to file a sockpuppet investigation
• Days go by with no activity
• I'm filing an ANI as this user will no longer discuss their desired changes or accept anything different

Best, ɱ (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ɱ, after the first, now-archived thread about SkunkaMunka's behavior was created, they responded in Special:Diff/1021623639. Re-creating the thread without any indication of a) the re-creation and b) their reply is somehow suboptimal. At the moment, the situation looks as if we can simply wait for the SPI result, even if that takes a week or two. If this assessment is wrong, please provide recent diffs that show an emergency intervention need. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Ah, thanks, I missed the user's reply. I'll see what I can do for now. The user's conduct and bad edits need to change, and I can't do it without them reverting me again. As well, their continued bad edits across other articles need to stop. ɱ (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

If someone besides me could help reinforce that Wikipedia requires collaboration and discussion, and compromise isn't always the solution, that would be appreciated. ɱ (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I often do that and have a relatively low hesitation to block users for disruptively ignoring community concerns (or actively rejecting them). I'll wait for the SPI result though, and for further edits. Please keep me updated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and input, @ToBeFree:. Following further discussion, the user has relented. I'll let you know if anything changes. Best, ɱ (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Mholowchak

Resolved

• Mholowchak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been here over three years but has very few edits. All of them are self-promotion. He doesn't seem to be paying any attention to warnings on his talk page. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This might be more appropriate at COIN than at ANI. The user has made some edits that are not promotional (example). However, a lot of the user's edits do have something to do with promoting his books. --- Possibly (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for now. As they don't seem to read their talk page, it may take months for them to notice the block, long after this thread is archived. We can then have an unblock discussion about promotional editing, and we can ask Mholowchak to agree not to cite themselves anymore as a binding unblock condition. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Bobjörk claiming their account is compromised

Bobjörk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) The normal procedure would be blocking because that's the "my brother did it" defense, innit? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

If the account is truly WP:compromised, it probably should be globally locked until we can be sure the originally owner is back in control. Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Well that would be the normal procedure if I was blocked and wanted to be unblocked for that reason. It might also look like this is a new user and my only edit is the vandalism. But on the swedish Wiki i have many edits 15 years back. If its possible to block it on the English wiki im fine with that as I have another user for the English. I was unaware you even could make edits on the English with the swedish user. As soon as I saw the mail with a reply I changed my password using a password generator. Bobjörk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bobjörk: To be clear, a local block is silly here. It doesn't help anything. While the edit made with your account was highly problematic, I'm not sure it's enough for an instant indefinite block and none has ever been suggested. If the problem was simply that you persistently made such poor edits such as the two or three that lead to concern, you could be locally blocked but thankfully that never happened. If your account is compromised it should be globally locked until we can be sure the original owner is back in control. There is nothing stopping the person who compromised your account editing the Swedish Wikipedia. I don't know if your reassurances you are back in control are sufficient, I'll leave that to someone most experienced. Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:Yeah, then thats the problem. I should have acted as I made that one (or if it was two) and been blocked here instead of being honest. If I get blocked here then I will let everyone know that from now on: Lying is better if you are compromised but back in control. Because HOW do I prove that I'm back in control?Bobjörk (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask admins to hold off any actions on this account? I am making an off-wiki request for a check on this. If Bobjörk's account is used to vandalise in the meantime, by all means block, but provided this is Bobjörk himself, that won't happen. --bonadea contributions talk 08:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As I now understand the original edit the hacker did would not lead to me being blocked or only blocked here, not global. So thats the issue I'm having. That I wrote that I was hacked to show that I did not do those edits. I'm very confused by this. I would really appreciate if this was checked before any actions are made. Bobjörk (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bobjörk: As I said on your talk page, if you care so little about Swedish Wikipedia that you'd be willing to lie and risk the project by your account being further misused just to avoid the possibility of a short term global lock while it's verified you're back in control that's your business. We assume that most editors don't care so little about the projects they work on. It's unfortunate you feel that way, but that's your business. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: As I said. Since I KNOW that the account is NOT compromised (I changed a lot of passwords now) then I would not risk Swedish Wikipedia since this is the swedish user that Ive used for over 100 edits there. You say its not a punishment, yet I am reported for "my brother did it" for edits that would not have led to a block whichs means that because I TOLD you, I will now be banned permanently as "My brother did it" will lead to a permanent ban. Your logic is flawed when you try to defame me by saying I dont care about Swedish Wikipedia. That would only be true if I did not change my password and let whoever he is destroy it. Which I have not. Bobjörk (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, any user claiming to be compromised is automatically blocked per policy. Only a CheckUser can verify who is really editing right now. --Heymid (contribs) 13:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if I could get the same answers from everyone. One say "its not a punishment, its just for safety and only for a few days" and accuses me of not caring about Wikipedia. And one says that it will be blocked. What is true: Will my user be permanently blocked or not? And do I not care about wikipedia if I changed my password with a password generator? As I said on my talk page. If I had just changed my password and not told anyone, Wikipedia would still be safe, my account would still be safe and none of you would have to deal with it. So it is still true that all this is because I was honest and told you.Bobjörk (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bobjörk: no one ever said you will be permanently blocked. Stop making stuff up. There isn't even such a thing as a permanent block save perhaps for a small number of WMF imposed blocks. Changing your password helps if that was how your account was compromised. AFAICT, no one experienced with this thing has looked into the details like run a CU. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Well if you read about "my brother did it" as the reporter claims, it is a permanent block because its an excuse someone would use. And you talked about a few days, while other said block and I just added that with the information under "my brother did it". If that was not what you meant, then I apologize. [i]Edit: and I just realized that that page is just a joke but I missed that part)[/i]

Checkusers can indeed do magic, but there's a limit. What I can say is that the same device(s) has/have been used throughout, from the same place(s), and that there's no evidence that the password was compromised. I don't see any of the red flags you'd get with some compromises. Little brother, mistake, regrettable incident, who knows. It would be my inclination, in the absence of additional information, to tell Bobjörk to be more careful in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean the same device? Has all edits been made from the same device or is it just similar IP:s? I only have static IP on my computer. I could speculate in how it happened but I dont see the point. I might have suspicions but that is up to me to deal with. I know that I will be more careful and I have also checked all my other passwords today just in case.Bobjörk (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

If what zzuuzz says is correct, then the explanation is that, likely, you logged-in, forgot to log-off and somebody else made a silly edit or two. So more of a "be careful and do not let this happen again"... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm also a checkuser, although I have not checked because several others already did. With a stolen credential compromise (i.e. a hacker has your password and logged into your account) we can see edits made from a device and/or a connection that's not similar to the one you "normally" use, for example if you "normally" edit from an IP in Germany on a Windows 10 device but there are a series of edits from an IP in Vietnam on an iPhone, that might indicate a hack. That's difficult to determine here because English Wikipedia checkusers can only see data for edits on English Wikipedia, and your account has no edits at all on this Wikipedia prior to the allegedly compromised edits. If I can interpret zzuuzz's comments: in your case, the data shows that the "bad" edits were made from your computer on your network, which means most likely your password was not stolen but that you left your account logged in just as others have been saying. You should be aware that while the different Wikipedias are different projects with separate governance, we have unified logins, so if you had left your Swedish Wikipedia account logged in and walked away from your computer, anyone else could have sat at your computer, navigated to English Wikipedia, and made edits under your account without knowing your password, and perhaps not even knowing they were using your account. It's entirely up to you to not leave your Wikipedia account logged in if other people have access to your device or if you use a shared device; nobody here can control that for you. If your account keeps making disruptive edits, it doesn't matter who is sitting at the keyboard, it will be blocked. So, whatever happened here, do whatever you can to ensure it doesn't happen again. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

We like to assume good faith if it’s a one-off incident, but expect yourself an indefinite block if your account does something silly again. --Heymid (contribs) 18:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) "I was unaware you even could make edits on the English with the swedish user." I have a unified WP acct over 32 languages. It wasn't difficult to do, just fiddly to set up each language after I'd made a minor edit, to enable editors in those languages to easily track me down to this my lair. Narky Blert (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • We all have unified accounts that work on all languages. If this user wants to make a default user page that will be seen in any Wikipedia where they do not have a user page, they should create meta:User:Bobjörk. See meta:Global user pages. Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I can't help wondering if lack of awareness of SUL is the reason we got here. Then again, there was a comment on the user page and I would have thought someone would notice this even if they didn't notice they were editing with an account. BTW, the edits were made with the mobile website, and while you can use the mobile website on any device, it seems likely it was a mobile phone or tablet or similar rather than a library computer or something. (Although I admit the possibility of a library computer or similar was something I completely forgot about until now.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:SteveBenassi persistent disruptive edits: edit warring, refusing to discuss/engage.

User:SteveBenassi has recently been edit warring and adding disputed material (currently under discussion at WP:RSN) at/to the Eran Elhaik, Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, Genetic studies on Jews, and Jewish history pages (so far) while ignoring edit summaries and refusing to discuss. Initially, the first page (Eran Elhaik), SteveBenassi added material, from a source which I believed WP:UNDUE and problematic. I tried to explain my reasoning in edit summaries, but he repeatedly reverted me seemingly without engaging with my explanations (after I had asked that he discuss and not edit war and announced that I would start a discussion [[121]]). I then started a Talk discussion pinging him hoping to reach a resolution. He then reverted me again, and though another user engaged me in the Talk page, SteveBenassi never did (the issue then went to be discussed at RSN, with me and several others participating, where it continues). More recently, SteveBenassi has added this disputed material to another page (Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry), without ever having engaged in the discussion regarding it (either on the Eran Elhaik article Talk page or at RSN). I reverted him once there explaining that it was disputed and under discussion and asked him again (as on the other page) to discuss and not edit war. Since then, so far, he has added the same disputed material to two other pages, Genetic studies on Jews and Jewish history (and has added it, along with other somewhat controversial material, to the articles' leads), and also misleadingly marked those additions on both pages as ("m") for "minor". I reverted those edits (once on each page, again with explanations), but , since SteveBenassi has continued to persistently ignore edit summaries and requests/invitations to discuss, he seems likely to continue doing so.

Update: He continues to edit war. He reinstated the edit at the [Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry]] page, linking a recommendation/suggestion User:Austronesier) in the RSN to justify it, despite the fact that the RSN discussio. has not yet been concluded/resolved, and he again misleadingly marked the edit "minor". He was reverted by User:Shrike.

Here are the pages' edit histories for reference:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Eran_Elhaik

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Genetic_studies_on_Jews

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Jewish_history

Any attention is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The user is currently engaged in edit warWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SteveBenassi_reported_by_User:Shrike_(Result:_) and have broken WP:3RR also it seems that he here to WP:RGW as per his edit summaries [122] --Shrike (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Since another report was filed on the other noticeboard (the edit warring noticeboard linked above) by Shrike, and has been addressed, it seems this report is no longer necessary. Skllagyook (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully I'm not sure that this report is no longer necessary. This statement in particular [123] "I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue." would seem to strongly suggest that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Knowingly breaking policy because the punishments are "worth it" seems like textbook tendentious editing.NonReproBlue (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@NonReproBlue: I think you are right (it is still necessary). I had not seen that. That diff you linked is a very troubling statement by SteveBenassi, admitting to tactically edit warring on purpose to push an agenda very much suggests that he is WP:NOTHERE, came to Wikipedia with a decided "battleground mentality", and that his recent semingly appologetic statenent at RSN [[124]] was not accurate nor frankly honest. I think a new perhaps report should likely be filed (since this one has gotten little attention), but I'm not exactly sure where (for now I will modify the title a bit to reflect this new development). I'm not quite sure of what the usual protocol/policy would be here, but I will be starting a new ANI report, that will refer back to this one. Skllagyook (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Francis Schonken

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) makes wholesale reverts of my edits, including these:

• Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling Edit summary: (revert a series of unhelpful changes)

• Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" Edit summary: (WP:Revert, ignore)

• Wikipedia:Red link Edit summary: (reverting a number of non-consensus changes to the guideline, take to talk)

I sought guidance from an admin and Francis Schonken participated in the ensuing discussion. Start reading here for the long version and here for the short version.
At one point during that discussion the admin posted:

@Francis Schonken: And with that you are edit warring...after being blocked for it, again, again, again, again, again, again, and again. This isn't the first time since I gave you a final warning regarding edit warring either, as you did so with this and [125]. After that final warning and this warning I gave you, the only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you want to be banned from the project. The why escapes me. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I ended my most recent post to the admin by saying "In short, FS continues to indiscriminately target my edits for reversion - acting as a self-appointed administrator to block my contributions to WP: pages. I hope you will advise [sic] me regarding how best to respond to this treatment." The admin replied: "I would raise this issue at WP:AN/I at this point." So here I am. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No editor or administrator has the right to target and revert edits just because, as it appears here, he doesn't like them. Francis might consider editing elsewhere before ummm.... trouble hits the fan. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Red link is about 10,000 words long. My overall impression of FS's stance is that consensus is not the same as unanimity, but so long as he is the lone objector to a small change, then there cannot be consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

indef by Cullen328

• Good block — Ched (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I readily acknowledge that many in the the community agree that Francis Schonken has contributed excellent content about classical music. I thank FS for their positive contributions. But for many years, this editor has had difficulty complying with our behavioral norms. As a result, they have been blocked eight times previously, for a year last time. Francis Schonken has been warned in great detail and at great length several times in recent months by Hammersoft, who has taken great care to identify the problematic behaviors and encourage improvement. Very sadly, FS has chosen to continue with their past pattern of disruption, edit warring and endless IDHT debates about trivialities. Accordingly, I have issued an indefinite block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Good block — If it means anything, I almost never participate at ANI, and least of all to support or oppose any blocks, but FS's behavior is so repeatedly unproductive, I feel—for the sake of classical music coverage on Wikipedia—I have to come here and leave a comment. FS has managed to frustrate literally everyone I know in classical music community. Honestly, some of it is just genuinely upsetting. He's put off and discouraged so many people, it is a truly abysmal thing to watch unfold (a somewhat recent example that comes to mind). Tireless edit warring, no understanding of proper consensus, and extreme ownership ([126] [127] [128] as just a few examples) Frankly, I've found myself repeatedly worn out by his editing, but his inability to be collaborative is ceaseless, and I have never seen someone given so many chances. Aza24 (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Francis Schonken - ban from the project?

On 10 May 2021 as a result of the discussion above, Cullen328 issued an indefinite block [129] for Francis Schonken (talk · contribs). At the suggestion of another editor, I write to propose that the indefinite ban of Francis Schonken be converted to a community ban from the project and that, if consensus is achieved, the account be added to Category:Banned Wikipedia users.

I base this proposal on:

(a) the conduct in my original post (above) that led to the indefinite ban block.

(b) the history of (now) 9 blocks with no evidence that any of them led to long-lasting changes of behavior.

(c) the failure, despite being an active editor for more than 15 years, to understand (or maybe "to accept") how consensus works, as reported by WhatamIdoing above based on this exchange (see another example here).

(d) the continuation of inappropriate behavior after receiving a final warning for edit warring:

March 19 to April 15 conduct catalogued by User:Hammersoft

Edit warring after final warning On 19 March 2021, Hammersoft gave Francis Schonken a final warning regarding edit warring: [130]. Following that warning, Francis Schonken continued to engage in edit warring. Incidents described as below: 27 March 2021 16:04 27 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow makes a change to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not [131]. This was part of a discussion on the talk page of the policy. 16:17 27 March 2021: FS reverts [132] 17:07 27 March 2021: Buwhatdoiknow reverts FS [133] 17:15 27 March 2021: FS reverts [134] discussion here 29 March 2021 16:06 29 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow asks a question of FS for a second time regarding the removal of a phrase from the red link guideline [135]. FS does not respond. 22:48 3 April 2021: After waiting five days with no reply from FS, Butwhatdoiknow goes ahead with the change [136] citing the talk page discussion. 04:40 4 April 2021: FS reverts with edit summary "WP:Revert, ignore" [137], without answering Butwhatdoiknow's question on the talk page. 30 March 2021 5:01 30 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow creates a new redirect at Wikipedia:BRDISCUSS 5:38 30 March 2021: FS changes the target of the redirect with edit summary "re-redirect: less confusing" [138]. No associated discussion initiated by FS. 15:43 4 April 2021: Butwhatdoiknow changes the redirect target back to what they created it as with edit summary "Restore original, more specific, target." [139] No associated discussion by Butwhatdoiknow. 19:34 4 April 2021: FS reverts Butwhatdoiknow with linked edit summary "WP:Revert, ignore" (links to Wikipedia:Revert, ignore, a very short essay written December 2012, and referenced twice projected wide). [140]. No associated discussion by FS. 22:42 6 April 2021: Butwhatdoiknow initiates discussion on the talk page of the redirect, and pings FS to the conversation. FS never responds. 30 March 2021 5:02 30 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow adds new shortcut they created to Wikipedia:Consensus [141] 5:35 30 March 2021: FS reverts with edit summary "WP:Revert, ignore" [142] 15:43 4 April 2021: Butwhatdoiknow restores the shortcut [143] 19:54 4 April 2021: FS reverts again with the same edit summary [144] 30 March 2021 05:43 30 March 2021: FS reverts a long series of edits done mostly by Butwhatdoiknow that extend from after 7 December 2020 to 30 March 2021, with edit summary "WP:Revert, ignore". [145]. Diff showing revert goes back to 20 December 2020: [146] 15:04 30 March 2021: Butwhatdoiknow asks a question of FS at the talk page of the essay, pinging FS back to the conversation. [147]. FS never responds. 15:43 4 April 2021: After waiting five days, Butwhatdoiknow reverts, with a modification that Butwhatdoiknow feels addresses FS' concern. [148] 18:59 12 April 2021: After seeing the essay referenced on a discussion on Hammersoft's talk page to which Hammersoft pinged FS, FS reverts again, describing Butwhatdoiknow's edit as "Not helpful". [149] 19:41 12 April 2021: Hammersoft points out to FS that their 18:59 edit is edit warring. [150] 19:43 12 April 2021: FS self reverts back to Butwhatdoiknow's 15:43 4 April 2021 version, and then posts on Hammersoft's talk page saying they self reverted to reduce tension. [151] 14 April 2021 18:12 6 April 2021: User:Faunus places content "Today, the multimedia company TimelessToday..." on Prem Rawat. This is part of a larger reorganization of the lede of the article. [152] 12:54 12 April 2021: FS removes content "Today, the multimedia company TimelessToday..." on Prem Rawat. [153] 14:08 14 April 2021: Faunus places content "Today, the multimedia company TimelessToday..." on Prem Rawat. [154], referencing a discussion at Talk:Prem_Rawat#Is_there_anything_to_be_done_on_this_page_to_make_it_acceptable? as consensus. 14:17 14 April 2021: FS removes the content [155] 16:18 14 April 2021: Faunus puts the content back in, with a citation. [156] 07:06 15 April 2021: FS removes the content [157] While this is going on, there is discussion on the talk page but only FS and Faunus are involved, and there is no consensus. [158]

(e) the result, reported by Aza24 above, of putting off and discouraging many other editors.

--Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support community ban: The amount of effort I've put into trying to avoid this happening has been rather large. I have found a number of troubling behaviors, some of which is highlighted above. I've repeatedly warned FS about their behavior [159][160][161][162][163] to no avail. I acknowledge and respect their contributions to the project, especially in the realm of classical music, but very strongly feel they are a net negative to the project. This is most especially true with their distinctly negative impact on other editors. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Ban unfortunately.
  • FS is an editor who has made significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia, especially in the area of classical music, but has also made larger negative contributions.
  • Their conduct on the content dispute about the sexuality of Frederic Chopin was also troublesome, when they tried to end-run around the RFC that I had started, by creating a separate sub-article, and then accused me of forum shopping.
  • I don't know why classical music causes so much controversy, although it is a great art form about which many editors are passionate.
  • Sometimes when the editing in the area of classical music gets heated, some of the editors should put on a recording rather than editing.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I've never been a fan of adding salt to a wound, but I'd also be concerned if an unsuspecting admin wandered on to an unblock request and granted a serial edit warrior a reprieve. Francis didn't even make it a year before his first WP:3RR block [164]. The past year is covered above; but, additionally: 15+ years of disruptive editing does not make for a collaborative environment. Even after a 1 year block, within a month after returning they were trying to bully others.[165]. When people tried to talk to them, they often were confronted with rudeness and snark. [166]. Francis may be knowledgeable and capable of writing about the things he cares about, but he's shown no sign of being able to work with others. At the end of the day, I think a WP:CBAN is best for all sides. — Ched (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support—At this point, it seems like everyone has their own "Francis Schonken story". I could go in to the many examples of edit warring or extreme ownership (I briefly mentioned some in the thread directly above), but the most unfortunate thing is the constant bullying of editors. This entire talk page, resulting in the article's creator saying "I see you have taken possession of the article again. I despair. I've taken it off my watchlist and you can what you like with it as far as I am concerned."; this thread, resulting in the article's creator saying "I'll defer to others about what to do, and remove this from my watchlist". It things like this that show FS continues to directly damage the work of others, whether or not he is productive in his own right. So many blocks and way too many ANI threads, it seems this needs to come to an end. Aza24 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. At the outset I really tried to find the wording that would make FS look beyond his own desires to really collaborate with others. With one exception, he never did. He achieved editing almost solely through bullying, forcing people to see his side of things, and basically being so determined that nearly all editors gave up because life is too short. Yes, he did contribute some good things, but Wikipedia is a social encyclopedia, and this is an individual whose sole desire is to achieve what he sees as right and thus appears to be unable to collaborate except through bullying. - kosboot (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support community ban (with some further points). Many people have remarked on the issues with Francis Schonken's behavior and his edit warring, so I thought I might give a few examples of other issues with his conduct.
  • Selective application of and disregard for WP:NPV ([167]), which he followed up with accusing me of violating NPOV and complaining about "drive-by editors" (of who I'm presumably one). All in all, a demonstration of extreme WP:OWN on his part (which other editors have provided further examples of).
  • A bizarre, selective understanding and/or application of Wikipedia rules (see for example [168] and my response at [169]) and constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
  • Selective interpretation and definition of consensus ([170]) and openly expressing disregard for consensus that does not align with his goals or viewpoints ([171]).
    • With reference to the previous point, the WP:OR and stubbornness exhibited by Francis Schonken at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni are astounding, as is the circumventing of consensus (including multiple RfCs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography (2nd nomination). The improper/disruptive behavior exhibited on the latter page ([172] will give you some flavor of the discussion) is a sight to behold, too.
  • This is one of the snarkiest (to put it mildly) comments I have ever seen on Wikipedia, especially given that it was directed at one of the kindest editors the project has ever had.
  • Many of the recent discussions at Talk:Frédéric Chopin were some of the nastiest and most heated in the history of classical music articles on Wikipedia (second perhaps only to some of the ones on infoboxes), and Francis Schonken was a major contributor to the hostile atmosphere there. Other have commented on his conduct in the various discussions on Chopin's sexuality, so I will highlight just one bizarre interchange: after I referenced some of the principles that Wikipedia is built on ([173]), Francis Schonken asked me about their relevance ([174]). I mean, what relevance could a Wikipedia policy possibly have to a content dispute?

  At the end of the day, these problems (which are just a selection from the last few months) may still be less relevant and intractable than Francis Schonken's hostile and toxic behavior, which others have remarked on and has discouraged many editors of classical music articles, and which on its own is grounds for a community ban. Toccata quarta (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support I have, unfortunately, had my encounters with Francis (including long before I created an account - they were particularly BITEY back then). While they certainly seem to have made valuable contributions to the area of classical music, their behaviour within that area is, as evidenced by the examples above, often acerbic and arrogant. Coupled with their disruptive editing and difficulty collaborating, that seems sufficient grounds for a community ban. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As the blocking administrator, I am not going to !vote, because I do not want to pile on. I chose to make this block because I have not had much if any direct previous interactions with FS that I can recall, so I consider myself uninvolved. I like classical music and many other genres but I am not passionate about it. My favorite type of music for daily listening is classic hard rock, but I don't edit much in any music genre. Over the years, I have read many noticeboard threads about this editor. Over and over, I assumed good faith in my mind, because FS is knowledgeable about classical music and I am not, and I want the encyclopedia to have good coverage of classical music. But their behavioral problems have not improved. Finally, I decided to take a closer look this time. I have to thank Hammersoft for doing the research and taking the time to give FS excellent highly customized advice in recent months, and I commend them for doing that work. It makes me sad to block a long time contributor. But when a person has been given and has blown chance after chance after chance after chance, the time eventually comes for decisive action. I appreciate the comments made here by other editors active in the classical music topic area, who have been subjected on a day to day basis to FS's disruption more than I have. To those editors, I say that I may not be among you, but that my decision to block was for you and for your benefit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think others are more qualified to express an opinion here. My interaction with Francis Schonken was limited to matters of citation maintenance, which then seemed to escalate beyond reason. Their understanding of edit wars seemed alarmingly peculiar to me. Nemo 06:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support – I agree with what editors have said, above, that FS has contributed much valuable content, but a repeated pattern of bullying must not be condoned, and it is all too evident that FS refuses to learn that lesson, despite repeated warnings, advice and multiple second chances. – Tim riley talk 14:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support based on the affected editors' comments here. While Francis Schonken's contributions to classical music are appreciated, there is not a single editor here whose contributions are so valuable that we can excuse behaviour that drives others away from the project, particularly when so much effort has been expended to correct it yet the behaviour persists. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Blocked for an entire year, and then comes back and resumes disruptive editing? They are not going to change, and FS is a net negative. P-K3 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support-ish, but what about T-bans?. I agree that this behavior pattern cannot continue, yet that it will continue if something drastic is not done (given the block record). I think there is one last step that could be tried, and this is removing FS from the topics in which he is most controlling and disruptive, which to my eyes are a) composers (in any genre) as biography subjects; b) Classical music broadly construed (including Baroque and Romantic and neo-Classical and anything else included within Classical in general parlance but not by musicologists; it's really a continuum of interlocking styles and movements and eras in music); and c) Wikipedia policies and guidelines (their editing, not their application). Include whatever else FS editwars and filibuster/OWNs over (I've not pored over the block log, but I imagine others know what those topics are). If FS can learn and demonstrate an ability to get along with people while editing random articles on salamanders and comic books and chemical elements and goat breeds and varieties of red wine and parasites of marine plants and whatever, then lifting of the T-bans could be considered, after a good while. But if the negative behavior pattern simply migrates to other topics, then we'll know it's a lost cause. (Maybe I'm being sentimental, after the irreversible loss of Flyer22 and SlimVirgin this year, who dated back to the 2000s like FS and I do; it's all starting to have an "end of an era" feel too it. Regarding the suspicion that FS actually wants to be blocked, that's possible; it wouldn't be the first time someone engaged in an indef trajectory to get admins to force them to quit WP-as-an-addiction. But it would be simpler for FS to just state "please block me", and then scramble his password, or something to that effect.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum repeated topic ban violations

Solavirum has violated his topic ban (from any pages or discussions relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan (WP:ARBAA2), broadly construed) for a third time by writing "30,000+ buildings and 250+ villages burnt to the ground by the Greek military and Greek/Armenian rebels" on the Turkish War of Independence article,[175] in addition to several other edits on this Armenia related article and it's talk page. Solavirum is also citing unreliable sources from famous Armenian Genocide deniers such as Justin McCarthy, including for claims of Turkish civilian deaths being over 42 times higher than what the previously cited source says. This shows that Solavirum is not only violating his topic ban yet again, but that he is also simply WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia.

Previously, Solavirum was blocked for two weeks on 7 March 2021 for discussing the subject on his talk page and asking another user to make WP:PROXYING edits for him.[176][177] He was also was given a warning by the topic ban enforcer El C not to test WP:BROADLY ("Don't even mention the topic area in any way, whatsoever."). Within a week of the block ending, Solavirum violated the topic ban again, including Armenia-related info on Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan[178] and in his own sandbox[179][180] which also falls under WP:TBAN. For the second violation, Solavirum was let off with a warning. --Steverci (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• El_C, now I'm baffled too. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This user is clearly here to push an agenda. I'd support a total community ban at this point. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 05:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Solavirum: I've not edited that part. I've only added Turkish and Muslim civilian deaths in the Western Front, A.K.A. in the war against Greece (640,000). The article is about Turkey, mainly. I've not mentioned Armenians once in my edits in that page. The diff you've shown was a revert. That village burning part was in the article before even I edited the article for the first time. Then, McCarthy is a Western academician widely referenced in Wikipedia. Not only Turkey, but also other topics, and his work on Turkey is not solely about the genocide. If you have a problem with the author, go to the noticeboard. No, if you have a problem with Turkey, you're the one not certainly being here to build the encyclopedia. You've made several requests about me within the frame of few months. The previous request of yours was also concluded on the basis that it was not much of a violation as you put it. But, for an unknown reason, you engage in WP:WITCHHUNT against me. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 13:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Are you being serious right now? What is this whataboutism deflection fallacy you're engaging in? You have clearly been warned not to test the boundaries of WP:BROADLY [[181]], yet you have violated it as shown by your diffs. And now you're casting aspersions on the person rightfully calling you out? I agree with others that SolaVirum clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Drmies BrxBrx, contributers, please consider my comment above. My sole work in the article was about the Greco-Turkish side of the war. Never once in the article I've mentioned or implied the word Armenian, or referred to the genocide. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 13:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• User:Solavirum, this expansion and this edit obviously mention "Armenian". That this edit is a revert is immaterial: it's still an edit in an area that is forbidden for you, and Turkish War of Independence certainly falls under your topic ban, broadly construed. And I might be inclined to say, well, the "Armenian" part is minor in these edits, etc., were it not for two things: a. the topic ban said "broadly", and b. you are here denying that you broke the rules of the topic ban. The Turkish war edit isn't uncontroversial either, as the history and the talk page indicate. And not just that--you're also accusing others of a "witch hunt". Putting all this together, I see no other option but to block you for two weeks, and I think that many will consider that relatively mild. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • He has already gotten a two week block recently for violating this topic ban, combined with a strict warning not to test broadly again. --Steverci (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Steverci, I know that. You wrote that already. The editor was warned, and now they're blocked. Please note that emailing administrators expressing the desire to negotiate blocks is frowned upon. If you want to make a NOTHERE proposal, then do so; that is not what you did here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Drmies I never expressed the desire to "negotiate" anything. This is just becoming a recurring cycle: Solavirum is reminded what the topic ban entails, soon clearly violates the ban, writes a lengthy explanation why he didn't "actually" violate the ban, gets blocked for a short period of time, assures on his talk page that he finally understands it this time, rinse and repeat. At what point is he no longer making honest mistakes? How could he have not realized an infobox with the Armenian flag is related to Armenia? He did not learn anything from a block of only two weeks last time, so I do not understand why the same mild sanction is being applied again. How many warnings does someone need before they clearly just don't care about the topic ban? --Steverci (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
        • As far as I can tell this is only their second block for a violation of the topic ban, and while the last one was partial, this one is site-wide. So it is not the same sanction, though you might think it mild. The purpose of blocks, and the purpose of DS/AE sanctions, is not to kick editors out; it's to make them edit differently. I am not going to block someone indefinitely, certainly not per NOTHERE, after a couple of infractions that, at least from where I stand, seem minor. If you and others want to make a case out of what precisely they were using as sources, go for it, but that's not a matter for ANI. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Transphobic edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the page Equality and Human Rights Commission, IP 80.2.22.215 declared the use of the word “transphobic” to be derogatory language for “gender critical” views, ie, the view that trans women are men seeking to sneak into women’s spaces and do horrible things to them. Snokalok (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In compliance with the no nazis page, I’m filing an incident report here rather than simply reverting the edit.

• Already reverted, by User: Tom.Reding. I left a templated warning. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• It’s still showing up as the most recent edit on my end. Does that mean I’m allowed to change it? Snokalok (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I've reverted it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  We follow sources, this is not vandalism or a transphobic change. Aircorn (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Your addition of quote marks works for me, but it's not a term I've seen (or think should be) used in wikivoice as it is primarily a term used for that group by members of said group. It seems somewhat akin to QAnon adherents calling themselves "patriots"—we might mention it with quotes if appropriate, but we don't use the term in wikivoice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I think the issue here is that it's the word the EHRC used, apparently, and so sources seem to be using the same.[182][183][184] and at a skim I can't find any sources using transphobia. Slightly surprising, but eh. All sources put the gender critical term in scare quotes though, so make of that what you will I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have some thoughts on the content dispute but will take them to that article. I would advocate for a close of this discussion with no admin action, as the original IP's edit closely matched the wording of the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Random Canadian

RandomCanadian (talk · contribs) Article(s): Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 for the edit in question and also COVID-19 pandemic

Please comment if this edit to re-insert disputed content by RandomCanadian (talk · contribs) violated the 1RR DS/GS in place relating to Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19. Editor added here #1, I removed it here #2, editor re-added it here #3. This is a continuation of WP:SEALION and WP:BLUDGEON on a range of Covid related pages (including this very ANI noticeboard). If I am misunderstanding the 1RR, apologies in advance, but my understanding what that you dont re-add disputed content and rather discuss it on the talk page (that was the intent of GS, right?). It would clearly have been the WP:ONUS of Random Canadian to discuss addition of disputed content (WP:BOLD) on the respective talk page to argue for inclusion. Intentional failure to follow BOLD on a GS article and continue WP:TE is cause for disciplinary action. If you have a look at the talk pages of COVID-19_pandemic and others, the bludgeon is clearly apparent. I suspect there are others in the Covid space as well that the editor is exhibiting WP:OWN behavior. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 there is no 1RR in place on that article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see any indication that there is any 1RR on the article. The editing may or may not be a problem, I make no comment, but it doesn't seem to be a specific violation of any page restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I could just as well make a big post about the OP's WP:PROFRINGE and WP:SEALION behaviour. Or instead, I could just point out that they haven't managed to get their way at the COVID article, despite the objections of multiple editors against their PROFRINGE stance, for over 1 month (see [185], [186], [187]) and they're now resorting to WP:FORUMSHOP (note that their revert on the virus page, with an unexplained vague wave, seems to have been some form of hounding, since they have never edited that page before - either that or they're part of the Twitter meatpuppet ring). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Also courtesy pinging participants at the page of the non-existent infraction who were not informed of this discussion: @Bakkster Man, Hyperion35, Personuser, Alexbrn, Hemiauchenia, JoelleJay, and Forich: (sorry if I missed some, there's a lot of people as you can tell). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Point of Order Jtbobwaysf did not post anything on the article talk page to discuss this issue, while RandomCanadian has been an active participant on the talk page. It is completely inappropriate for Jtbobwaysf to bring a complaint directly to ANI without first discussing his revert of the edit on the talk page. The only reason Jtbobwaysf lists for removing the edit was in his edit note, which said only UNDUE. In the absence of any further comment on the article talk page, I see no reason why RandomCanadian shouldn't have put his edit back up on the page, if he believed in good faith that the edit was not giving undue weight. Personally, I do not see how it would be undue weight, but that is a content debate suitable for the article talk page, and if you look at that talk page, you will see that there is active, robust, civil discussion of many other aspects of the article. I do not know why Jtfbobwaysf chose to come here rather than the article talk page, but if it is because he believes that consensus would go against him there, then this may be Forum Shopping. Hyperion35 (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is the most relevant point to make here. This discussion entirely skipped WP:BRD on the article talk page, and went straight to ANI. As such, I won't even share my thoughts on the dispute itself here.

At best, this incident is premature and should be closed. At worst, this is WP:POINTY/WP:GAMING and potentially opens the question of sanctions against the submitter. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in on this as well. Jtbobwaysf has a long history of reverting edits and claiming WP:UNDUE with no basis. Here is a recent example which is a well-sourced edit on the Ethereum page that was recently deleted by him/her with no discussion on the Talk page despite there being an open section regarding changes to the lead. They have similarly deleted numerous edits to the Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin and Uniswap articles and maybe worse of all, Jtbobwaysf bullies editors into reverting their edits through notices like this and on their Talk pages (you can view mine as an example). I would also support sanctions against Jtbobwaysf for continued WP:POINTY/WP:GAMING. Hocus00 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Another note: Jtbobwaysf has deleted many other unresolved warnings on their talk page. They were also topic banned before for deleting cited edits. See Special:Permalink/985504979#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos. Not trying to pile on here, but come on. The disruptive editing/deleting of legitimate edits within articles needs to stop. Hocus00 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Trout OP and move to close. There doesn't seem to be any violation on the side of RandomCanadian, owing to the lack of a 1RR restriction on the relevant page. The OP made a mistake of fact in bringing this complaint, which probably should have been addressed on the article's talk page anyway before coming here. There doesn't seem like much more of a reason to keep this open except for WP:BOOMERANG considerations, though I don't see a reason for anything more than a trout (or a whale) at this point. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

References

AIV backlog

Esteemed admins, your attention at WP:AIV would be received gratefully. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill - I'll stop by and go through it. In the future, this should probably be mentioned at WP:AN instead of here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Any backlog when you posted that will have been an entirely different one to the one I posted about nearly 15 hours before. But thanks anyway! DuncanHill (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Having seen how people get treated for asking there I don't think I'll take your advice. DuncanHill (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill - Oh wow... I don't blame you... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Mass changes of nationality from "British" to "English"

The IP 91.211.65.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a mass nationality-changing spree, from "British" to "English", on a host of music-related articles. Not "vandalism", not "edit warring", but disruptive. Any suggestions? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Not so silly q. Do they have RS? Roxy . wooF 14:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No, just unexplained changes. Long-established consensus is to identify UK people as British unless there are strong reasons not to do so (e.g. playing for national sports team, or elected to national parliament). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Clear block evasion by Lil Pablo 2007 (talk · contribs). Blocked, and LilPablo's unblocked request declined. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion - Are you sure it's the same individual? The IP (in edits like this) seems to have a good command of the English language, whereas Pablo 2007 doesn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that LilPablo's English was poor, but it's a startling coincidence. The IP is in France, which may or may not be relevant, and the rationales are remarkably consistent - in any case, this kind of undiscussed mass change is disruptive, whether it's one editor or two. Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

LilPablo is now checkuser blocked nd the IP is blocked as a proxy. Acroterion (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I reblocked the IP address, 91.211.65.101, as a proxy. I want to be clear, I'm making no checkuser claim that this is LilPablo, only that this IP address is a proxy. I literally don't know if LilPablo was editing via that IP address, though behaviourally, it's certainly suspicious. --Yamla (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Understood, I don't expect you to be able to make any confirmation other than by behavior, but it's clear that somebody's been up to something, and I suspect the English is intentionally fractured. I was primarily responding to jpgordon's CU block of six named accounts. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We've had a few of these types over the years. DuncanHill (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of these. An edit filter may be warranted, I doubt this is the last we've seen of this.Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion I just requested an edit filter LOMRJYO^{(talk•contrib)} 14:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN

Hi everyone,

I'm writing to report an incident involving an IP editor. 2603:7080:123F:ED8D:2D09:D05C:2072:3506 has repeatedly and prolifically made edits inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy against avoiding redirects, at WP:NOTBROKEN. I have reached out to this editor twice to explain the policy to them, and they have continued to edit wikilinks to avoid redirects. They also posted on my own talk page to let me know that they consider this policy "stupid". Not sure what the proper way to proceed is.

Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, looking at some of their edits, they are correct. Places like hatnotes and see also sections shouldn't link to redirects, as there's no reason not to use the actually bare article title in places like that. oknazevad (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of that exception, but regardless, the bulk of their edits don’t seem to fit that pattern. Wallnot (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

There is at least one situation where a hatnote or see also link not only can be a redirect, but should be one: when it's an intentional link to a disambiguation page, and the disambiguation page is at the base name (WP:INTDABLINK). Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Another situation is if a hatnote or see-also points at a section of an article. If a redirect is properly {{anchor}}ed, it will remain correct even if the section title is changed or an article split out. It also looks tidier than Article name#Section title; especially if the section title (e.g. "History") isn't obviously connected to the word or phrase being redirected.

Another is if a direct link might look like a WP:EASTEREGG. On a DAB page, "[[Piffling Startup]], former name of Megacorp International" is clearer to readers than "Piffling Startup, former name of [[Megacorp International]]" - not so much there, but the natural tendency is for editors to copy the bluelink off the DAB page, resulting in puzzling-at-first-sight links like [[Megacorp International|Piffling Startup]], and hatnotes like "Piffling redirects here. For the company, see [[Megacorp International]].

Adding back (disambiguation) qualifiers is a minor bane of my life. I do a handful every day. If it's a registered user, I can often revert with a polite explanation (or if I've reverted them before, fix manually). If it's an IP, there's no point at all in doing anything other than revert (and check their other contributions for the identical error; -17 is a standard number to look for). Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've really got to make a template to say this, because I feel like I have to say it all the time. 1) No they probably should not be doing that 2) The appropriate response to them doing that is do nothing. It's such a minor deal that if they wants to avoid redirects, let them. This is the nonest of non-issues. We need a WP:NOTBOTHERINGANYBODY page for when people break rules, but where they're not really doing anything wrong. --Jayron32 16:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Something should be done if an editor is constantly acting against a Wikipedia guideline adding nothing of value, cluttering watchlists and wasting other users' time. It seems it's all this editor has been doing. Perhaps they think what they're doing is valuable and helps, and it's not until this that they'll realize their time can be better spent doing something else. —El Millo (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If the main downside is watchlist clutter, then mass reverting just doubles the problem. Since some of the IPs edits are appropriate (e.g. See also links shouldn't be redirects), then reverting them creates both watchlist clutter and worse content. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I just listed it as one more. I think that's actually the least of the problems. The main one in my opinion is the constant, and appropriate, reverting that has to be done. —El Millo (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of what I wrote justifies the rudeness of the "Really?" edit summary to your reply, Jayron32, especially given that I closed my post with "Not sure what the proper way to proceed is". I didn't make some hysterical post calling for you to ban him—I just pointed to someone repeatedly ignoring well-established policy and asked what should be done... Wallnot (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the response is "do nothing" then the guideline should just be removed as pointless. In this case, I don't think that would be a bad thing. But you can frame basically any of the MOS as "not important enough to report someone" -- except that it is important to some people, and arguments between them are why we have so many rules like this. If the rules don't do anything to stop those arguments, they don't serve any purpose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not pointless. We do want to advise people to not needlessly bypass redirects. The advice is good. The problem is the rush to "punish" people who are doing things we don't like. The solution to everything is not "punish them". The solution is often "just let it go". The phenomenal waste of time, and the amount of damage we do to the community and to good faith editors who aren't really doing anything harmful or wrong, when our first response to doing something we don't like is "punish them!", that's a problem. It's fine to have a guideline that says "don't do this unnecessarily". But the solution to every problem is not "punish them". Sometimes, the solution is "tell them to stop, and why to stop, and then if they in good faith disagree, just move on". As noted, the amount of work to undo these edits is more disruptive than just leaving them be. --Jayron32 17:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't rush to punish, and I'm certainly not making a judgment that this case calls for punishment. But you scolded them for not "doing nothing", not for bringing it to ANI and trying to have them punished. I find that the "get over it, nobody cares" response to someone who took the time to learn our guidelines and try to see them followed is no less problematic and confusing than trying to enforce them to begin with. If a going against one of our guidelines is so unimportant that doing !nothing about them is a negative, then yes, the guideline is pointless and we should get rid of it or downgrade it in some way. Sorry -- pet peeve coming through. I think if we're going to socialize people to understand that guideline is second only to policy in terms of having broad consensus behind it (sufficient to be enforced unless there's a reasonable exception) then when new users who take the time to try to learn those rules (which isn't easy for everyone) turn to the "go-to-admins-for-help-with-a-problem" board, the first response from an admin shouldn't be to dismiss it entirely with instructions not to do anything. Regulars may think of this place as a dealing in punishments, but it's fundamentally a place to turn for help. At very least you can explain, for those who do not have the assumed common knowledge about what's important and what's not, why they shouldn't do anything about something that's reached guideline status here, lest they be left to assume guidelines aren't actually worth learning. (And again, I don't care about this rule at all). .... hmm I started adding a "sorry, pet peeve coming through" and it came through again. I'll shut up now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Again, point me to where in my original post I wrote "punish them!" Because if memory serves, what I actually wrote was "Not sure what the proper way to proceed is". And for what it's worth, I was under the impression that this was a guideline worth observing based on my observations of the behavior of far more experienced editors like DuncanHill. Clearly I was mistaken, but I don't think that justifies snapping at me when a) I didn't call for the IP editor to be hanged, drawn, and quartered and b) very experienced editors continue to operate under the same mistaken impression. Wallnot (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You asked for general advice. You then called me rude for giving you my honest opinion. I said nothing derogatory to you or about you, I said that the best way to proceed was to let the matter go. When I gave advice, which I'll note you asked for in an open ended question, your first response to me was to call me rude. I'm not sure what you were looking for, but if you didn't want me to actually answer the question you asked, you should have said so. You could have saved me the trouble of answering of you had made it clear that you didn't actually want honest opinions on how to proceed. --Jayron32 02:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: As I said before, I called you rude for your “Really?” edit summary. I’m not sure what you possibly could’ve meant by an edit summary like that, except something to the effect of “why are you wasting my time with this?” Don’t gaslight me. Wallnot (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for that. The edit summary was rude, and I had not recalled using it, but yes, I did that, and you are correct: I should not have. I apologize for doing so. It was rude of me, you did nothing to deserve that, and I am sorry. My apology comes with no expectation of acceptance, but I offer it nonetheless because I was wrong. --Jayron32 11:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That is quite all right. Thank you for offering your opinion and teaching me the difference between a P and a G. Wallnot (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I must ask... What is meant by the second part of your sentence? I don't recognize the reference... --Jayron32 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

A Policy and a Guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Should have been obvious. Thanks. --Jayron32 13:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Asshole John rule. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm down for downgrading this from guideline status or otherwise getting rid of it FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is a rule the community has set; it is inappropriate for an admin to be giving some condescending lecture about how OP is in the wrong for reporting it because it's "not a big deal". Reported user has been given a formal, final warning by an administrator, which is appropriate in this case. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  What a ridiculous overreaction. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is also a rule the community has set, and this "incident" is well short of the level of intransigence that would warrant the wiping of asses with it that's happening here. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's not an overreaction in the slightest, nor is it a violation of BITE. The user received two handwritten messages about this last month which were ignored, which is blockable in its own right. IMO it was fairly lenient of Jamie to just issue yet another warning. I'm not sure why you're bending over backwards to pretend like this user is being railroaded for no reason. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not to take any position in the dispute, but if the IP is using the mobile version they just do not see the warnings.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  You still receive notifications via the mobile version, if you're editing via the app I believe you do not receive notifications (unless it's been fixed by now), but edits from the app are tagged like this, which we do not see here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Tnx, this makes sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is certainly a rule, and you may note that I politely posted on the IP editor's talk page twice, both times explaining myself, before reporting it here. The editor ignored those warnings twice. What level of intransigence do you think warrants an intervention? Wallnot (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Refusing to engage others is a blockable offense. But that should be what we focus on here. Not on the redirect issue. --Jayron32 17:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Leaving messages for IPv6 editors is nearly guaranteed not to work, their addresses change too frequently and our software doesn't handle it; don't hold it against them. I admit I don't have a better solution for getting such an editor's attention than bringing it up here, I just don't think this was worth the time. I'll also concede that's my opinion. By the way, if you want to chase the full list of this editor's bypassed redirects, you should be looking at the contribs for 2603:7080:123F:ED8D::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this IP editor clearly did see my messages, since they replied to them on my own talk page. Wallnot (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

They may have been responding to your reverts, which cited the policy in the edit summary. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, we're bending over backwards to make excuses for this editor here. They would have seen the notifications before they made their most recent edit, which was from the same IP address. It would be no different than if they were editing from a static IP. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ugh. My reply is probably out of place, the thread's a bit all over the place, but my 2d is @Wallnot: is right, @Swarm: is right, and Jayron32 and PEIsquirrel or Ivanvector, or whatever he calles himself, need to stop bending over backwards to excuse disruption. DuncanHill (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Any solution we have (range blocking) will cause more harm than the status quo. Accepting reality is not excusing disruption. Nothing wrong with asking the question though and I see no problem with the OP. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Range blocking a /64 subnet is akin to blocking a single IPv4 address; it's low-risk and in fact it's the best practice as opposed to blocking a single IPv6 address. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• I owe Wallnot an apology - I don't want anyone to be discouraged from reporting what they in good faith see as a problem to administrators on this noticeboard, and I hope that Jayron32 would agree with that sentiment. I disagree with some of my fellow admins on what should have happened here, but that ought not to be made into the reporter's problem. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Help required in the content dispute at Krishnadevaraya

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi admins there has been heavy editing/changing of facts at Krishnadevaraya due to content dispute between editors. I would request admin to restore the page to its stable version and apply temporary full protection if applicable. See the entire discussion at Talk:Krishnadevaraya. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Warned the two main combatants and semi protected the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bembo Bold

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please block the CU-confirmed socks Bembo Bold and Critique & Calculation, and also semi-protect Owen_Williams_(artist) from the IP socks? Their persistent editing of the article is disruptive for the Afd. Also, they're socks.--- Possibly (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Possibly -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally I would like to see editors like this permanently gone from Wikipedia. Bembo Bold is responsible for adding a controversies section to Yukon Arts Centre, so they've basically been using WP for promotion (Owen Williams (artist)) and to unduly point out Owen Williams' conflict with the YAC.--- Possibly (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, editing an article that is being discussed at AFD is perfectly fine and very much not disruptive. The only disruptive actions to an article are renaming without fixing up the article links (which people like me often quietly fix), redirecting or merging, blanking, and otherwise removing the AFD notice. Read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. The sockpupetteer did none of those, with any account. You and xe were in an edit war, but there was no disruption of AFD, neither by editing the article nor in the AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring, personal attacks, and possible sock puppetry

This is the first or second time I have reported to ANI, so please tell me if anything is wrong. Basically, on Comparison of DNS blacklists, there are editors that are going on a slow revert war.
EmpiricalSemaphore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
EmpiricalTroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Navapab3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
UrsMair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In the war, EmpiricalSemaphore is saying that these are accounts that are employed by UCEprotect in order to promote the site, which they think is fraudulent. The other accounts say that the site in not fraudulent, and that while questionable, is not a fraud. This is too complex for AN3. While warring, the others (accounts that are not EmpiricalSemaphore) leave personal attacks in edit summaries. Who has done wrong and why? These three accounts that are reverting appear to be related to each other. aeschyIus (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• The three accounts that are not EmpiricalSemaphore appear to be the same user, or at least closely linked; the edit-summaries are all written in the same pretty-good-but-clearly-not-native English. My inclination would be (a) to block all of those, as if they're not socks they are obviously editing in a way indistinguishable from that, and (b) to revert the article back to the pre-edit war status quo. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Black Kite - I agree with both. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I concur with Black Kite and Oshwah on this. Block all three. -- The Anome (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

   Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Oshwah, would it be wise to tag these accounts as socks? This isn't simple vandalism and it may help in order for future reverters to see this agenda. aeschyIus (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  AeschyIus -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  And could you please create the sock category? aeschyIus (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  AeschyIus -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• RBL block lists are used by hundreds of thousands of internet service providers worldwide to block spam. They are a good thing that I think we can all agree are a necessity. However, one of them - Uceprotect - collects ransom payments via a secondary "whitelisted.org" site. After I - as well as my local, small-business clients - were affected, I began researching. I found it was Uceprotect. I almost paid the ransom because my clients are legitimate and it was affecting their business. But the more I researched, the more I found out about Uceprotect. It is mind-numbing what they have been able to get away with and for how long. The amount of legitimate communications (and likely ransom payments) they have gotten away with over the last 20 years has to be absolutely staggering. I think the page will need a lock because I do not think Uceprotect will go away easily. I think the scam is far too profitable. Easy internet search reveals a two-decade long pattern of abusive, childish and unstable communications from the proprietor - even to IETF, a standards-making body. EmpiricalSemaphore (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just to add, I believe many of the hundreds of thousands of internet search providers use Wikipedia as a legitimate source of block list providers. I think it is tragic that a scammer is able to make themselves appear legitimate by exploiting Wikipedia. So the internet service providers incorporate Uceprotect which then enables Uceprotect to expand their scam. I do believe the page needs to warn internet service providers about this so Uceprotect can be systematically removed. Thank you. EmpiricalSemaphore (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

My goodness! That is so not how to write an article. I encourage people here to take a look at the article. The concerns at Talk:Comparison of DNS blacklists#Procedures are vastly understated. The article has a box for link-spam. Then there's an entire section for the disputed entry, a table above the table of contents, citing a page on GitHub as a source and giving GitHub as its author, external hyperlinks peppered everywhere, and no independent sourcing for pretty much anything. Uncle G (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Arg! I know! How do we configure it properly? I'd love to correct everything as this is important at a base, global level. You've probably been affected and called up your internet service provider to inquire why you were blocked or spammed. Perhaps this type of page isn't the best use of Wikipedia since it is completely subjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpiricalSemaphore (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Obvious block evasion by UrsM-Second

First I, UrsMair have nothing to do with Navapab3 nor Empiricaltroll. I‘m not a sockpuppet. It is annoying to see that my account were blocked, while EmpiricalSemaphore was allowed to vandalize UceProtect‘s record again. UceProtect has existed for 20 years, and while controversial, it is certainly neither illegal nor fraudulent nor do they extort people. The always repeated lie, that one has to pay to be removed doesn‘t make it the truth. See http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php Some people tell lies and myths about us. Most of them run into trouble with us, because they were, or still are, learning resistant. The most frequently told lie is that a listee will not be removed until they make a payment. The truth is: Every IP listed will expire 7 days after the LAST abuse is detected, and FREE of charge. The optional immediate removal is not available at all in the following cases: 1. If the owner of the IP or the ISP has declared to dislike this option. 2. If abuse has been seen from IPs listed in Level 1 or the backscatterer blacklist within the last 3 hours. 3. If a network area is listed in Level 2 and the listing limit has been exceeded by a factor of 10 or higher. 4. If an AS is listed in Level 3 and it is in the top 5 of the Level 3 charts. 5. If the listings in Level 2 or 3 are still increasing. Only if these 5 criteria do not apply, there is a payment option available for any listee that does not want to wait 7 days but needs to be de-listed immediately. If they were a pay to be removed list, anyone would have the payment option then. The edit done by EmpiricaSemaphore afer 7 th April 2021 is nothing than badmouthing and vandalism of UceProtect‘s Wikipedia Record, which existed for nore than a dekade. He did admitt that he and his clients are impacted by collateral listings, which means either Level 2 or Level 3, which means there is a clear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest UceProtect‘s mission is to stop the botnets, which can‘t be done by listing single IP addresses only. It is necessary that providers act quick on infected machines. While this is ok for most provoders, unfortunateley there are still a few hundret that do not care about massive abuse that is coming from their networks and ranges. To let UceProtect users chose how strong they want to filter, there are 3 different levels, which are described in detail on the links that are also on Wikipedia. The record on wikipedia also states and did always tell anyone that removals are automatic and free but expressdelisting for a fee is optionally available. There is no other blacklist known to me, that defined and published their listing criterias such in detail. Level 1: http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=3 Level 2: http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=4 Level 3: http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=5 So how can a list that gives such detailled informations be classified as scam or fraud? Talking about Levels 2 and 3: Provider protection prevents Impact Counters rising more than 1 per 4 hours during the first 24 hours and 1 per hour up to the 48th hour after an IP got Level 1 listed. If more than 6 Impacts are shown for an IP, that means the Provider ignored abuse for more than 24 hours, and is considered very bad. If more than 30 Impacts are shown for an IP, that means the Provider ignored abuse for more than 48 hours, and is considered inacceptable. There is no legitim excuse for any provider out there, to let an infected bot online for more than 48 hours. If they do, they are risking to get their ranges escalated to level 2 and finally their asn to level 3. That means: Users impacted by collateral listings in levels 2 or 3 should complain to their providers. Unfortunateley some of them do not understand who is the source of their problems and blaming UceProtect instead. That are those that are badmouthing UceProtect on Websites, Fora and social media. Anyway, you can find badmouthers for every blacklist, if you really want. As one of the other guys mentioned, at the timebof this writing UceProtect‘s Level 2 is the most accurate blocklist according to intra2inet‘s blacklistmonitor https://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/index.php_sort=accuracy_order=desc.html Therefore the record on UceProtect should be rollbacked on Wikipedia as it was before 7 th April 2021 without any wrong claims, that it would be a fraud or scam. UrsM-Second (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)— UrsM-Second (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC). MarnetteD|Talk 04:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Oshwah, Black Kite, The Anome, and Uncle G: calling the attention of the admins in this discussion to the obvious block-evading account User:UrsM-Second. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken - Blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits to this page

I've temporarily blocked IP edits to this page from 115.189.0.0/16. Hope this helps. -- The Anome (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Anome: You're going to want to expand it to WT:Administrators' noticeboard. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've now made it sitewide. -- The Anome (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, to any admin wanting to poke at this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DanCherek&diff=prev&oldid=1022512990 is interesting. The account that is named, as far as I can tell, still has userpage access. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that edit was made prior to the whole-site rangeblock taking effect. See Special:Contributions/115.189.0.0/16 for the whole contribution history. -- The Anome (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It was. Look at the edit summary. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It goes without saying that they also utilize the I.P. range of 122.56.192.0/20, which ToBeFree graciously blocked for one month. There's no substance to literally anything they've said and the edits are from a high school, which tells us everything we need to know. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 23:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Since they seem to have been remarkably persistent in their other IP range, I've also extended the 115.189.0.0/16 block to a month. -- The Anome (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Continuous biased edits by "owner" of magazine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editor DuncanRoads seems to act like he is the owner of page Nexus (magazine), claiming to be "Duncan Roads" who is the alleged owner/editor of the real-life magazine. He made a change at the article which removed useful information which was then reverted by me. I directed him appropriate policy pages that he may find useful and to discuss his edits, and then he proceeded to harass me in his edit summary.

Diffs of edits:

• [188] Initial edit by IP which I believe was Duncan before he created his account, reverted by me
• [189] by the same IP
• [190] by his registered account, reverted by me
• [191] [192] and [193], all 3 edits reverted by Trental

I'm posting here, fully understanding that I may get dinged for biting a newcomer, however their actions seem pretty hostile (most evident from their profane edit summaries and there continuous refusal to discuss their changes) but I also want to discuss what is the best course of action forward for this user so he doesn't run into any more problems in the future. DL6443 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've softblocked the account, given a template COI welcome, and semi-protected the article for a week. Fences&Windows 00:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Thanks for your quick correspondence. I hope that, should this user decide to change their username and return to editing that they behave in a more civil manner, adhering to WP:COI policy. If their behaviour resumes we can simply continue this discussion further. --DL6443 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rachel Riley

Might want to change the visibility on these diffs as Riley is suing over these comments. diff, diff. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

To be safe, I've RevDel'd them. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Anarchyte - Wait, I don't understand why these revisions were rev del'd. They don't seem to meet the the criterion for RD2 or RD3. Riley is suing over these comments? Where can I read about this? Sorry, I'm just confused here... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: See this article. I only RevDel'd the edits because I see no reason to keep content that she's already in legal battle about unless we're providing reliable sources that discuss the case, instead of just parroting the allegedly defamatory statements. Anarchyte (talk • work) 02:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Anarchyte - I appreciate the response and the clarification. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Meh. This looks like a teapot tempest. There is somewhere between 0% and no chance at all that Riley will prevail in a case about "mere vulgar abuse" (see Defamation Act 2013). Accusing someone of being a Nazi and then complaining about the blowback? Bye, Felicia. That said, I can't see the revdels. But please: don't panic, Mr. Mainwaring. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User Iletemhang NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Iletemhang (talk · contribs) seems to be WP:NOTHERE.

• Linking West Africa to Central Africa and vice versa, removing sentence about Obama without removing the source (diff)
• Removing parts of sentences, leaving incomplete sentences (diff)
• Changing "Primarily African American" to "African American" against the referenced source (diff)

All three cases mentioned above have the edit summary "Fixed Typo" / "Fixed typo". There are more examples; I checked all their edits that had not yet been reverted and had to revert or fix all of them. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If this report doesn't get action, consider also reporting to WP:UAA: that's "I let em hang". Yngvadottir (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

With the edits they are making AND the username...yeah. Blocked as a VAU block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ruling Party BLP violations

User:Ruling party keeps adding back information sourced to an alleged US diplomatic cable hosted on wikileaks about living persons. This started in the Sisay Leudetmounsone article diff A diff B diff C but has moved on to the 8th Central Committee of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party article diff 1 diff 2 which hosts a whole list of members sourced to this cable. There is ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sisay Leudetmounsone and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#US diplomatic cables on Wikileaks (the latter started by me) which IMO is leading towards the cable being unreliable although that is also my view so I'm obviously biased.

I've tried to explain to Ruling party multiple times that as this concerns living persons, the information should stay out until there is consensus about the reliability of the source [194] [195] [196] but they're not getting it. Note that the first two messages on their talk page were about the Sisay Leudetmounsone article, but the last message on BLPN was 8th central committee article. (The 8th central committee article became a problem when they effectively mentioned it on BLPN.)

IMO a block is justified but I'm fine if someone thinks they can get through to them via discussion. I would suggest a partial block from both the Sisay Leudetmounsone and 8th central committee articles sufficient for now or alternatively the whole article space. It would be good if they can continue to participate in the RSN and BLPN discussions and on the article talk pages. To their credit, they do seem to have stopped in the Sisay Leudetmounsone article for now, although there are 3 diffs, it was over multiple days so they're not close to 3RR. -Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Note in the 8th committee article, several sources have been added but they do not source the information. An open access version of the journal article is available here [197] and it doesn't have a list of the 10th central committee let alone the 8th. While I don't speak Laotian, a machine translation of the 9th central committee list here [198] also doesn't seem to mention anything about their membership in the 8th central committee. A source from 2002 obviously cannot tell us who was in a committee formed in 2006.

I'm also fairly confident that the Wikileaks cable is the only source anyone has found for a list of all members of the 8th central committee, since the only reason this started is because there was none but it was desired to show that Sisay Leudetmounsone joined in the 8th. Both me and User:Thucydides411 have looked as well, and it seems clear from what Ruling party has said that they too have looked and couldn't find any source for the whole membership. Instead they keep insisting because the information from Wikileaks is supported by sourced information for the 7th and 9th central committees, it must be correct.

The information sourced to Wikileaks is IMO not particularly contentious, membership in the central committee isn't a secret. The problem is simply one of WP:Systemic bias i.e. it's very hard to find sources talking about these older committees. But the fact remains, it does concern living persons and IMO it's not acceptable to use unacceptable sources just because we can't find an RS. As annoying as it may be, we need to keep the information out until an RS can be found. I have explained to them they could use WP:CALC and reliably sourced information about the 7th and 9th central committees to provide information about Sisay Leudetmounsone and other members of the 8th. I have also explained to them, as have others, that Laotian sources and other non English sources are fine. Indeed I even suggested looking into Chinese sources. So I'm trying to work with them to help them source the information, as are others.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Very strange arguments: the 10th LPRP Central Committee is referenced by this http://kpl.gov.la/En/Page/Politic/partyx.aspx
2. you are right regarding the Creak source—its been added by mistake by me. It shouldn't have been there. I forgot to remove it or added it wrongly. Mistakes happen. That source is about the 10th LPRP Central Committee / Congress.
3. [199] lists the members of the 9th CC.. That is.. the reelection column of the 8th CC LPRP article
4. The source from 2006 references the "old" column in the 8th Central Committee article. That is, those that were members of the 7th CC

To be honest—block me and I'll never come back. If there is one user that should be blocked its Nil Einne. Her bad faith towards me can be seen all over this edit. If she had asked; what does the different references source I could have given her the answer.. But she has never ever asked that question. He/she has been extremely uncivil (as I have I) and has done everything in his/her power to make the discussion between me and her take this direction.

If she had been willing to discuss, to collaborate and to find a solution I would have been willing to jump on it. But he/she never has. He/she now blames me for the discussion ending this way which is strange because I have written I will respect the outcome of any decision reached by a discussion when the discussion is finished. AS it currently stands he/she wants to block me and force her view on Wikipedia before the discussion even closes... --Ruling party (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

WAIT Can we hold off on any action? It looks like Ruling party has finally found a reliable source and while this still doesn't excuse their early BLP violations, per WP:NOPUNISH the problem may be resolved. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: to the contrary. I will always respect a consensus. I've said all along you can and should continue discussion even if the information is removed. Keeping the information out doesn't mean the discussion ends. It means the information stays out until we reach a consensus. You've been asking that we keep what I regard as BLP violations while discussion is ongoing which I do not consider acceptable. Ultimately the only way this problem can be resolved is via reaching consensus on the source, or finding a different source the only question is whether we keep the information out or keep it in while discussion is ongoing. No one has ever suggested a final decision is being made by keeping the information out. All that has been said is the correct interim solution, in accordance with our policies and guidelines, is the information stays out until a reliable source can be found. You say I've been unwilling to work with you. Yet I've explained to you in great detail on your talk page how you can go about finding a suitable source [200]. I've also explained how you could potentially use WP:CALC [201]. I've also asked you to continue discussion, and indeed even in this very thread, I said I wanted you to be able to continue discussion. I clearly never wanted to shut you out of discussing the issue. The only thing I want you to do was stop adding information when you lacked a reliable source. Since you believe the source is reliable, you are welcome to convince the community of this, although as I've said, 'there's no indication it's wrong' or even 'all indications are it's right' is not an argument well supported by either our policies or guidelines so is unlikely to be given much consideration. In any case, this discussion is probably moot. It seems you've found a suitable source. Great work! That's what we've wanted all along. It doesn't mean we were wrong to insist you find it though. Quite the contrary. We need reliable sources, if a source is not a a reliable source, it doesn't matter if we're fairly confident the information is correct it needs to stay out especially when it comes to living persons. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh, this is a very simple dispute that would have been solved quite quickly if a couple of people had actually listened to what people were telling them about what a reliable source is and is not. Despite having it explained to them in detail, or being here long enough enough they should know better. Thucydides411 in particular at the RSN discussion linked above is either being deliberately dense or lacks the capacity to deal in anything regarding reliable sourcing. Not particularly bad in general in the wider scheme of things, but absolutely a huge issue when it comes to BLPs. There are only so many times you can explain something to someone in different ways before you have to accept they do not and are unlikely to ever understand. And more to the point, its not other editor's job to do that about our core policies.

The sourcing issue was there was no reliable source available for a particular piece of relatively innocuous information. It was (for the time in which the various sourcing discussions at RSN and BLPN were taking place) included on one of the stolen diplomatic cables available on wikileaks. If the cables had been released by the authors/owners as a public document, then it would be a primary source and so useable to the extent primary sources are used (still very little on BLPs). It was not however, it was leaked and hosted on Wikileaks, which in itself is not a reliable source. Where secondary sources (research papers, news orgs etc) have commented on particular cables, we can reasonably use them (the news orgs, research etc) as secondary sources. While some news orgs have said the cables as a group are legitimate, none have commented on this specific cable and we only have Wikileak to trust that this cable is part of the wider group. "Wikileaks includes this as part of the cables, reliable sources says the cables are legitimate, therefore everything in this cable is reliable". This is far too many steps to assume reliability in a normal article, but since the actual potential harm is small, if it were not about living people, it would likely just be hand-waved away. Because it does involve living people, the demands for reliable secondary sources are significantly higher and more vigourously enforced. As a content dispute this is small beans, but Ruling Party and Thucydides411 should be topic banned from BLP's as I have zero confidence they understand WP:BLP and if you dont understand that policy, you need to forcibly prevented from editing anything involving living people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Topic-banning someone for discussing source reliability on a talk page and at RSN would be an extreme action, and would have a chilling effect on discussion. I haven't attempted to edit the page in question, and I wouldn't edit it without consensus. I think my position on the cables has been reasonable. The US diplomatic cable cache is known to be genuine, so the question is whether or not a list of Central Committee members drawn up by the US embassy in Vientiane can be considered a reliable source. Thucydides411 in particular at the RSN discussion linked above is either being deliberately dense. From my perspective, the suggestions that the US diplomatic cable we're discussing might be a fake are far-fetched, contrary to all the reporting on the cache (which all describe it as a genuine cache of US diplomatic cables), and frankly are just fantasy. There's no actual question that this is a US diplomatic cable, but there is a question about whether or not that cable is usable as a source.

"Wikileaks includes this as part of the cables, reliable sources says the cables are legitimate, therefore everything in this cable is reliable" I never claimed that everything in the cable or the cache of cables in reliable. I merely said, as countless reliable sources do, that the cache of cables is genuine. Whether or not the claims made in those cables are reliable is a separate question, but the cables themselves are real. I've been trying to redirect the RSN discussion towards the question that is actually interesting - whether the particular cable in question is reliable - rather than the sidetrack (and unreasonable, in my opinion) discussion about whether the cable is genuine. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I share Only in death’s assessment of the competence of these two editors when it comes to BLP, they either need to demonstrate that they now understand it or stay out of the space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• In addition to the misunderstanding of BLP policy, there is also a misunderstanding of the vandalism policy. CMD (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose a partial block from mainspace until Ruling party gets it. This looks like someone who is here to increase our coverage of an under-represented viewpoint, which is fine, but they need to learn the relative weight we place on Truth™ and fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Blocking me after the situation has been solved seems to be a good idea. No vendetta there. As I said before if you block me I'll never come back. So if you want the Wikipedia community to lose another contributor do that. But let bygones be bygones and, of course, if this happens again you can of course block me. This seems childish... --Ruling party (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

And no, I'm not here to WP:RGW anything. I'm just creating articles that are missing. I'm not trying to change anyone's view on North Korea, Laos or anything for that matter. I'm just creating articles that are obviously missing.... So if you want to block me because of that sure... I don't think many other editors will create articles om missing living people from Laos... --Ruling party (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Ruling party has since found RS for both Sisay Leudetmounsone and the Central Committee articles (see here). In doing so, he has aligned himself with the opinion of the rest of the community: WikiLeaks is replaceable by these sources and hence these sources should be the ones used. I do not think it's a matter of not getting the BLP policy. Rather, as we all know, it can be frustrating to spend inordinate amounts of time to go from what we know to be true to what is verifiable in reliable sources. That has only been made more acute by the systemic bias and language aspects of the topic, so frustration is understandable. But this is not the same as not getting or agreeing with the policy. Furthermore, it's been Ruling party's position throughout that sources that have been considered "generally" unreliable at RSN can be discussed, and there is nothing wrong with discussing their use in a specific article. Indeed, this strikes to me as a correct understanding of the BLP policy and something we do all the time. But to reiterate, we now have sources that err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP, and these sources have been uncovered through Ruling party's positive participation in the process, not because of any contempt for policy. (I am not an admin.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

176.88.29.132

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP 176.88.29.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has always been making false information on Microsoft-related articles, and keeps undoing my edits. Can we indef-block this IP?

Diffs:

• Microsoft Edge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [202] [203]
  
• Internet Explorer 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [204]
  
• Internet Explorer 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [205]
  
• Windows 3.1x (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [206]
  
• Windows NT 3.1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [207]
  
• List of Microsoft codenames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [208]

Purplneon486 (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• The edits aren't clearly vandalism, but they are disruptive. On a number of Windows-related articles they've piped links in violation of WP:EASTEREGG, for example on Microsoft Edge where they changed [[Windows 7]], [[Windows 8|8]], and [[Windows 8.1|8.1]] to [[Windows 7|Windows 7.x]], [[Windows 8|Windows]] [[Windows 8.1|8.x]], creating "easter egg" links for both "Windows" = Windows 8 and "Windows 8.x" = Windows 8.1, and as Purplneon486 reports, they're also slow-motion edit-warring across multiple articles. They've been adequately warned and I agree a block is in order, but we don't block IPs indefinitely. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP as I'm pretty sure I know who the master is. Email me if you want me to connect the dots, Ivanvector (or it's in the log if you have access to your SPI-goggles). -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Micga's strange moves

This guy has made bold moves and been warned by a number of users. They don't have time to reply. I reverted a number of moves yesterday per a request at the WP:RMT but this user has made few other moves today. This disruption needs to be stopped. See this. Thank you. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy pings Borsoka, Srnec, who filed the request at the RMT. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Micga for 36 hours. I'm hoping that this will get their attention... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah, Thanks, this worked and they replied lol. I've posted them a note that if the behavior doesn't stop once the block ends, they might face an indefinite block for disrupting the project. Thank you ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

TheAafi - No problem! Happy to help! :-) I hope that they remain in communication and that they learn from this. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your actions. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Chicdat's involvement in admin areas

Chicdat has been under a self-imposed ban from editing admin-related areas. Chicdat made a list of the serious mistakes he made and posted it on his talkpage (archive 3). It has become increasingly clear recently that this self-imposed ban is not enough. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Kashmorwiki's_sockpuppet_block. He blanket restored a number of edits made by a sockpuppet and continued to argue he was a good-faith editor in edit summaries despite obvious evidence to the contrary. In a move closure today, he moved an article against consensus and inserted his own opinion to make a compromise. While it is clear Chicdat has good intentions, I feel that it is problematic that issues like this keep occurring. EDIT: He has also been causing problems outside of admin areas, with wikiproject templates and redirects (see below).Noah^Talk 20:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Merits of whether Chicdat should participate in admin areas aside, Chicdat recently expanded/reiterated their voluntary restriction at User_talk:Chicdat#Voluntary_restriction; that scope would include the Kashmorwiki discussions. The only assertion of concern you've linked since then is the closing of a move request on an article within the 'Tropical cyclones' topic area, which Chicdat is an active editor in. I'm not sure I would class this as an 'administrative discussion', but in any case Chicdat has an active and responsive mentor who they appear to be able to work with, and if you wish to discuss the merits of their participation in closing move requests I think it would've been better to discuss it with MarioJump in the first instance and tweak the restriction accordingly if necessary, rather than bring it to ANI. (I note that they were pinged here, but this ANI was started 10 minutes after without waiting for response.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact remains, mentor or not, that Chicdat continues to make poor decisions in admin areas and other regions that others have to keep cleaning up. There are more issues, such as these: [209] (breaking over 31000 links on a widely used redirect) and [210] - he redirected a project template and broke multiple parameters on talkpages + he left the articles uncategorized for task force level. Noah^Talk 22:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, redirects are a very separate thing, and I wouldn't class that as an 'admin area'. I gather that you're looking to turn the voluntary restrictions into a community ban, but what scope do you think covers all the areas you're concerned about? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear the issues are more widespread than I initially thought. I personally believe this user should not be closing any formal discussions where consensus must be determined, amongst other things. They should not be moving pages or retargetting redirects without consensus. Noah^Talk 00:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't like to be involved in administrative actions lately as it makes me stressed, but bringing Chicdat to ANI at this point of time is counterproductive as they has not, outside of move discussion brouhaha and this SNOW close (I may have gone too far in here but this is to prevent administrative involvement urges), done anything that can be considered administrative. Chicdat is currently not competent enough for administrative decisions, but as long as I can be active (not busy) and keep an eye on him, they will not disrupt anything and hopefully improve. The worst case scenario for Chicdat is probably a TBAN block which consists of indefinite partial block on Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk: and even Talk: spaces but not a community ban, which I consider to be a reach honestly. MarioJump83! 03:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I know it. One day I will get indefinitely blocked. The day will come. The block button will be pressed. There will be nothing I can do. The editors around me have repeatedly tried to delay that day, and they have largely been successful, but the day is quickly coming. I will end up here again... and again, and again, and again. One day, the majority of editors will vote to block me. I get onto Wikipedia. I begin an editing session. And I get that big ugly message saying I am unable to edit Wikipedia. So to further delay the fateful day, I have just added another thing to my ban. Also: Please don't partially block me from Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk:, and Talk:. Then I would have no venue for discussion between editors. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Are you aware of WP:TPO? You may want to re-think this. DeCausa (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Undone. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that this is starting to become a bit of a witchhunt, yes @Chicdat: made a mistake by closing the discussion on Bawbag and implementing a supervote. However, I don't think it rises to the level of shipping him off to WP:ANI and nor should every time he be shipped here every time he makes a major mistake. I have set up a challenge on WP:Weather specifically with him and others in mind and would like to see how he does with it.Jason Rees (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Chicdat, if you are seriously concerned that continuing to edit will currently lead to a block, then a possible solution can be stopping to edit for a while, until the situation has changed. Whatever it is. For many editors, their current age is such a temporary problem. If it's more permanent, this approach doesn't work. The only person who can assess and decide in this situation is you, yourself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Many editors (particularly the ones I have been in disputes with) have said that I am too young to edit Wikipedia. I disagree. Why, a baby could edit Wikipedia if he or she was constructive here! And in response to the other part of your comment, I just – feel unable to not edit Wikipedia. I think thousands of other editors think so too. So instead I will follow other editors' suggestions, add Noah's list to my restrictions, and hopefully avoid getting blocked. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Chicdat, I have no idea how old you are, and I don't want to know. I'd just like to note that if multiple editors have expressed "too young" concerns and if you are actually young, then they may be right. And yes, a baby could edit Wikipedia if they were constructive here. The probability of such constructiveness is correlated with age, and a lack of constructiveness combined with a low age simply "fits the image". So I uphold my advice: Consider stopping to run against a wall. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Those colons! I will be very, very, very cautious in the Wikipedia: namespace from now on. I will limit my volume of bold edits. I will listen to other editors. I will remain in good standing. I will respect my ban. I will continue to edit Wikipedia. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally think it would be helpful to Chicdat for the purpose of keeping himself out of further trouble, to teach him so he learns, and to prevent future harm to WP to institute some kind of restrictions (either formal or informal in witness of everyone here):

1. Chicdat should test any edits to template space pages in test cases to see if any problems occur prior to implementing them.
2. Chicdat should not move any mainspace pages and their talk and subpages without consensus.
3. Chicdat should not retarget redirects without consensus.
4. Chicdat should not determine the consensus in any discussions for a period of 3 months while he works with his mentor to go over how to determine consensus and practices doing so.
5. Chicdat should not be involved with sockpuppetry work, except in the case of reverting vandalism caused by sockpuppets. Noah^Talk 16:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment. These sound like reasonable restrictions for anyone who already recognises that they are still learning. There are plenty of other constructive editing tasks that User:Chicdat is welcome to carry out. Deb (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Correct. For instance, nobody has ever given me a warning for adding short descriptions, so I still use Shortdesc helper. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

IPs changing "British-American" to "British"

This may ring bells. I have noticed a couple of IPs changing "British-American" to "British". 81.153.77.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 86.28.105.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 2A02:C7F:D436:EA00:7580:29B3:3712:3B16 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Does anyone remember this sort of thing? DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We had a series of sockpuppets and an IP busily changing "British" to "English" yesterday - this seems like a mirror image. Doesn't seem like the same person. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I love the fact that they insist that gaining another citizenship doesn't change your nationality. Apparently being British and taking American citizenship doesn't make you American, but being American and taking British citizenship does make you British. Canterbury Tail talk 02:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hint to the clueless: John Oliver is now an American! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Abusive behaviour by IP editor 24.196.94.122

The IP editor at 24.196.94.122 has made a contribution to the talk page of Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting which involves multiple personal attacks. Bravetheif (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Bravetheif The IP has been warned. If the behavior continues, please report it to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

Moved from AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello there, this issue involves more than one problem so I've brought it up here. This mainly concerns User:Gianluigi02 and User:Selfstudier who have decided themselves what must be correct, but other users are causing disruption as well. In many conflicts, we have claims from two sides about death tolls. But here in this case neither side is contradicting each other. Of course that doesn't mean both are true.

But Gianluigi is only taking his own conjectures made in conjunction with the Palestinian statements which are being reported as true. For example when earlier Palestinian health officials stated that 30 Palestinians had been killed [211]. But they never claimed they were all civilians. Gianluigi02 however inserted his own claims that 26 civilians had been killed [212], basing his claim Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad deaths of 1 commander [213] and 3 commanders respectively so far [214]

One thing that should be noted that the Palestinian groups have only confirmed prominent deaths ie commanders, they haven't confirmed how many militants or their members have been killed in total. But despite this Gianluigi02 continues to regard that only 4 (now 5 after Israel said it killed another commander) were killed. [215]

Despite me explaining it to him many times that he's solely relying on Palestinian claims of casualties himself, he claimed again only 4 militants died and without proof claimed identity of 15 dead people (excluding 5 militants, 10 children and a woman confirmed dead) is unknown so far and they are suspected to be civilians [216]. I couldn't find any source for his claim, and it's different than his earlier claim of 26 civilians being dead.

I later removed the commanders who have been confirmed as dead from the overall toll so people did not confuse it. [217] Then I added that Israel claimed it had killed 18 militants [218]

But Gianluigi took to reverting me and baselessly claimed that the Israeli source I used (Times of Israel) was false, even though it said it was claim of Israel that 18 militants were killed [219]. Without presenting one thing to contradict it. He also claimed that the death toll of Gazans provided by Palestinian sources is also confirmed by Israelis [220]. I have however not found the IDF or Israeli government saying so.

There have been other user repeating similar claims against Israeli sources like User:Selfstudier, to whom I pointed out that the number of dead Gazans was only based on Palestinian/Gazan health ministry claims and not independent claims [221]. In response he said he has nothing to add beyond what he said [222].

By that I assume I he meant that I should add contradictory claims [223] or the death toll being from the Palestinian health ministry [224]. Thing is I pointed out earlier to him that Palestinians didn't contradict Israel's toll [225] (neither Israel has contradicted Palestinians).

Also I had pointed out that regarding one side's claims as true and the others as false is incorrect way to do things, especially since Gianluigi is himself deciding how many civilians died using only the number of prominent militant commanders confirmed to be killed [226].

Later he got in a long-winded argument with others about Israeli sources like Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post being false [227]. Per his claim Times of Israel was making false reports and did not attribute the number of dead Palestinian militants to IsGov. In addition, he says Jerusalem Post was paid by IsGov to smear BDS [228]. This was said by him after I pointed out to another using disputing the number of Israeli injuries, that you have to prove a website deliberately reporting false news to prove it's unreliable, not it just being wrong sometimes [229].

Selfstudier used a +972 Magazine article claiming that Israeli government had funded Jerusalem Post's supplement against BDS discreetly, which it claims was revealed a freedom of information request. However as AlexEng pointed out the relationship between JPost's supplement and the State of Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy was never hidden [230]. Even in the supplement you can see the logo of the ministry on the last page and the ministry's director-general delivering its introduction [231]. Regardless of that it isn't the only independent newspaper to have a government-funded report once-in-a-while.

Even if we disregard JPost as unreliable, Selfstudier still ridiculously claimed that Times of Israel had made a false claim and didn't attribute the number of dead Palestinian militants in its blog to Israeli government and it had been removed from the article by an editor (which was Gianluigi02 of course) multiple times, in order to discredit the website: [232], [233], [234], [235].

However the source article he refers to quite clearly does attribute the number of dead militants to Israeli government source: Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists.. Me and AlexEng pointed this out clearly to him even with the direct statement [236], [237].

After this however he ridiculously started claiming that just it didn't attribute it because it said "Israel" and since the editor (Dianluigi) who removed it said it was false he agrees with him [238]. After I pointed out that one editor calling it false is not evidence and saying "Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists" is attribution just like "India said x number of people died", he took to calling IDF as disinformatory and stated he believes it is likely ToI's source, but it didn't attribute them directly [239]. Thing is no one said they have to specify directly who was it from. In addition IDF as we know is the military arm of the IsGov, and he was also talking about there being no attribution to IsGov.

Now regardless of what you think of IDF's reliability, Palestinian sources can't be blindly relied blindly on either. I did say this clearly earlier how GianLuigi02 is using them openly as factual and was using his own conjecture as to what they meant, but Selfstudier has no issue with it [240] [241].

I'm not going to describe my whole talk with him since it's long but you can see it for yourself on the talk page.

I believe these two users need to be temporarily banned from the topic or have it at least told to him not to be biased towards any source, plus not decide on his own what should be correct. The others there probably need a warning too. The appropriate way to be regard either both as reliable or none as reliable and label which claim is Palestinian or Israeli.

While I don't like to point fingers, it seems clear that there's anti-Israel bias going on, where Palestinian claims are believed and Israeli claims aren't. These two actually aren't the only ones so I think the article needs to be monitored. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: please note that as noted at the top of this page you must notify involved users if you start a discussion about them. I have notified Gianluigi02 and Selfstudier of this discussion. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I forgot about the notifying part. Sorry it slipped my mind and I was busy in something else. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(1) I put a Arab-Israeli DS notice on LKS's talk page; the other mentioned editors have already been notified.

(2) LKS has a very interesting talk page, worth reading.

(3) This appears to be primarily a content dispute with a disagreement about the reliability of sources.

(4) The question of source reliability should be handled at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard; off hand, I can't see the editors there deciding that The Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post or Al Jazeera is unreliable.

(5) Otherwise, the right place for settling the content dispute is on the article talk page, not here.

(6) It seems unlikely that an admin telling a possibly biased editor "Don't be biased" is going to have any positive effect, and also unlikely that anyone is going to be topic banned on the basis of this report, even if everything in it is perfectly accurate and not in itself biased.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(7) This should be at ANI, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(8) So I moved it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it should be at WP:AE. I do not think we can take any action using the current format. Unless somebody wants to launch an investigation of course.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I never said that the Times of Israel is spreading fake news. I said however that the IDF is claiming the death of 15 Hamas and PIJ members without proving it. There are no proofs of that. And no, I'm not saying that is false, it can be true that 15 Hamas members are killed by the strikes. However we need proofs, not claims without evidences. For this reason, I added just the death toll (which is at 53 dead now), without specifying how many were civilians and how many were militants. Or at least, now we are specifying those confirmed to be civilians (the 14 children, the three women, the husband of one of the women, five farmers and other civilians killed in cars) and those confirmed to be militants (3 PIJ and 2 Hamas commanders). The identity of the rest of the victims is unknown so far. So we should just update the death toll without specifying the identity until they are proven. Gianluigi02 (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another argument for waiting on events to actually have time to be investigated and reviewed before rushing a half-baked article into main space. Tiderolls 13:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it's not so simple Tide. Let me quote exactly what you said Gianluigi when you removed that Times of Israel source: "Also, I'm removing that false Israeli source". Anyone can see exactly what you meant. Whether the identity of others is known or not, I put 18 militants dead specifically as Israeli claim [242]. This presents it in a neutral fashion and claims by both sides are allowed, so I don't get why you removed it.

This is not content dispute as you clearly have a problem with Israeli claims. Your number of dead (53) is directly sourced from Gaza health ministry [243]: Gaza’s ministry of health said the overall death toll since the latest offensive began stood at 53, including 14 children. More than 300 others have been wounded.

So is Gaza health ministry correct for you but Israel is not? Also you have actually reverted more than once on that article in 24 hours. Compare [244] and [245], [246] and [247], [248] and [249], [250] and [251]. Yes partial reverts also count.

Admins please notice this guy is point blank breaking sanctions by reverting to previous versions. He's also cherry-picking which side to use, siding with Gazans over Israelis when we should use both but cautiously. I hope you can punish him now. He has clearly violated the sanctions and rules despite being aware. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

But anyway let's believe your claim that you meant IDF and not Times of Israel. Why does IDF need to prove how many it killed? And how exactly will it prove? Do you expect it to release a list of names? Also why is that you're trusting Gaza ministry of health but not the IDF? You yourself said that the identities of many dead Gazans among the 53 is not known. They haven't clarified who they are. But how do you know they are speaking the truth when they haven't provided a list of everyone's names? This is clear open bias. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand what you aim to achieve with this, you are arguing about a source, so this seems like a discussion for WP:RSN. Perhaps make a post there and consensus will agree on whether the sources are reliable or not? Or are you arguing for sanctions because of a content dispute? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not think any of the sources are unreliable. I'm ready to use all sides but mark them as Israeli or Palestine in case they are Israeli or Palestinian government claims. Gianluigi however regards Palestinian claims as definitely true. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Could something please be done about Gianluigi02? He is now attacking other editors by calling their edits "false informations" [252], and has now (once again) removed neutral sources (that were discussed on the article's talk page [253]) in order to replace them with Al Jazeera [254], without giving any valid reason to do so. JBchrch (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Gianluigi is breaking rules, attacking edits of others, cherry-picking his own sources, while engaging in a clear edit-war. Can something be done or are we be to held hostage to what he wants? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That user removed the updated death toll of 65, which was confirmed by multiple sources. He said that between 30 and 50 people died, which was not true. Gianluigi02 (talk) , 14 May 2021

That's not what your edit had to do with [255]. It was about the number of children killed, changing it from 14 to 16. Another statement you changed it from "35 to 65" to 67 Palestinians killed, that statement wasn't added by JBchrch. You're referring to a previous edit [256] where you changed the Palestinian death to 67, after JBchrch changed death toll from 65 to 53 and of children from 16 to 14, removed Al Jazeera as source [257] because he thinks it's unreliable?

However, he did clearly cite neutral sources for his edit. This 53 death toll was reported by other sources too [258] and dead children as 14 [259]. I'm sure you were aware that was the death toll at one point. A few other sources did refer to the death toll as 65 and dead childdren to 16 [260], but it's much more likely he missed it and didn't check up the latest news. So you trying to claim you called a person who at most committed a mistake or disputing the number of dead children (which it was actually about) as "false" is a bad-faith behaviour. Why are you attacking people and their edits? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia page not extremely suspect? The content's framing and the mono-centric editorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El-Baba (talk • contribs) 13:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does come off as slanted towards one side given how Israeli casualties are far more focused upon, even if that may not be the intention. It would need re-editing plus more sourcing for its claims. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Uninvolved non-admin LéKashmiriSocialiste, first, please be more concise. Second, please be more precise. Instead of long and vague arguments, post diffs showing policy violations. In the absence of such different, I doubt any admin will want to take any action. Jeppiz (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz I've tried to be as concise while explaining properly. Second I did show diffs, many of them. So I don't know what you're referring to. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, at that time it was a false information. At that time, 67 Palestinians were killed, and it was confirmed by multiple sources which I added. Those sources were removed by users who then added a lower death toll, which was not true at that time. So, I'm not in the wrong position. I was adding the correct toll with sources. Then, you are saying that I'm saying that other users are intentionally spreading false news. I never said that, I just said that those informations were false, meaning that they were wrong.Then you are saying that those users didn't saw the updated sources. However I added them and were removed. Gianluigi02 (talk) , 14 May 2021

Out-of-date information is not "false" information because it was made using reliable sources. You used something that is often seen as an unreliable source in the context of the Pslestinian-Israeli conflict (Al Jazeera). And that said false is incendiary since it can imply deceivement. Btw you don't know how many Palestinians were killed because it could be higher than what was reported. So if you fail to use reliable sources, that's on you. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment I don't want to cause offense but I suggest that this be hashed out on the talk page in the usual way. All of the above has been overtaken by events.Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried hashing it out with you, but the moment you started misleading was when I shouldn't have proceeded more. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what are you talking about. The number of Palestinians can be higher, or maybe not. I add what is reported by realiable sources, which I added, not only with Al Jazeera source (which is a realiable source despite you are saying it's not), but I added BBC sources too. Then, when I said 'false, I didn't mean that the source were, but that number was not the real numbee at THAT time. The real death toll was of 65 dead and I added it with multiple sources which were removed for no reason. Gianluigi02 (talk) , 14 May 2021

Not reliable sources. You are reporting what is said by Gaza ministry of health. So you don't know what is correct and yet you claim the other is "false" because they merely read out-of-date information. You know the reason your edit was removed, Al Jazeera is not a reliable source for JBChrch [261]. What you're doing is bad faith. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Blakecowrie0389 and deceased template

Someone may want to look into this editor's activities in case there some connection between the underlying accounts being labeled deceased. Probably the account should be blocked, I'll be reverting every edit they made. -- GreenC 15:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Blakecowrie0389 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Adding template for double checking. MarnetteD|Talk 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is obviously some sort of LTA, just block and be done. YODADICAE👽 15:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked, a clear case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I would have expected an apology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would have expected an apology instead of [262]. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If you threatened to end my Wikipedia career I doubt you'd see an apology from me. I don't understand why you've brought this here. Tiderolls 16:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure ANI is the place to ask for forced apologies. YODADICAE👽 16:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Because Karma1998 has serially fabricated unverifiable sentences, and edited them into Wikipedia articles. So, the problem is WP:OR, and they are not a newbie to ignore such rule.

When they tell me I am whining, instead of them pleading having been mistaken, I guess something is wrong with their attitude. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you reporting yourself for personal attacks, tgeorgescu? The user asked you to leave them alone, I suggest you do so. You've already reported the OR issue to the appropriate noticeboard. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Then detail that instead of demanding an apology here. No one can see what the issue is without diffs. YODADICAE👽 16:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, [263], [264], [265], [266]. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It is in no way obvious what about these edits requires admin intervention. Can you elaborate? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, first diff was [267]. It was doubly offensive, because they reverted my revert. As explained at WP:NORN:

After the 9th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic nation states, Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal.

has been changed to:

After the 10th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic nation states, Israel, Moab, Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal.

Although none of the WP:RS has changed. So, it wasn't just WP:OR, it was edit warring to include WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu, I think you would do best to withdraw this thread, as apologies are meaningless if they are issued under duress, and concentrate on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Yahweh. Only when that completes and if you feel that not enough action can be taken at that noticeboard should you come here, with a properly titled report. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll do. Thread can be closed. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: @Praxidicae: @Tide rolls: could you tell this @Tgeorgescu: guy to stop harassing me and reverting my edits without any particular reason? He's been stalking me for two weeks by now and when I underlined my point of view, he derided me in a childish way, even when I offered credible evidence for it. -Karma1998 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

So, you have 8 diffs with WP:OR: [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275]. Karma1998 is not a newbie, so they are supposed to already know these aren't good faith edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to sound dismissive (I largely agree with you, though with some caveats), but I think this thread would be better suited to WP:ANI. If you file a thread, I will relate my experience checking one of Karma's edits there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

So, you have 8 edits pushing WP:OR, even edit warring to keep it, in 18 days from the start date to the end date, end date included. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you wait for? I have provided diffs, it is time that you provide your own diffs to make your case against me. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998 has edit warred against me and MPants at work to include WP:OR stated in the voice of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

And this is how I answered their edit war at Talk:Kingdom of Judah: Yup, there is no smoking gun tying Khirbet Qeiyafa to David. So, archaeologists do not know anything about Khirbet Qeiyafa being a Davidic site, that's all guessiology. They may speculate it's tied to him because they have freedom of speech and academic freedom, but not because they would have evidence about that. It's called guessiology not because they lie, but because they have no evidence for the claims they're making. If I claimed they lie, the WP:BURDEN would be upon me to produce evidence for showing them wrong. And that's precisely the problem: there is no direct evidence for any of those claims, nor for their refutations. Neither the thesis, nor the antithesis can be falsified right now. And that's the problem of the three chronologies: none of those are falsifiable.

The gist: Hitchens's razor says What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Of course I don't have to be ashamed of that! tgeorgescu (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Tgeorgescu: I think Phil Bridger's advice here is best for right now. I was unaware of the existence and course of this ANI thread when I wrote the comment you quoted here. I mean no offense, and I agree with you that this is a problem, but right now, I'm afraid you've made solving it via ANI all but impossible, given the way you opened this thread. Please see my comment here for a solution. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:43.247.159.146

I have warned 43.247.159.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) sufficiently regarding their odd editing behavior of incorrectly adding spaces before commas. I already had to go through some of the edits and fix all the issues. But, this is an ongoing problem, and seems any type of warnings on their talk pages does no good. Their talk page is full of warnings, with no response from this user, and they've already been blocked for disruptive behavior. They made further edits after my last warning (level 4) (this for example, showing the grammar errors). Essentially, all their edits have to be fixed up by users and they have made no attempt to fix (this very simple) issue. They also consistently add unsourced information to articles by adding specific dates in regards to fictional content, another issue this user has been warned for multiple times going back almost a year. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Man of failures

Man of failures (talk · contribs)

Man of failures, a 3 month old user with less than 25 edits is removing content which seems like they don't like with misleading edit summaries mostly to remove content or to add WP:OR.

• Uses the edit summary Removed some biases in writing while they added more WP:OR.[276]
• Uses the edit summary Removed some bias in the write-up as only the reserved category students and doctors were involved. while they add more WP:OR.[277]
• Removes sourced content in Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 citing some IP address to be "invalid ". Invalid reference (Invalid IP Id)[278], Invalid IP address of citation[279], Invalid IP address (Invalid citation)[280]. They had removed a lot of content in the article with similar "invalid IP" edit summaries.
• Removed content backed by a reliable source citing Write-up and citation don't match in Reservation policy in Tamil Nadu [281], again removes it with an edit summary blaming the reference number as wrong and asks me to show them where the content is a one-page online article Show me where this is present in the source. Additionally the reference no is wrong. [282], again removes it with an edit summary I can't find it[283] while it is literally in the source.

In my opinion, the user is here to remove content which they WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT with WP:GAMING and is clearly WP:NOTTHERE to to build an encyclopedia. SUN EYE 1 18:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:SteveBenassi WP:NOTHERE: edit warring/intentionally disruptive edits

User:SteveBenassi made several disuptive edits in the past few days. He was blocked for 36 hours for edit warring, but has returned and claimed/admitted to have purposely broken Wikipedia policies to make a scene, with the intention of pushing a POV (stating that it was "worth it").

First he edit warred, adding disputed material (then under discussion at WP:RSN) at/to the Eran Elhaik, Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, Genetic studies on Jews, and Jewish history pages while ignoring edit summaries and refusing to discuss. Initially, the first page (Eran Elhaik), SteveBenassi added material, from a source which I believed WP:UNDUE. I tried to explain my reasoning in edit summaries, but he repeatedly reverted me seemingly without engaging with my explanations (after I had asked that he discuss and not edit war and announced that I would start a discussion [[284]]). I then started a Talk discussion pinging him hoping to reach a resolution. He then reverted again. Though another user engaged me in the Talk page, SteveBenassi never did (the issue then went to be discussed at RSN, with me and several others participating, where it continues). He then added the disputed material to another page (Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry), without ever having engaged in the discussion regarding it (either on the article Talk page or at RSN). I reverted him once there explaining that it was disputed and under discussion and asked him again (as on the other page) to discuss and not edit war. He later added the same disputed material to two other pages, Genetic studies on Jews and Jewish history (along with other somewhat controversial material, to the leads), and misleadingly marked those additions on both pages as ("m") for "minor". I reverted those edits (once on each page, again with explanations), he continued to persistently ignore edit summaries and requests/invitations to discuss, despite being asked and warned more than once.

He then continued to edit war even more at Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry and was reverted and reported by User:Shrike at the edit warring noticeboard (I had made an earlier report here before that). He was blocked for 36 hours.

After SteveVenassi's temporary block, I thought my earlier ANI report was no longer necessary, and said as much. But User:NonReproBlue informed me that SteveBenassi, far from having erred from an innocent ignorance of Wikipedia's policies, as he claimed at WP:RSN (here [[285]]), had, by his own admission elewhere, used edit warring and refusal to discuss as a calculated tactic to push an agenda (by purposely "making a scene"). On his own Talk page, SteveBenassi admitted: "I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue." [[286]] That was in direct contradiction to another claim he made around the same time that his policy violations had been the of honest unfamiliarity (being "a newbie" and "not knowing how to use Wikipedia") (here again, as linked above [[287]]), which since he had been repeatedly warned while at that time, seemed unlikely, and given his admission quoted/linked above, now seems less than dishonest.

This is troubling and seems to show that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. (knowingly breaking policy because the punishments were "worth it"). This seems to show that he entered Wikipedia (or at least that section of it) with a battleground mentality, a lack of good faith, and a WP:TENDENTIOUS orientation.

I initially filed a report here ([[288]] In response to the edit warring. Due to this new information, I am filing this new report.

Any attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

And now he has gone right back to re-adding the same edit with the same summary [289]. Hopefully an admin takes a look at this soon as there is no sign that he will stop the tendentious editing. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Ohnoitsjamie:, the admin who issued the block, they should probably be informed. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@NonReproBlue: and @Ohnoitsjamie:, I noticed here [[290]], though SteveBenassi claims he will no longer edit (because he accomplished what he wanted by "making a scene"). But also again states his WP:TENDENTIOUS/partisan/WP:BATTLEGROUND intentions, when he says, speaking of his earlier edit warring, that "I did this for you and Elhaik" (Elhaik being a highly controversial, for the most part fringe, researcher). It is concerning. Not surprisingly he is edit warring again. Skllagyook (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

CSD Abuse

Moved from WP:AN

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:DJRSD has been arbitrarily tagging pages for CSD. While some of these have been helpful, he has been warned twice about false tags and continues to tag pages that blatantly meet Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. Some of these have been good faith, and I don't believe that a total ban is necessary. Is there a way to limit tagging abilities? Thanks in advance! Carwile2 ^*message* 19:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for a statement from DJRSD. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Carwile2 - The only way to "limit" one's ability to tag a page for speedy deletion would be to block them. This obviously isn't necessary. I think the best solution here would be to ask that they review and understand what constitutes credible significance, and ask that they take more care and time to review articles before they tag them for A7. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking yes, but there are people on WP:EDR for CSD-related issues. (No opinion yet on the merits of the individual case.) Vaticidalprophet 01:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet - Oh, sure there are, but I don't think this situation merits a ban yet. Not by far. I think as a first step, we need to reach out to the user and educate them and ask them to review this page and give the user time to improve before we resort to any further action. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, and thank you ToBeFree for notifying me. I didn't do any CSD tagging arbitrarily. Each speedy is under Wiki guidelines. If i am wrong anywhere, kindly accept my apologies in advance. If you see my previous CSD that were also not wrong, though one user notify me for those CSD tag. DJRSD (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response @DJRSD:. We appreciate that you are acting in good faith here, but from what I see you are making mistakes at far too great a rate in terms of inappropriate tagging of articles. My suggestion is to slow down, listen to experienced editors who have been here much longer and know the standards, and try to learn to be better. Perfection is not required, but improvement is. While I don't think you need to be sanctions as yet, continued problems could lead to something like a ban on tagging articles for deletion. Please take the advice of others on board, and we're looking forward to your improvement in this area. --Jayron32 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Welshale and Srodgers1701

Welshale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Srodgers1701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd take this to WP:SPI but it's urgent and the socking is so obvious that ANI seemed a better fit. See this edit on my talk where Welshale admits to being Srodgers. This traces to a content dispute at Dalia Gebrial, in which I removed poorly sourced biographical info per WP:BLP. Welshale/Srodgers1701 is now coming after me in unrelated articles (see Special:Diff/1022895047). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Unrelated as far as checkuser evidence goes, but I still blocked the user per WP:NOTHERE. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by Getabrainmorans

• 12 May 2021: "oxbridge dumbasses can't even quote people properly"
• 12 May 2021: "wikipedia dumbasses can't even link things properly"
• 13 May 2021: "‎i know you've based your entire wikipedia career around sucking this guy's cock like an industrial pressure pump ..."

Reported by isento (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've left a message with the user here asking them to stop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at their username, I would say a "visit" to WP:UAA is in order. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No need for a visit - I've blocked them. If someone wants to watch their userpage for responses to this thread that can be copied here, that would be great. Guettarda (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat

Maje020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I reverted said user's edits as disruptive and warned them. They said that the info was based on the Hungarian Wikipedia page, so linked them to the BLP policy and WP:CIRCULAR, and reverted their reinstatement for BLP concerns. They undid me and made a somewhat vague threat here, saying that they are considering reporting me. That's a clear NLT vio I think. JavaHurricane 12:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked. Any admin may lift the block once they demonstrate an understanding of WP:NLT and retract the threats. --Yamla (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! JavaHurricane 12:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"He only speakes Hungarian." – What a weird thing to say about a living person in their biography. I will remove that and start a new discussion at Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Politrukki (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

Made edit on very large page (List of Top Level Domains) to make tables collapsible, but cluebot reverted it immediately. Some tables were set to auto collapse, however these were only tables. Also forgot to mark as minor edit since it was a formatting issue, but it still got reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UppercutPawnch (talk • contribs) 12:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@UppercutPawnch: Is this a systematic problem? If it is, please list the diffs. Otherwise, this is just a plain old false positive. It happens. pandakekok9 (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9: Yeah it's just a false positive. Didn't read the cluebot message I got on my user page all the way. Sorry, but thanks for reverting for me. UppercutPawnch (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

46.97.170.0/24

Individual IPs:

• 46.97.170.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Range:

• 46.97.170.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78

• BLPN Discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gina Carano

User appears to be here for the sole purpose of bludgeoning, picking fights and pushing a particular POV.

• "it is a well known fact that Hungary is, and to some degree always has been a hotbed of right wing populism and nationalist sentiments"[291]
• "There is no "left" on wikipedia. But if right wingers want to win more edit wars, they should care more about objective facts."[292]
• "look at the kind of people who make it their business to regugularly defend him. You will notice that all of them are either republican pundits, or alt-right/alt-lite influencers. "[293]
• "This is what I meant when I said that Babylon Bee is no different from any other right wing disinfo site. Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Bounding into Comics, you name it, they're all the same."[294]
• "Evidence? You mean aside from every single breadtuber that ever analyzed his ideologies in depth, and aside from the fact that all of Jordan Peterson's fans on youtube are members of or associated with the alt right? I souldn't need to prove what's common knowledge and easily verifyable."[295]
• "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is."[296]
• "Also, no mention that her holocaust comments were interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany"[297]
• "The point is that putting Peterson's words into the mouth of a skull faced nazi character makes them sound like a villain monologue. But Peterson apologists are too devoid of self awareness to realize that."[298]
• "We're talking about a newspaper that FIRED a long time employee because he wasn't a trump bootlicker, and prohibited a reporter from covering the George Floyd protests on basis of skin color. I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Wikipedia's list of reliable sources and learned that it wasn't blacklisted like Breitbart, the Daily Wire or other right wing trumpist rags."[299] (He is talking about the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• "I only brought up Trump because like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society. Yes, one had actual political power, and nearly destroyed the country. But people like Peterson are part of the reason there are people dumb enough to actually vote for trump. Their carreer's are uncomparable, but they represent the same toxic far right ideology."[300]
• "The first paragraph of the section is nothing but right wing pundits flapping their mouths and spouting right wing punditry, and should be deleted entirely."[301]

Also:

• Deleting other user's talk page comments.[302] (The deleted comment was right-wing stupidity, but no worse than what 46.97.170.0/24 regularly posts.)
• Removing sources because "they are agenda driven"[303]

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Two things before I address the broader issue: Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control, so there's no point leaving a notification on one I'm no longer using - it's not likely I will be assigned that particular IP again. Second, I find the last two claims to be unfair. The talk page in question has had several similar comments removed by other users, on the grounds that they are off topic and have nothing to do with the subject. I apologize if I got the wrong impression that this is standard practice. Regarding the sources I removed from How_to_Be_an_Antiracist, other contributors CONFIRMED that I had the right idea. You can read it on the talk page.

The unregistered editor wrote: "Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control". No. That is under your control, in that you can register an account. It is only outside your control if you insist on not registering. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of problem lines, quite honestly confuse me. I tried to avoid picking fights ever since last year's incidents. I'd be the first to admit fault if it turns out I wasn't always entirely successful in that regard, but many of my lines presented here don't seem to make sense. My comment on the Gina Carano talk page, regarding her holocaust comments expecially strikes me as out of place, because it's just a near word for word reference to content from the article itself. Some of the stronger opinions are no worse than what registered contributors, including some admins have said. I've read essays on wikipedia that use stronger language. The last ANI report was most certainly justified, seeing as I made baseless accusations of vandalism, and made some rather inappropriate comments. The only thing presented here that comes anywhere near that, when looket at in context, appears to be my comments on the Post-Gazette, which, looking back, definitely feels like something I should not have said. Maybe the trump comment too - that's was a pointless tangent, and the Ben Shapiro one is definitely a BLP violation. I'm going to redact these immediately. There's also that long off-topic argument on Jordan Peterson's talk page, that carried on far too long, but I was not the sole responsible party there, and it was not my intention to go off topic.

That's three comments, that are inappropriate, maybe two where I used harsher language than I should have, and one that was probably put here by mistake, because it's a sentence fragment from the article - not my words. I'm not seeing the problem with the rest, however. I wasn't trying to pick fights. I received two warnings in april which I tried to discuss and clarify, but unfortunately I didn't get any responses. Still, it is true that wikipedia isn't a forum, and some of the discussions I involved myself in, did unfortunately go in that direction, which was not my intent. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my opinion, even if you are unfailingly polite towards other users, expressing your POV with phrases like "far right grifter", "trump bootlicker", "the same cancer that's destroying modern society" and "nearly destroyed the country" shows me that you are more interested in promoting your political ideology than in building an encyclopedia. I am actually sympathetic because I shore many of your opinions about certain recent politicians, but I mostly keep those opinions to myself because they are out of place here.

The other problem I see is WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't just express your political opinions. You keep expressing your political opinions again and again even when it has become clear that the consensus is against you. What I am not seeing is any hint of compromise or cooperation.

In my opinion, you should be topic banned from anything related post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention one of the three users who supported your version felt the need to write that "Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia" so no prizes for guessing what their agenda here is.[304]

Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame. [305] redacted by another editor

Link to open BLP/N thread

I've only had extensive experience with this editor on the Gina Carano article, and in general it hasn't been very pleasant. They have no issue with making BLP violating comments on the talk page, or accusing editors of having an agenda. The two quotes above give, I think, a reasonable distillation of what discussions with them are like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been watching this IP editor for a month or so (since they joined the Peterson article). I raised a concern with their talk page comments on their talk page here [[306]]. I share Guy Macon's concerns. I do think it is a positive sign that they have, after posting here, started removing some of their offending comments (example [[307]]). I also will say I don't see disruption of the article's themselves, just frustrating talk page behavior. My feeling is they are on a fence. If they recognize the issue and are willing to fix the problem I think any additional sanctions would be punitive. However, if they continue I would support some type of Tban. It might have to be an IP range block due to the lack of a named account. It also would be good if they created an account. The combination of aggressive comments and shifting IPs is a problem. Several of the talk pages have similar warnings. Springee (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• As with Springee above, I am willing to grant a very short length of WP:ROPE given that the user in question appears to be willing to redact their earlier offensive comments and commit to being better behaved moving forward. I'd have considered a ban had they not just done so, and would be willing to consider a formal ban of some sort if the shenanigans continue, however. --Jayron32 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• My initial tendency on this one was to also go for a warning given my assumption this was a new editor and WP is a different environment than most others. However, I'm not sure I agree anymore. Now that I've seen this behavior has gone on for a while and only seems to change when ANI gets involved. I would recommend reading the previous incident report and noting that IP was already on a short rope. I might also be a bit more supportive if the user was making constructive edits otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. This feels very much like a user who wants a forum and to POV push and thinks they can walk the line on behavior, backing off just shy of getting banned. I'd recommend a Tban as well, but can support a warning if we think that is more prudent. Just a note to future ANI administrators in case this comes up again. Squatch347 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Having just reviewed the earlier ANI, I'm going to suggest a short rope strategy that might not be technically possible. I would suggest range blocking the IP but offering the option to create an account that isn't blocked (is that possible?). If they mess up the account gets blocked and future IP edits can be blocked per EVADE. However, they still have ROPE so they can show that they were listening. Springee (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I oppose giving this IP more rope, based upon:

1. The promises given in the previous ANI report and the rope they were given at that time.
2. Their heartfelt belief that anything other than demonizing any person and any source that shows the slightest trace of conservatism is a NPOV violation that must be fought tooth and nail no matter what the consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Dajo767

Dajo767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think this speaks for itself. WP:NPA, WP:NOTHERE, and so on. TompaDompa (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I posted it there not to contaminate the talk page further with our bickering. You obviously cannot be open and discuss without imposing and attempting to dominate Dajo767 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC). People can go through the talk section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language and see for themselves the months of feuding which happened. I contacted two wikipedia adminstrators. Twice the article was changed protection. Dajo767 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Like you said this speaks for iteself. I had not received any help from the appeals I made to two wikipedia administrators to resolve this dispute. It's all on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language. Dajo767 (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my words. Dajo767 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I request you further not to place messages on my user page again Dajo767 (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I find it hilarious when you brought up WP:NOTHERE because this clearly applies to you concerning your edits on the World language. Check the talk page Dajo767 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Dajo767, You may want to stop posting unless someone asks you a question or you have to refute a point. I am certain you're not helping your case right now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Dajo767's edits, edit warring and ownership issues on the article in question, I don't think it's looking good on your edits. And making a blanket statement that you will just outright revert the edits of another edit based purely on who they are, shows that maybe it's you that is not capable of editing in a collaborative manner? In the current edit warring you're doing, TompaDompa asked for more verrification for the claims, and you just blanket reverted them. Someone else restored them and you reverted again. Twice. At this moment the only user I'm looking at for disruptive editing, edit warring and inability to edit in a collaborative manner is Dajo767. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is just beyond the pale. "And do not forget that he uses misdirection and manipulation - a psychopathic editor - by changing the templates and the reasons for those templates for his own - hence his name is mentioned at the original research template - as a warning to everyone of this user." I'm tempted just to outright block you just for writing that on Wikipedia servers. Canterbury Tail talk 19:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If I may respond, you were only studying the recent edits. Looking at these places everything out of context. I urge you to go through the talk page talk page Dajo767 (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Specifically these two talksections that speak about TompaDoma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language#User_TompaDompa_using_this_page_to_promote_his_views and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language#Stop_disrupting_this_artcile. Dajo767 (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Answer us why you felt that sentence I posted above was an acceptable thing to write on Wikipedia about another editor. Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, Dajo767 you are only making it worse for yourself. After ending up here for accusing a user of psychopatic, you post in defense (?) a case of you calling the same user's drunken and hysterical? You must understand that that kind of language has no place on Wikipedia. As ScottishFinnishRadish already said, the best you can do now is to stop talking (and preferably apologise for the language).Jeppiz (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh and incidentally I've read those sections. It's quite clear that you are the problem here, not TompaDompa, thank you for drawing our attention directly to that fact and pointing us to the evidence. You clearly are unwilling to accept that you are wrong. Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles in accordance with our policies and guidelines, they do NOT need to be experts in the subject. In fact it's often best that they aren't, because we rely on what independent reliable third party sources say about the topic, not our own opinion and not our own original research. Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Dajo767 I give you one chance now to repond to explain to us why you shouldn't be immediately blocked for ownership issues, edit warring, disruptive editing and egregious personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 20:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• As the user on whose talk page this was posted, I felt very surprised and then immediately reverted Dajo767's edit on my talk page; I felt very uncomfortable in particular by the sentence Canterbury Tail also highlight above. I also struggle how anyone can accuse TompaDompa of WP:NOTHERE. My impression is the opposite; even when I have disagreed with TompaDomba, I have found the user polite, willing to discuss and willing to listen. I see no basis for the accusations against them and feel uncomfortable being dragged into this against my will (by having had it posted on my talk). I would strongly encourage Dajo767 to remove the personal attacks on any other place they may have posted it. Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the question of colloborative editing, this was how the article looked like on 10 February 2021 before TompaDoma started being active. It has content which were contributions by many editors (including TompaDoma's) from their sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_language&oldid=1005959032 and this how the article looked less looked like recently on 11:27, 2 May 2021 , which was purely and 100 percent filled with TompaDoma's own edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_language&oldid=1021009442 Dajo767 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: In the middle of this discussion, while talking about their edit warring etc, Dajo767 decided, after having been warning about 3RR and given a chance to explain himself on all the above, to revert some tagging on the article because they don't think the unsourced item is controversial. Words quite literally fail me at this point. Despite it being their first offense I believe in light of the above, the talk page comments, the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the egregious personal attack that they refuse to defend or apologise for, I have gone straight to an indef. If another admin wishes to review and things it's too hard, feel free to do what you feel is best. But, I just can't. Words fail me right now. Canterbury Tail talk 20:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Good block. I've been reading through Talk:World language and the intransigence of Dajo767 seems to have been going on for months. I was quite impressed by the patience shown and repeated attempts to educate Dajo by the other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty impressive isn't it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

206.74.86.194

• 206.74.86.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Revdel and block please. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: did the block and I got the revdel. --Jayron32 22:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Forrestgump420 and Chauvin Lede

• Forrestgump420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account Forrestgump420 is a single-purpose account who has a crusade about the wording of the lede in Derek Chauvin. The article describes him as an American former police officer. The user insists that there is a grammatical rule about adjective order, and that he should be referred to as a former American police officer. It has been pointed out that Chauvin is still an American, because his conviction does not revoke his citizenship. The user tried to argue at Talk:Derek Chauvin, which was closed by User:JzG. The user tried to argue at the Teahouse. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1021294333#new_editor/seeking_to_clarify_Derik_Chauvin_lead . The user tried to argue at DRN, which I closed on 5 May at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_206#Derek_Chauvin . The user has filed again at DRN, which is becoming a nuisance. I request a topic-ban against the user on all matters related to Derek Chauvin. If this amounts to a de facto ban, that is what happens to disruptive single-purpose accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, the editor's edit summaries are a personal attack against User:Ivanvector. Please revdel them. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought but their comments hardly rise to the level of revdel. Maybe ironically, the comment of mine that they've repeatedly referred to as a threat was a warning not to make threats. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Agree, time for a partial block from that article and talk. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from any mention of Derek Chauvin and also all grammar related nitpicking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal WP:PBLOCK from both Derek Chauvin and Talk:Derek Chauvin, topic ban from all discussions about grammar. This is beyond disruptive. --Jayron32 22:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Partial block. This is wasting everyone's time. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 23:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just block them. Come on, this is a troll account. Their userpage is a rambling polemic, they've been editing simultaneously as 2600:1702:2340:9470::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) this whole time (courtesy ping El C regarding that range's multiple blocks), their username may be a WP:DISRUPTNAME violation, and probably most obvious of all, they're fighting about being knowledgeable in proper English grammar with comments like "for example the word standard generally modifies (describes) the word proper which in turn generally modifies the specific term [in this case a word ( a term can be more then one word..for example police officer is a term )] which is english...as it does in other written languages" and have spelled Chauvin's name incorrectly multiple times, including in their most recent repeat DRN request. Block them and carry on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Civility of editor User:MjolnirPants in discussions

• MjolnirPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MPants at work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Some edits were made from this account)

• Snopes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Civility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Assume good faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I brought up on the talk page of Snopes that the content could be improved along with my suggestions for doing so. MjolnirPants disagrees with my suggestions, but the violation is that he is being uncivil and/or failing to AGF while expressing that disagreement.

Several uncivil and/or non-AGF statements he has made are as follows:

• Suggesting that I have not read the content of the article that I am making suggestions about:
  • "You need to read the whole section."
• Implying that I have an ulterior motive:
  • "labelling satire as false is only controversial among those who rely on spreading fake news with tiny little "satire" disclaimers for political gain."

• Further uncivil and/or non-AGF statements:
  • Edit summery "rv pure hypocrisy"
  • Edit summary "You're not gonna like where this is going..."

The owner of all ✌️ 22:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• If those are your standards for intolerable incivility, you're probably going to have a difficult time working with other people in all aspects of life. --Jayron32 22:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • That may be true, but I'm not sure if it's relevant to this issue. The owner of all ✌️ 22:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • You've brought another editor here for santioning for mild incivility. That's not going to happen. Was that less circumlocutionary for you? --Jayron32 23:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• • • • If nothing is going to happen then we can just close this discussion. The owner of all ✌️ 23:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • You know what, I don't think we should. There's some additional parts of this situation that needs to be explored, as noted below. Let's see where this discussion goes. --Jayron32 23:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Note, this editor was just threatened with a block for an attempt to game WP:3RRN. I'm not going to get into the meat of the content question at the heart of the issue here, but I will say that this editor's preferred content is the sort of thing many admins might see as a policy problem, itself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, User:The owner of all opened this complaint just minutes after being warned for launching a different spurious complaint against MPants at AN3. They should at the very least be warned about WP:FORUMSHOP. Generalrelative (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see this as a "forumshop" violation. I reported the potential edit warring to the edit warring noticeboard, and the incivility to here. The owner of all ✌️ 23:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• And that's another example. He thinks that I'm only here to insert policy-violating content in articles. The owner of all ✌️ 23:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  This ANI posting is meritless (if not ridiculous). You should withdraw it to avoid being sanctioned and so as not to waste the community's time. --JBL (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

147.161.9.167

147.161.9.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism by user. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)