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

Link corrections by User:0blcsp

Resolved

0blcsp (talk · contribs) has been making edits recently that include what he calls in the edit summary "link corrections". What he means is replacing [[target|something else that redirects to that target]] by [[something else that redirects to that target]], like the example I posted on their talkpage: [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]] to [[Russian SFSR]]. Am I correct that this should not be done? Debresser (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible that they're simplifying code via the source editor? It seems like they're reducing the article's byte size from edits generated by the visual editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Without looking into those edits in detail, the relevant guideline is WP:NOTBROKEN. As a DABfixer, I see many links which could be "improved". I mostly ignore them, both because (a) if it works, don't fix it, and (b) life's too short. I try only to change otherwise-good links if the replacement would be more intuitive and therefore more helpful to readers. I would never alter something like [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]] or [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|RSFSR]] - the mouseover might save a click for any reader who knows the longer name. Narky Blert (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert This is more than WP:NOTBROKE, the complete target is actually useful, as you write too. Debresser (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: That is well possible. Do you mean to say that Wikipedia:VisualEditor is doing this on its own? That seems like something that should not happen. I'll alert them to this post. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, VisualEditor, from what I heard, adds some extraneous data to elements like tables; it's not perfectly optimised (and technically is still a "beta" feature). What could have happened is that an editor may have used the VisualEditor to create a link (e.g., Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) before changing the link text to "Russian SFSR". To my knowledge, that would generate [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]]. Unless the redirect Russian SFSR doesn't target the original link, I find it to be a harmless change. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

0blcsp continues with these disruptive edits.[1][2][3] He is unresponsive on his talkpage, and has not deigned it necessary to post in this threat, even though he was informed.[4] I propose a block till such time as he acknowledges that he should not make such edits. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Since he still continues, and admins here have not taking measures, I have reverted some of his latest edits which contained the problematic removal of useful link targets. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Partially blocked from article space for 2 weeks. The editor was warned by the reporter and by Narky Blert to stop and has kept going without discussing the concerns. Hopefully the block gets them to engage, and if not it at least gives us a respite from the useless changes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope so too. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Commons admin needed

It looks like we had a serial election maps hoaxer active earlier this year, User:The Empire of History. See this revision of their talk page for some of what got caught earlier. Basically, their M.O. is to create hoax maps of election articles, showing incorrect results (note, the site they seem to be making these on, US Election Atlas, does use nonstandard red/blue alignment for the US major political parties, so it's not just a color inversion thing). Rather, these results are fabricated. For instance, compare File:Georgia 2016, U.S. Election Atlas.png to the correct File:Georgia Presidential Election Results 2016.svg. I've been prodding these as I've found them, but some, including the Georgia one mentioned above, have apparently found their way onto Commons. Obviously, these need deleted ASAP as hoaxes, but it's fairly late where I am, and I don't have the alertness to go through the whole Commons deletion request bit for the Commons one, as I'm not particularly familiar with the Common setup. It's possible some of these are correct, so they'll all need checking, but every single one of the ones I've looked at so far is so error-ridden that it's either a hoax, made up by the user, or just poorly done. I can't stay up all night cleaning this up, so hopefully someone else can take a look, too. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The place to report this is Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I have batch nominated the images on commons (almost 450!) for deletion, see c:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_The_Empire_of_History (scroll down to the second nomination). I did not conduct an exhaustive search, but given my experience with this particular editor (creating fictional/alt-history election maps), I have little faith that any are worth keeping. I have also blocked The Empire of History as NOTHERE since they've apparently continued playing their history games in their sandbox since I last deleted it...you can't tell from xtools, but they have made 3600 edits, and over half of those are in the deleted sandbox history. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that appears to have caught most of them. I've been hunting down the last few survivors. They were quite ... prolific ... Hog Farm _Bacon 20:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe want to speedy or bulk-XFD the ones here instead of PROD? That will get it done either "faster" or "with centralized record", so we can remember to revisit in a few days and check if any got missed. Same goes for after the suite of commons files get deleted. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll deal with this tomorrow if no one gets to it by then. --Minorax (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed on the talk page of the trade war article

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

---

• China–United States trade war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Flaughtin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In relation to thhe exchanges here and here, I am filing this request to ask for administrative intervention in relation to the relevant debates on the talk page of the China-United States trade war article (subsections 17, 19-22) which unfortunately has yet to happen. An involved editor has opened an RFC and I have raised the objection (on multiple occassions) that that should happen (if at all) only after an administrator has went through and made remarks on the aforementioned debates so that the RFC issue can be resolved in a manner that satisfies all the involved parties. Flaughtin (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. After being warned previously about battleground behavior, User:Flaughtin is now trying to derail an RFC originally started by User:Chess and then by me, first by removing the section [5][6] and then by asking other editors not to comment[7]. For context, see two previous ANI discussions: 1 2. In both discussions, sanctions on Flaughtin were proposed, but the discussions were archived before anything was done.

I would really appreciate help resolving this dispute. It feels like every attempt to find resolution gets derailed by Flaughtin's disruptive behavior. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion that I'm trying to derail an RFC is nonsensical. I never said I'm against having an RFC. What I am against is your RFCs which I removed because they were fundamentally malformed. (it should be pointed out that I have let your latest malformed RFC stand in the interest of desisting from any further edit warring) What I am saying is that if we are going to have an RFC then it has to be done correctly. You just don't like what I am doing because you just want to cut the corners. I mean I really hate to be uncivil but for fuck's sake the guy asked you what your RFC would be about and you just went ahead and initiated it without his prior input; the least you could have done is waited for him to respond before starting your RFC. It's a pretty simple request I'm making and one that already has external support: given the complexity of the issues, an administrator should look at what's going on, and if there is consensus over how how the RFC issues should be dealt with, then that will be the basis of further action. Nothing extreme about it unless of course you are in a rush to ram through material that a plurality of editors on the talk page have already extensively objected to. Flaughtin (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Those discussions look to be a mess. I think the chances of getting an editor to wade through them all and determine if there is consensus is probably slim. It would likely be better to use an RfC to get wider input to try and seek consensus without such a messy discussion. Of course it would be better if all of you could at least come to some consensus on a reasonable RfC before hand. If you already have 6 options and evidently need more that doesn't seem particularly reasonable. Is it really that hard for you all to compromise and discuss things so you can agree on something that doesn't require more than 6 options? Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• You keep asking for an admin to intervene to settle a content dispute. But that's not what admins are for. That's what RFCs are for. If other editors are attempting to settle the issue and you keep deleting the RFC, undermining it, and attacking other editors, then the only likely admin action is going to be removing you from the topic so that the editors who are actually interested in discussing the issue can settle it without your disruption. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

"That's what RFCs are for." I am aware of that which is why I said at the outset that I'm not against having an RFC. I'm not undermining the RFC, I'm correcting for its defects. (Administrators are welcomed to correct me if I've misunderstood what the defects are) Did you even read what I wrote? Flaughtin (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with you that admin intervention is needed here. It will probably end with you being topic-banned from this area. You cannot have several different options in an RfC. The guidance for RfCs at WP:RFCBRIEF explicitly gives as an example an RfC question with six different options. The RfC with your additional options added has six different versions. At a certain point you need to coalesce the issues here into a succint set of questions. That is what I tried to do and that's what Mx. Granger is also currently trying to do. It is true that the options won't be able to encompass all the possible viewpoints and some possibilities won't be included. But that's what needs to happen in order to achieve consensus. We need to compromise in order to get stuff done here and that involves making difficult decisions and cutting down the number of options to make an effective RfC. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've given my explanation for my inclusion of the other options here. That is the lowest number of options for the RFC due to the length of the related exchanges and the malformed nature of the initial RFC. Flaughtin (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest an admin reviews Flaughtin's's behavior which in my view possibly has had the effect of disrupting attempts to gain consensus, especially after winning an edit war. Behavior includes use of excessive bludgeoning of discussions. Very serious is removal of others contributions from talk pages and unilateral ending of two good faith RFCs which resulted in disruption of good faith attempts to resolve the dispute, the second one of which [8] I choose to re-instate [9]. Flaughtin's additions of three additional versions to the RFC has been commented above as excessive and unhelplful; though a "None of above" may have merit. There seems possibilities Flaughtin will continue to disrupt moves to consensus and possibly goad another editor into getting blocked. It is surely necessary to show such behaviors will be challenged by admins, and perhaps a case for asking Arbom committee candidates about their views on how to handle. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion that I'm disrupting consensus is nonsensical when the consensus was (and still is) for a version of a text tat I preferred, and particularly so when the offending editor who did disrupt the consensus (see this) has had an established history of edit warring. (See this and this) As I've stated on the archived ANI I will going forward self-correct if administrators have determined that I was in the wrong when I removed the initial RFC - adminis and non-admins will note that I haven't removed your reinstatement of the RFC. Please do not make such comments again on things you are unsure of (or just know nothing about). Flaughtin (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Flaughtin‎: Given you've raised this ANI and given my comment above it is not wrong though probably not best practice to "de-clutter" your talk page [10] at this time as peoples may think there are things you do not want them to see. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

My page, my rights. I have nothing to hide so when you say that there are things I may not want people to see it doesn't apply to me. If there's something somebody wants clarification for, they are welcomed to ask. Flaughtin (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is the third time the China–United States trade war issue has ended up at ANI, and I hope we can avoid ending up here again. I'd appreciate it if administrators could weigh in on User:Flaughtin's behavior based on this thread and the other two (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Issue at China–United States trade war, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#User Thucydides411). —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Discretionary sanction imposed on Flaughtin Specifically, Flaughtin is topic banned from any edits or discussion relating to the trade war between China and the United States for a period of 6 months. That so many participants find the reporter's conduct disruptive is telling, but looking through the talk page and previous ANI threads I'm convinced that the inability to build consensus is due to the reporter's tendentious editing. For example, Chess tried to start an RfC on 31 October which was summarily reverted by Flaughtin. About a week later, another RfC was started by Granger, but this time Flaughtin added 4 more options bringing the total to a whopping 6 leading to a bit of a trainwreck. This thread demonstrates Flaughtin is still trying to disrupt the consensus building process by trying to get an admin to short-circuit the RFC process. This is evidently a long term problem as well as we had an ANI thread from two weeks ago where editors were suggesting Flaughtin be topic banned for their conduct. In the previous discussion, editors raised concerns that Flaughtin was canvasing editors to the talk page discussion and the relevant edit shows serious problems with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality since Flaughtin said they wanted to know "who my opponent(s) will be." As a whole, the editor's conduct is concerning and detrimental to consensus building, so hopefully removing them from the topic area will allow consensus to form. I'm off to file the paperwork. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Mirhasanov

Dear Admins. It appears to me that Mirhasanov who is very active on the talkpage Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, commenting virtually under every topic, is not here to help to build the encyclopedia, but to create an alternative view of the history of the subject and to advance the official views of Azerbaijani government. He tries to create illusion that no changes to article could me made without (his) consensus. He claims his aim is to make the article "less biased" and "clean it from pro-Armenian propaganda", although it feels the contrary. He constantly bothers an involved administrator asking for solidarity. Unsurprisingly, he denies the Armenian Genocide in the same talkpage, saying The "Armenian Genocide" term itself is still disputed as Armenians rejects to create common investigation bodies with Turkish officials to investigate what happened on those days. It as multiple times offered by turkish officials and free access to Armenians to Ottoman Archives were guaranteed. - a standard denial trick. Here is a list of his contributions, I can see there were issues with behaviour before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Mirhasanov&offset=&limit=500&target=Mirhasanov

Even your complain content is your own opinion and you can't back up with facts about me disturbing or doing any revert war. Silence is an answer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Solavirum%27s_edits_-_removing_Putin%27s_reference_to_Sumgait - Where my purposal also accepted by admin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#IAGS_open_letter - Where I refer IAGS official letter that I have but you refer to Armenian site to include the content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Genocide_Watch - Were I insist the site is not reliable. Site already proved what I said, by deleting all relevant content from the site published previously. genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh - the content was deleted.

I am doing research here and try to reach consensus first to avoid any one sided content to be published. An all my activities are clear demonstration of it. Mirhasanov (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here are just some of the Mirhasanov's edits that are worth of administrative attention, but as I said earlier, the whole behaviour and skewing the sentences rather than separate edits are suggestive of agenda / POV-advancing.

• Here and here he tries hard to a modify Putin’s statement about Sumgait pogrom against Armenians starting this war into a revisionist conclusion that Sumgait pogroms were preceded by “ethnic crimes” by Armenians, and then “pogroms against each other” happened, then refuses to bring any sources apart from his own POV, accusing me of serving the “propaganda machine”.
• Here and here, he makes every effort to put Genocide Watch organisation under a dark light only because their statement contained accusation of Azerbaijan of genocide The chair is known for his pro-Armenian and anti-Turkish statements (stating that Turkey committed genocide against Armenians is a pro-Armenian and anti-Turkish statement in the editor’s understanding). He expresses his POV denying each of “10 stages of genocide” without sources, going as far as denying Armenian Genocide himself.
• Here he claims he had “an email from IAGS” that rejects the ownership of their letter” and wants his words to serve as evidence.
• Here he offers getting in touch outside Wikipedia with two user both of which were recently blocked / banned from editing the article. I suspect those out-of-wikipedia online meetings are advancing of Azerbaijani POV as a group.
• Here, an involved admin confesses that he is getting tired of the user constantly pinging him to every little issue on this page, particularly ones where it's not clear what is he expected to do.Armatura (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one incredibly uncomfortable with anyone who denies the Armenian genocide being allowed anywhere near articles which deal with Armenia in any way (including anything relating to the current war)? Is denial of the Armenian genocide so widespread among Turkish and Azerbaijan editors that we'd cut off most of them if topic banned them? Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Turkey and Azerbaijan are the only countries in the world that (unsurprisingly) officially deny that there was an Armenian genocide.Armatura (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Having worked on the article in question since the outbreak of war in late September and reviewing contributions, I'm of the opinion to support a topic ban against Mirhasanov from WP:AA2 topics. While I think that some of the evidence provided by Armatura is not as bad as it's made out to be (mostly the objections to Genocide Watch, a source which has received a mixed response in a recent RSN discussion and which was sharply denounced since then, from an Armenian POV no less, in an open letter by the president of the IAGS [11]; I think that the comments regarding the inclusion of content about ethnic violence the Background section also fall below the level of requiring sanctions when reviewed in the context of that discussion as a whole). However, the apparent engagement in offsite coordination with other pro-Azerbaijan editors is very concerning, and trying to use (alleged) private correspondence in a discussion is just plain bad editing. I'm honestly unsure what to do about the Armenian genocide denial in abstract; I abhor it, but also recognize that it is genuinely a (the?) predominant perspective in Turkey in Azerbaijan. Ultimately, I think that having Mirhasanov editing these articles (or more accurately, their talk pages as he has not yet received ECP) is a net negative. Unlike other editors that could be accused of POV-pushing a 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Mirhasanov has largely failed to make any constructive, proactive contributions in discussions. At best, he's echoed good suggestions made by other editors when they happen to coincide with a pro-Azerbaijan POV. His attempts to ping me in like an attack dog whenever he sees something he doesn't like are genuinely a waste of my time, and I'm mildly horrified that as much as I already feel over-pinged, probably a full half of the times he's attempted to ping me have failed because he didn't sign the original message properly (for the record, several other editors working on this article, particularly those who appear to have pro-Azerbaijan sympathies, have also been pinging me quite a bit, some of them more than they should. Mirhasanov nonetheless stands ahead of the pack in this regard, at least as far as the last two weeks are concerned). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Rosguill:, would you be happy to go ahead and impose the topic ban you supported? This topic was archived by a bot, which means other admins won't see it on noticeboard anymore. Regards, Armatura (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: you decision is not clear for me. Could you please be more clear where I went against wikipedia rules? The basis you are stating and me using you as an attack dog also looks me that you have some personal issues with me. All topics that I involved proved that I was right and if you would check the article that points as already been removed including GW discussion. Regarding IAGS letter I officially have email from the organization that says we haven't issued any such letter. Can I understand what is problem? Mirhasanov (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please explain me what wrong I did here where you also was involved to the discussion? You advised sentence and I make it based on your advice, however our armenian writers refused all what been agreed and changed the article as they wish. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war&diff=prev&oldid=986899581 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war&diff=prev&oldid=986671476.

Regarding GW which this link show to prove someting about my acton https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war&diff=prev&oldid=986496279. The report already was deleted by GW itself. I proved to be right as the issued report was unprofessional and didn't reflect truth. Again could you please explain me what wikipedia rules I broke?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war&diff=prev&oldid=987142838 - I dont' claim, I have an official letter. Please let me to know how I can share it with you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solavirum&diff=prev&oldid=985575734 - What is the problem connecting with these guys? Is it against rules?

Denial of so called Armenian genocide has nothing to do with this topic. For you information this genocide only accepted by 32 countries what has political hostility with Turkey. Shall we avoid users out of these 32 countries not edit the topic?

Again I want to underpin that all what provided here as evidence are discussions in TALK page. There is nothing that proves that I went against Wikipedia Rules. I would ask administrators to take time and investigate links that supposed to be prove what Armatura claims here. Mirhasanov (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: this thread was auto-archived and Armatura and Mirhasanov posted the above to the archive 1051 page. I restored this thread from the archives so discussion can continue. FYI ping Rosguill, Armatura, and Mirhasanov. Lev¡vich 07:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, I believe I explained my overall rationale above, but I'll rephrase it. While no single thing you have done breaks a red line rule (although the off-site coordination on a POV basis is quite bad), it's readily apparent from your participation on talk pages that you are here to push a POV, and after several weeks of rather active participation, you have yet to make much in the way of constructive contribution. While there are other editors involved in the subject area that also have clear POVs, for the most part they have been more proactive about contributing prose that suggests good faith efforts at neutrality (and if anyone else falls short of that mark after having been given several chances, I would support a tban against them as well). Your general POV is also well-represented among other editors that have been much more constructive, so I'm not particularly concerned that this will tip a balance as far as disputes about AA2 are concerned. If another admin thinks that this matter requires more discussion before any bans are implemented, I have no objection to them undoing the sanction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill One example to what you have said. Please see this lin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Solavirum's_edits_-_removing_Putin's_reference_to_Sumgait , where I proposed constructive approach. That was rejected by por-Armenian users and they conducted thir edits as they wish, the even discuss how make it better and more pro-Armenian by shedding facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Remove_Gugark_and_Stepanakert_%22pogroms%22_from_the_background_section

Do you think these users pushes their POV's less or their approach to push POV is more balanced and organized? Regarding me pinging you, as I mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#CuriousGolden_edit_(removal_of_the_bulk_of_human_rights_organizations_reactions_and_artificial_equalisations_of_the_reactions) it was because your health view to the topic. Since you showing your annoyment did I ever ping you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Remove_Gugark_and_Stepanakert_%22pogroms%22_from_the_background_section - Do you think this is more constructive where two pro-Armenian users discuss the topic, agree with each other and then conduct their edits, but when I join and question things it considered bad faith? or do you think Armatura here is acting more balanced to push his POV than I do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#improper_quotes. If yes, then why to ban me, I am just less experienced than him/her, moreover I even don't have any edit privilege under this topic.

We had discussion with you regarding this topic and I raised my concerns about the article being more pro-Armenian where you have also agreed. You have blocked CuriousGolden now trying to block me, then let me guess it will be Solavirum and eventually Beshogur and others that with your word unfortunately pushes their POVs less balanced way than those pro-Armenian POV. What will be then? Leaving the field only for pro-Armenian writers because they are good in complaining to admins? Can we be objective? Mirhasanov (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that all of the other editors you mention have shown clear POVs, but have made more substantial attempts to contribute constructively. I haven't blocked CuriousGolden, so I'm not sure what that accusation is about. The topic ban I implemented is indefinite, not infinite: even if the ban is upheld for now, there's always the opportunity for you to appeal down the road. You can build up your experience as an editor by editing less controversial subjects. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't banned. I chose to avoid the said article because I had reverted over 3 times (at the time, I hadn't read WP:3RR in detail) for 2 weeks by my own will. And the 2 weeks has already expired anyway. To be fair, there's barely any user on the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war page that doesn't show POV. Therefore I'd hope that there would be much stricter administrator presence in that article as the whole talk page is people with clear POVs going against each other for their own POVs. Which is largely one of the reasons I don't plan on being active on that talk page again. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Basically, what you are saying is, all people under [[12]] are pushing their POVs. Even though there is no single thing that Mirhasanov have done breaks a red line rule, I still support Mirhasanov's ban because I am unconscious bias against him due to his attitude pinging me in the past. Moreover, Mirhasanov should stop discussion under TALK page of [[13]] and not disturb pro-Armenian writers to push their own POVs as they are doing it in more constructive and better way. Do you think it is fair decision? Mirhasanov (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, Rosguill has explained their reasoning above more than once. Nowhere did they say that they have an unconscious bias against you, nowhere did they say your pings were the a factor in their decision, nowhere did they say that pro-Armenian writes should be left undisturbed. Your attempts to mischaracterise their words in this way is insulting to them, and is not going to sway anyone to see things from your perspective; indeed, your attitude here is enough to convince me that their decision is sound. I strongly suggest that you reflect on what Rosguill has said, and on your own actions, then go edit a different area. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I don't see any clear justification for ban. What explained above is opinions like yours. Please provide one evience where I went against Wikipedia rules. Can you? If not, the decision banning me is not more than your biased approach to shut one side and let other side do whatever they want in order to avoid reviews to multiple complains and pings giving you stress or horrification like it was mentioned above. I can enlist here multiple evidences where Armatura went against wikipedia rules and involved to conflict with admin.[[14]]. Mirhasanov (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, that does not follow. You are arguing that because you do not understand someone else's judgment, it must therefore be due to bias on their part. The statements you have made are outrageous mischaracterisations of what Rosguill has said; you need to back away from that stance and make a genuine effort to understand their position. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I understand the position of Rosguill. He/she tries act as neutral. He/she has punished Armatura, but Armatura accusing him not being neutral, he is punishing me to balance the situation. However, I can't understand the position of Armatura because he/she left below message to me, which clearly reflects his/her intention:

Mirhasanov, I am not happy with the overall content of your discussions on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war page.

He is not happy because I think so called armenian genocide doesn't proved yet. He may get offended, as I do get when he and pro-Armenian writer add unbalanced text and information to show Azeris as an evil. Hence, I do believe that it shouldn't be part of discussion or factor for decision making to ban me.

Anyway, I don't ask here not ban me, as I never had any privilege to do edits under this topic. For sake of fair arbitration, I need a single evidence to show me where I did break the rule. Rosguill him/herself proved that I didn't pass any redlines in his above statement. Moreover, all links provided to prove my guitiness proves that I conducted rational approach and in the end I was right. All this edits were removed from the article as it proved be unreliable. I just don't understand what is accusation here? My support to pro-Azeri topics? or me creating challenge to pro-Armenian authors?

Mirhasanov, just FYI, pings don't work if you don't sign your posts.

I believe that Rosguill explained their rationale for instating the TBan above, more than once. You were advised earlier this year that this topic area was covered by discretionary sanctions; an uninvolved admin is empowered to impose a ban if they conclude that your editing within the area is not a net positive for the project. They have indicated that they are happy for another admin to rescind the ban if they feel it's unnecessary - having seen your comments in this thread, I am not minded to do that. My advice to you at the moment is to demonstrate that you can edit collaboratively in an area that you are less passionately about, then perhaps in six months with a good track record of positive contributions, ask that it be rescinded. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit How I can be guilty in something, if I didn't change or revert anything in [[15]] and all conversations I was involved in talk page resulted with deletion of what I purposed, because again I would like to reiterate that, "I was right with my challenges". Please again check that I never had rights to edit the page. My discussion in talk page was rational and unbiased. Even though you can't provide proofs, me breaking Wikipedia rules, let me bring evidences that I conducted rational discussion:

Case 1: Here [[16]] two pro-Armenian user that one of them is here who raised the case against me, tried add the below sentence:

I propose to change "Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991" to Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, with a series of massacres against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

I opposed that because this sentence was one sided and misdirecting the readers. After involving Rosguill we drafted more balanced sentence below:

Ethnic violence in the region began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. As a result both sides have conducted series crimes on an ethnic basis against each other, that eventually lead to pogroms and mass deportation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis from major cities.

However, these users still edited the sentence as they wish and after while in order to make the sentence more balanced, someone finalized it as below, which was exactly what I purposed:

Ethnic violence began shortly thereafter with a series of pogroms between 1988 and 1990 against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku, and against Azerbaijanis in Gugark and Stepanakert.

However, these users are not happy and still want to change the sentence [[17]]

Case 2: here [[18]] pro-Armenian users claimed Azerbaijan conduction cultural genocide against Armenians referring some unknown site that publishes statement issued by IAGS. I raised my concern about reliability of the site. Eventually more people joined the point I made. I even write an email to IAGS and got an official response that, no such statement was issued by IAGS. However, pro-Armenian again insisted to insert this information by referring armenian site as a source, rejecting my official email. I am ready to share this email with all of you if you can advise, how I can do it. Thanks to my challenge the sentence was deleted from the article, by some independed user.

Please let me to know, whether I should bring 3rd Case to prove my constructive discussion skills?Mirhasanov (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, I'm not sure whether anything I can say here will satisfy you. You can be TBanned for disruption on a talk page, they are not restricted to disruption in article space. I have not reviewed the talk page discussions, and make no comment about whether the TBan was justified, merely that it was within Rosguill's discretion to have placed it. I originally commented on this thread because of your mischaracterisations of Rosguill's comments, and what I saw as disruptive comments from you right here, which you have still not withdrawn or even acknowledged. I am not inclined to review the TBan, and I stand by the advice which I have already given you. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I am sorry but you also making same mistake here. You judge me without assessing and reading my consensus discussions. I linked all my proof that I was not involved in destructive discussion. This is all I been involved under Nagorno Karabakh topic. Now you admins ( both) are judging being destructive but without an evidence showing me breaking rules. I did fact checking and source checking. I didn't offer or added anything that is not justified with an independen references. I strictly followed POV rules. What else should I do? Again my sensitivity is not because I am angry to you & :Rosguill , it is because I am accused for something that has no evidence, no proof. I just want you to ask yourself whether you are fair against me after all evidences I provide as a proof of my intention? If the answer still will be yes, I don't see any reason to continue and waste your and my time & nerves here. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, I'm afraid I don't know how to make this any clearer for you: I am not making any judgement of what you said or did at the article talk page, my comments have been directed at your comments here, in this thread. Yes, I believe I have been fair to you - I didn't impose any sanctions on you, I just told you that I thought your comments were out of line, and I offered you some advice about what you should do next. If you don't want to engage with my comments or take that advice on board, that's up to you. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: Please let me to know how I can send you the letter from IAGS. Mirhasanov (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged as this topic has continuing discussions. I want to thank the admins expressing their thoughts here. I have nothing to add, apart from that justice should prevail over legalism at least in Wikipedia, and this is what I am witnessing, much appreciated. Armatura (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Dear thank you very much for your advice. Of course I consider your advices. I see the user who has opened this discussion is very satisfied and thinks the justice prevailed. If I were him I would be also satisfied with outcome ANI bocking my opponent, without me providing sufficient evidences and consolidating the basis of the notice.

Rosguill I still believe that your comment is not fair. I am ready to have constrictive discussion with you to prove that. You know that I already apologize pinging you all the time and said that the only reason pinging you was because of your healthy vision. I even didn't know that you are admin to be hones, but it doesn't change anything I believe, we are all here to make wikipedia unbiased and informative. I also would like remind you our discussion here [19] as a proof of my good will and I encouraged from this discussion.

I also apologize if I misinterpreted something here and want you also wear my shoes, where you got suddenly banned without doing anything wrong agains community rules. To be honest, I am not capable to edit things and this is the reason why I am not doing it. I usually check sources and try to challenge them if they are not from reliable body. Therefore, all consensuses I was involved concluded with edit not done by me but by other users. I think that is it, I tried be honest in this message and the ball is with you. If you still think that banning me was properly justified by Armatura against cases I wrote here, I am afraid I should have doubts about your neutrality as an admin and I am looking forward for your advices in order to raise this issue to others, who can constructively and objectively make a decision. Mirhasanov (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• As no one other than Mirhasanov has moved to overturn my action and Mirhasanov has continued to edit Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war in contravention of the sanction I imposed, I have partially blocked them indefinitely from editing that page. This measure should obviously be reversed if my decision to impose the original ban is found to be unnecessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill so far it is only you protecting your decision and you are acting like you are the boss and your decision can't be changed. Your comments are your own POV and unjustified. Mirhasanov (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in further addressing Mirhasanov's concerns, as I believe that I have already addressed sufficient rounds of questions and accusations, and that any further dispute between us is a waste of time for both of us. I would appreciate it if you stop pinging me here. My previous comments about other editors intervening stand: any other admin can feel free to reverse my decisions to ban and then p-block if they find them to have been inappropriate, and I would consider appeals for reversal coming from non-admins other than Mirhasanov. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Could you please stop threatening me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rosguill#Brilliant

Disruptive POV edits from Belteshazzar on Bates Method and related articles suggest block or topic ban

Belteshazzar caused controversy on the Bates method article in March and May 2020, he still continues to edit this article and the talk-page. Many of his edits are pointy or violate NPOV and are usually reverted. If you check his block log or talk-page he was blocked in May for 31 hours and for 2 weeks in June for disruptive and POV edits on the Bates method article. The same user was also reported to this admin board [20] in July.

On 6 June 2020, I complained about Belteshazzar's disruptive edits [21] which were being made on a basis of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. Basically this user started to edit the Bates Method article to remove criticisms or challenge the "ineffective" statement in the lead. His purpose on Wikipedia was to dispute the claim of the Bates Method being ineffective. After he lost, to make a point he went onto articles related to the Bates method and did the complete opposite, you can see some of those edits in the diff I list above. After being blocked, now he has gone back to challenging the ineffective statement again.

Belteshazzar does not appear to have a good understanding of what the scientific method is. Now there is nothing wrong with this but at least four different users have explained to Belteshazzar why anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence, but he continues to ignore this. Instead he relies on anecdotal evidence for the claim that the Bates method is not ineffective. His flawed reasoning behind this is that if the Bates Method is ineffective then it couldn't have improved Aldous Huxley's eyesight. There has been a debate about that on the talk-page recently "ineffective", and I explained to him not to confuse anecdotal evidence with scientific studies with controls. If you check the talk-page itself, all we see is Belteshazzar, Belteshazzar and Belteshazzar. He's basically disrupted the article and talk-page for months. You can check the archives. He's been there since March 2020 creating countless sections [22] on the talk-page which pretty much all equate to the same agenda trying to get the term "ineffective" removed from the lead. This same user has caused problems on other articles related to the Bates method including Margaret Darst Corbett, The Art of Seeing etc.

As of 8 November 2020, Belteshazzar, is still editing the Bates Method and has recently said he wants to challenge the "ineffective" statement on Wikipedia regarding the Bates method [23]. We have been here many times before with this user. I believe this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. This user has been given many warnings and received blocks etc but never changes his behavior. A comment on his last block by an admin was "Last chance block for WP:POINTy behaviour". I believe this user has violated this. As others have requested before I believe this user should be topic banned from editing the Bates method or anything related to Ophthalmology. This user is lucky because he has received so many warnings and advice from many different editors, yet he ignores everyone. I personally think an outright block might be appropriate, the user in question is not acting in good faith. We need to ask ourselves what is going on here. It's disruption plain and simple, the user is not here to build or improve the project. His editing is agenda based to remove "ineffective" from the lead on the Bates method article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see my explanation for my post on my talk page. I don't intend to propose this myself, and I'm sure it wouldn't be implemented anyway, barring a surprising development. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent summary by PG, editer is an immense timesink, now just disruptive. Support outright block as proposed. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been idly following Talk:Bates method for some time, and I'm afraid I must also agree with Psychologist Guy, and advise anyone reading this to seriously just take a scroll through it and recent archives. It is not an exaggeration to say that Belteshazzar is very near to half of all the comments written on the talk page and archive pages 21 through 23, essentially all of them pushing pro-Bates POV and trying to remove "ineffective". Leijurv (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Much of it was me trying to better explain reasons the Bates method might seem to work, although the improvement may not be genuine or attributable to the Bates method. The initial discussion led to such explanations being removed from the article. Interestingly, sources from 1943 and 1957 are still used to source one such reason. [24] So there is some inconsistency regarding sources. I returned to "ineffective" when I realized that there is a known mechanism by which some aspects of the Bates method might genuinely work, although no valid source directly makes this connection. Also note that others have opposed "ineffective", but quickly given up. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• In my refined argument (which Psychologist Guy tried to link to here), I didn't bring up Huxley or any anecdotes. Psychologist Guy returned to what I previously said about that, however. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• I've not commented on Talk:Bates method since October 21, and for a while now my edits to the article have not concerned this aspect of the subject. The current situation was triggered by a comment I made on my own talk page, intended for possible future reference if the Bates method becomes less fringe. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• The July ANI report was made after I did something perfectly legitimate, as I explained here. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Here's a case where I fixed an actual pro-Bates pov: [25] Belteshazzar (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• [26] [27] This was a minor point, but it illustrates my confusion over "pov-pushing". We currently have exactly one source which makes or even mentions that argument, so how can we say it is a "frequent criticism"? Yes, that point comes up frequently in casual discussions about the Bates method, but so does pseudomyopia, which isn't currently mentioned in the article. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• From June 2019 to February 2020, four different established users removed "ineffective": [28] [29] [30] [31] Belteshazzar (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Hipal reverted my edit simply because I "need to be banned or blocked". When I earlier cleaned up the problematic section I mentioned, giving clear explanations, he treated me rather badly. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  I removed it because of the continued problems you cause, of which that is an example as is your response here, for which you need to be blocked or banned. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  You "removed" what? I only moved something to a more relevant section, and your revert moved it back. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Today I flagged an updated source which now explains possible risks which are not yet mentioned in the Bates method article. While I offer this to show that I am not pov-pushing, I did not do this simply to prove that; a source which I had been checking regularly was very recently updated (it says September, but it must have only been posted within the last few days). Belteshazzar (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no self-reflection here. If we look at Archive 21, Archive 22 and Archive 23 you have been obsessing about this article since March and you have an axe to grind. Your above edits show you are still obsessed and you still talk about it on users talk-pages [32]. Nearly all of your edits on the Bates method have been reverted. You have abused the talk-page c'mon just look at the archives! You have created many sections nit-picking at things others disagree with. It's getting to the point of being tedious. If we look at your over-all contribution you are not improving the article, nor this website in anyway. You rarely edit other articles, you always come back to disrupting the Bates method. When users are suggesting you should be topic-banned that is not unreasonable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes people disagree because they misunderstand. For example, some editors seemed not to believe for a while that blur adaptation was even real. I acknowledge that I have sometimes misunderstood things also. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And if we're going to talk about my conversations on user talk pages, here's the talk page of an optometrist who believes in the Bates method: User_talk:Peaceful07. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes and that conversation proves you are a bates POV pusher. We need to bring this to a closure. An admin needs to look at this and take action. I am not further responding. I count six different users in total on the archives of the bates method and here that have requested for you to be topic banned. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I was fully intent on letting this go unless and until a new source emerges. You didn't need to create this thread in the first place, especially considering that the catalyst was a comment on my own talk page intended only for possible future reference if things change. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot

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

Pasdecomplot has been warned multiple times over months by multiple editors about making accusations of bad faith, both at talk pages and in edit summaries.

Editors who want to edit in contentious areas should expect pushback. They should expect to have to defend every edit, to have other editors push back, to have to talk and talk and talk before making even small edits. PDC makes sweeping edits to an extremely contentious area – Tibetan Buddhism and China – and if another editor disagrees with their edits, they immediately go to accusations of bad faith, misrepresentation of sources, and hounding, both in posts and in edit summaries. I’ll note that I have only a general understanding of the subject, so I have no idea whether PDC’s edits are helpful or not. My concern is solely the unwillingness to assume good faith and focus on the edits rather than making accusations about the other editors’ motivations.

PDC now has nearly 2500 edits. They are no longer a newbie. They are ignoring our policies on assuming good faith, and they’re doing it flagrantly and unrepentantly and repeatedly. I hate to suggest they be topic banned from their clear area of highest interest, but I am at a loss, here. Personally all I want is to see them forbidden from making any accusation of bad faith of any kind against any other editor (broadly construed; that is, no referring to "bad faith edits") either on talk pages or in edit summaries.

Many editors have tried to help PDC understand this. These are just some of the more recent:

• Usedtobecool tried to explain Sept 21

• PDC continues to accuse others of bad faith editing September 30:1 2 3

• Message on PDC's talk from Cullen328, who on October 1 asks for an explanation. 4 PDC replies, including further accusations of bad faith in the reply and subsequent replies: 5

• Warning from me October 2, which included a plea for PDC to stop accusing any other editor of bad faith, noted as seen: 6

• Continuing to accuse others of bad faith edits, misrepresentation, and hounding October 19: 7 8 9 Warning about it seen and removed: 10 Warning given by Girth Summit October 21: 11

• November 7: 11 Warning at article talk seen: 12

• November 8: warning seen and removed with an edit summary accusing the editor leaving the warning of acting in bad faith: 13

—valereee (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The ANI is completely without merit as it's a coatrack of diffs crafted together with an alleged "concern" about good faith.

• Most recently, the involved admin, with a history of coordinating with an author of a blatant PA (see above), has stepped actively and aggressively into two requests for moves[33] and[34] in a topic area for which they admit (see above) to not having knowledge. The admin has previously been warned by El_C to either edit or admin pages, not both simultaneously. Then while again blending roles, the involved admin ignored a blatant PA, then mischaracterized edits as "edit waring" then doubled down to further mischaracterize the events as "disruptive editing", then tripled down to mischaracterize the complaint of the PA itself as a personal attack, then quadrupled down to bring it to ANI.

• Which makes the notice all the more curious since good faith is always assumed. But, PA's are not defined in policy as examples of "good faith", nor are repeated unfounded accusations of personal attacks and accusations of disruptive editing, nor are disturbing messages left by the involved admin on talk (02OCT on talk[35] then[36] then[37]. Then on another talk[38] then[39]).

• To detail why the ANI is especially inappropriate at this time, a blantant PA was found on a request for move (that also totally mischaracterized posting of diffs showing work by the editor responsible for moving the page without CON). The PA was deleted, per policy[40]. The author of the PA posts the same PA again, and deletes the text citing reasons the PA was deleted[41]. The reposting of blatant PA was again deleted per policy[42]. The author of the PA posts same PA for the third time[43]. The very involved admin then mischaracterizes the policy-approved deletion of PA as "edit waring"[44]. The failure to cite the blatant PA by the involved admin is made[45], and the complaint of the PA, which was deleted by the author of the PA, was posted here[46] and on the talk where it was first posted[47]. The admin further mischaracterizes quotes of PA as a personal attack from me[48] and both involved admin and author of blatant PA accuse me of disruptive editing and personal attacks on my user talk[49].
• An ANI citing "concerns" for good faith is not in any way appropriate, and especially not appropriate for these repeated unaddressed blatant PA's by another editor, nor for escalating mischaracterizations by both the involved admin and the author of the repeated blatant PA's. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• PDC, as I said at the article talk in question, I warned the other editor on their talk, just like I did on yours. Also as I said there, twice, I am acting only as an editor w/re that article and have not done anything administrative. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  PDC's response here may well also illustrate the issue you describe (which may require administrative correction), but you can't exactly blame him for not placing much trust in your warnings. I mean (if I remember the old ANI correctly) you did once upon a time block him, an exclusively mobile user, for not formatting his talk page posts correctly. For the record, that ANI was closed without finding your block inappropriate, and you conversed with him fairly in the linked discussion now, but my point is that it's not unreasonable for the editor to now think you don't have his best interests at heart (even if this isn't true), and so refuse to trust/follow your advice. For better or worse, the snarky edit summary in diff 13 is pretty much what the avg established editor would also write in such a situation (ime). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, disregard warnings and the result is on you. That's the main reason blocks and other sanctions occur; individuals, for whatever reason, disregard warnings/advice. If one has a problem dispassionately assessing what they're being told they will have a difficult time here. Tiderolls 17:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• ProcrastinatingReader, I don't blame PDC for not thinking I have their best interests at heart, either, lol. What I have at heart is our policy on assuming good faith. Really, that's all. If PDC would just stop talking about other editors and instead talk about edits (without referring to them as "bad faith edits", though), we wouldn't be here. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I don't think it's quite so straight forward in the abstract. Look at my ANI case above, where I was "warned" by administrators. There can be some validity in an editor feeling a warning is not coming from the right place. In such cases, it helps to have an uninvolved, totally objective admin assess the situation and issue appropriate guidance. Of course, in this case that was Girth on 21 October (who provided some excellent, objective advice). But I'm just saying, the point of a warning isn't a checkbox towards a block/ban, it should come from a position of total objectivity & trust as advice to rectify conduct, otherwise it'll be ineffective. As it relates to Pasdecomplot, as someone who saw the last two ANIs on this editor, I don't think they're intentionally trying to be disruptive (not that intent is the end-all when it's disruption). But I think they think everyone is out to get them. And to be fair, sometimes they are baited. There's obviously things that need rectifying here, but (if it's at all possible) I think it'd be nice to see that happen without permanent/long sanctions. How exactly, I don't know. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, and by Cullen at his talk, and by EI_C at both their talk and PDC's, and massive advice from UTBC at UTBC's talk. This isn't something new. This has been going on for months. The amount of time other editors have spent trying to help PDC understand what 'assume good faith' means is very large. I've literally been trying for months to avoid bringing this to ANI; I'd always prefer to deal with issues anywhere else. The point of warnings is to get someone's attention in hopes they'll take the policy behind it onboard, and to let other editors see the issue has been raised with the person before. —valereee (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  A discussion on whether to restore this report from the archive happened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#discussion archived unclosed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note: PdC doubled down yesterday on the verbiage against Rigley (initial post here), despite the discussion centering around a Requested Move. Even though PdC removed the explicit mention of Rigley's name from that Note to closer comment, their attempt to introduce irrelevant material still stands. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggested admin action Block proposed

• Unarchiving as this was never closed. I'd like to see some resolution here, if possible. I'm going to suggest a 1-week block, a ban on saying anything about any other editor in edit summaries or talk posts, a ban on describing edits as "bad faith" or "misleading" or "misrepresenting sources", with blocks of increasing length for further violations. —valereee (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  3rd one is too broad. Being unable to characterise particular edits as misleading in some way or another is a very broad range of vocabulary, which can be valid in situations. As this editor edits in niche areas, I can see that backfiring on their productivity. I'd possibly support a time-limited ban on accusing other editors of conduct issues for a while, except at ANI, automatically expiring after a month, solely in order to force the editor to discuss content not accusations of conduct in various content discussions. Hopefully that instills the habit for after the ban expires. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've changed this heading per advice at AN. Proposing one-month block with a six-month ban on commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at ANI. This has already achieved a level of consensus in this discussion which was followed by a very clear final warning here that blocks of increasing length would follow the next incident. —valereee (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. —valereee (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support editing restriction, but I don't think a block is required at this point. My experience of interacting with PdC, and my review of their contributions, have led me to the conclusion that they themselves are here in good faith, but that they are far too quick to assume bad faith of others and to accuse people of it (or heavily imply it) in inappropriate ways such as edit summaries. PdC obviously needs a way to seek a remedy if they genuinely believe someone is acting in bad faith and have evidence to back that up, but I believe that they need to be restricted from commenting on other editors' motivations entirely in edit summaries and on article talk pages. They would be able to continue to edit, and to avoid any blocks at all, by simply focussing on content and not on contributors, as WP:NPA advises. I can get behind this being a six-month restriction, but my first choice would be that it be imposed indefinitely, with the opportunity to appeal after six months once they've shown they are willing to cut it out. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support one month block and indefinite editing restriction. This "assume bad faith" behavior justified by giant walls of text has gone on far too long. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support one month block and indefinite editing restriction per above. The indefinite editing restriction for the reasons Girth lays out. I support the block because the problems are ongoing: Special:Diff/988636704. Warnings have not brought about the desired change. Lev¡vich 19:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support a time-limited restriction only, per Girth. Block seems unnecessary imv. After all, if the restriction remedies the situation, we're all good. If it doesn't, then the ban is enforced by blocks. Simple. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • To add, I generally find indefinite restrictions inappropriate. It's too hard to get them removed, far harder than showing enough need to have them instated again at all. If conduct remains a problem, ask to have them reinstated. If it doesn't, great. Look at various appeals of restrictions (here or at ArbCom), people generally turn them down because they are doing their job and conduct was rectified, so seemingly few people want to risk removing the restriction, which creates an undue excessive burden. Yet the only way you can possibly evidence that you won't do it again is by not doing it while the ban was in place, but that's rarely enough for people to agree to remove the restriction. Plus, tbh, we don't need to tilt the burden even more in the favour of who can make an eloquent speech in front of ANI, and keep banned whoever cannot. If the conduct is rectified there's no need for restrictions. If it isn't, they'll be reinstated with ease. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Without commenting on the rest, I'm suspicious of how easy it is to restore restrictions. If valereee hadn't unarchived this thread, we wouldn't have even gotten consensus for restrictions in the first place, so getting them again (should they be needed) isn't exactly a guarantee. It may well be too hard to get restrictions removed, but I don't think re-imposing sanctions is as easy as you suggest either. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

      Maybe I'm being overly optimistic. And I acknowledge you folks may know better than me what will be (in)sufficient. I was thinking that having sanctions reimposed with a diff a week after expiry of the same conduct is easier/less time consuming for editors than evaluating this convoluted puzzle spread across many pages. Regardless, I'd like to believe that 6 months of being forced to find a new way to engage will be sufficient to create a permanent change for PDC, and further sanctions won't be necessary. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  PR, if they can demonstrate on noticeboards an ability to properly supply diffs on others' conduct and in a reasonably restrained manner, that would be hard evidence to lift the restrictions. Indefinite ≠ infinite. However, separate from the conduct toward other editors, I was reminded of Cullen's comment here, and I had not even come around to clean up after this addition, which another established editor took up: note the source mentions the monks were returned within 2 months, but the heading PdC added was the distorted (and vague) Re-education camps: this is particularly egregious given that under the prior Re-education through labor system, detainees' sentences were 1 to 3 years. The un-attributed usage of the obvious advocacy site Freetibet.org in the first Nyingchi diff, despite multiple messages heeding against both at WP:RS/N and less central venues, reeks of WP:IDHT. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 07:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:عمرو بن كلثوم and Syrian Kurdistan

I believe User:عمرو بن كلثوم is editing tendentiously. The Talk page of the article Syrian Kurdistan is almost exclusively a complaints page from a wide variety of editors, over the past many months, about the behaviour of this user, and evident from the discussion is an obvious POV based on denialism, to whit: the user would rather the term Syrian Kurdistan did not exist, and is convinced (against all and repeatedly offered evidence) that the phrase is a neologism produced by expansionist Kurdish nationalists this century. The user would have the world believe there was never any such thing as a Syrian part of Kurdistan (i.e. within the 20th- and 21st-century Syrian Arab Republic); and the whole thing is some sort of conspiracy cooked up since the Syrian Civil War. The user has here embarked on an attempt to gain support for their POV here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#PhD_candidate_as_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_Syrian_Kurdistan_against_the_views_of_multiple_professors_stating_otherwise? and when another user sought assistance here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_book_by_the_PhD_candidate_Mustafa_Hamza_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_a_Syrian_Kurdistan? and will not take no for an answer. I suspect administrator action of some kind is needful. GPinkerton (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This complaint is really interesting. At the RSN, user Sixula suggested that it was not the right place for this debate so I quit following that page, but a few minutes ago I was notified of this complaint here. I revisited the NOPV noticeboard to find that user Pinkerton jumped out of nowhere and made conclusions for everybody, and then ran to report me here and accusing me of refusing to compromise. Obviously, they did not bother to visit the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page to see what's going on. There has been a discussion going on for days, we have provided enough evidence, including the all-important Treaty of Sevres map (for non-experts, that post-WWI treaty in 1920 shaped all Kurdish statehood claims) and a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan". We also provided sources showing the initial use of this term. For example, this report by the highly-regarded International Crisis Group reads:

The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province).

This issue is really too long to explain here, so I would rather have people visit the Talk page mentioned above. In brief, two or three users are trying to show this as an entity that has long existed and three other users (at least) do not agree with that, and argue that this term was produced by Kurdish nationalists during the Syrian Civil War. We are not arguing about the presence of a Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria. Finally, this is a content dispute, and I have not broken any rules. Actually, admin intervention in that page would really be welcome. May be at least provide protection for now. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Above, the user has illustrated succinctly the problem with their WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDHT attitude and refusal to accept reality. Below, one can see a long list of sources that very much do talk about Syrian Kurdistan, explicitly, and by name. As a synonym for Western Kurdistan it can be found in geographical research before the First World War. The claim of the all-importance of the Treaty of Sevres is a lie ignorant of history and wilfully oblivious to the sources editors may peruse below. This user's insistence on claiming that a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan" is exactly the kind of false narrative they have been bludgeoning people with for months (years?). Any look at any of the works will show that the editor's POV is divorced from the real world, and is apparently vocally, partisan as regards the al-Assad regime and its opponents. Some sort of admonition is surely required.

• In the Dispersion. World Zionist Organization, Organization Department, Research Section. 1962. This book tells the tale od the Kurdish Jews who lived in the one hundred and nintey towns in what is now Iraqi, Persian, Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan
• Ghassemlou, Abdul Rahman (1965). Kurdistan and the Kurds. Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. (i.e. the present-day Turkish, Iraqi and Syria Kurdistan)
• Chaliand, Gérard, ed. (1993) [1978]. Les Kurdes et le Kurdistan [A People Without a Country: The Kurds and Kurdistan]. Translated by Pallis, Michael. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-194-5. Are these three regions - Kurd-Dagh, Ain-Arab, and Northern Jezireh - part of Kurdistan? Do they form a Syrian Kurdistan, or are they merely region of Syria which happen to be populated with Kurds? ... Syrian Kurdistan has thus become a broken up territory and we would do better to talk about the Kurdish regions of Syria. What matters is that these people are being denied their legitimate right to have their own national and cultural identity.
• Gotlieb, Yosef (1982). Self-determination in the Middle East. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-03-062408-7. While the Kurds in Turkish, Soviet, Syrian, and Persian Kurdistan were held in place with and iron fist, the Iraqi Kurds fought virtually alone throughout the 1960s.
• Bruinessen, Martin Van (1992). Agha, Shaikh, and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-018-4. The plains of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan are the granaries of Iraq and Syria, respectively.
• Izady, Mehrdad R. (1992). The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-8448-1727-9. All of Syrian Kurdistan, half of central Kurdistan in Iraq, and about 15% of western Kurdistan is located in this warm zone. It contains the cities of Diyarbakir, Siirt, Mardin, Urfa, Qamishli, Afrin, Sanjar, Sulaymania, Arbil, Qasri Shirin, Ilam, Gelan, and Pahla.
• Kreyenbroek, Philip G.; Allison, Christine (1996). Kurdish Culture and Identity. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-329-1.
• Bruinessen, Martin van (1978). Agha, Shaikh and State: On the Social and Political Organization of Kurdistan. University of Utrecht. I shall refer to these parts as Turkish, Persian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan. ... Most sources agree that there are approximately half a million Kurds in Syria.
• Mirawdeli, Kamal M. (1993). Kurdistan: Toward a Cultural-historical Definition. Badlisy Center for Kurdish Studies. Turkish Kurdistan, an Iraqi Kurdistan, an Iranian Kurdistan, and a Syrian Kurdistan
• Bulloch, John; Morris, Harvey (1992). No Friends But the Mountains: The Tragic History of the Kurds. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-508075-9. The British and the French made it clear from the outset that they were unwilling to surrencder those parts of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan which fell under their control, and that an independent Kurdistan, if such an entity were to be created, would have to be in what was still Turkish territory.
• Jaff, Akram (1993). Economic Development in Kurdistan. Badlisy Center for Kurdish Studies.
• Gotlieb, Yosef (1995). Development, Environment, and Global Dysfunction: Toward Sustainable Recovery. Delray Beach, FL: St Lucie Press. ISBN 978-1-57444-012-6. The situation in Turkish Kurdistan is consistent with that of Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan.
• Meho, Lokman I., ed. (1997). The Kurds and Kurdistan: A Selective and Annotated Bibliography. Westport, CN and London: Greewood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30397-5. The information the author gets concerning Syrian Kurdistan is abased on results from field research carried out in 1988 and 1990.
• Berberoglu, Berch (1999). Turmoil in the Middle East: Imperialism, War, and Political Instability. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-4412-2. Then, in the 1920s, the Bedirkhan brothers introduced the Latin alphabet, which became standard in Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan.

GPinkerton (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We are debating a specific term. Can you provide the quotes showing that, instead of showing "Kurdistan" or Kurds in Syria, etc.? One more thing, we are about to reach consensus on the Syrian Kurdistan page. This shows that your claim of me refusing to compromise is false. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Check out this discussion out of many going on on that Talk page. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No, look at the sources yourself. Yours is the only voice on your side of this "debate". GPinkerton (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Actually me and other users also participated in the debate taking the same position as Amr. No on need to look at the sources themselves as the one who claims need to prove, so quotes and pages numbers should be presented. Finally, you can have tens of sources to support you but there are tens of them that support the other side and NPOV requires you not to ignore that. This complain is uncalled for and an attempt to force a measure from above to give one side of a long debate what they want! The users who are against Amr acts exactly like him, so if he is wrong, so are they. I am calling for an rfc to solve this.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: All of what you're saying is not at all relevant. This is only about Amr's repeated attempt to prove the term "Syrian Kurdistan" does not exist or is a recent coinage, whereas in the real world it is a coinage many, many decades old. This is tendentiousness. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Im telling you Im an active part of the debate and you are deciding for me that I am not? Seriously? You are now part of this content dispute, so go to the article's talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

CommentThis has nothing to do with Amr. This is all Konli17's fault. That page has been quiet for months and then all of a sudden he comes back after a long break from editing and starts his POV pushing again. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Konli17 is the user that should be blocked because he’s not WP:HTBAE and is just here to push his agenda. You should really see his other edits before jumping to conclusions that it’s Amr's fault. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thepharoah17: if you want to make a report about an unrelated matter you need to do it elsewhere. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, per your request GPinkerton, I'll call on other people to weigh in on this. @Supreme Deliciousness:@HistoryofIran:@Al Ameer son:. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Thepharoah17, The page was stable until Konli17 returned and pushed his pov points. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

See an example here (out of tens or hundreds) for yourselves how user konli17 changes the meanings by simple tweaking and removal of sensitive words to fake/change content and removing sensitive words (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc. Look at the long list of reverts and edit-warring in their edit history. Actually, they were blocked back in June for edit-warring. That is the user who needs to be disciplined here. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This argumentation is obfuscation and unconvincing whataboutery. GPinkerton (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Since you have obviously decided to take sides in the dispute at hand, bring on your evidence in the form of quotes from the links above you copied from user paradise chronicle! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: It's more than obvious you are unwilling to read. None of these sources were copy pasted from anywhere. I just did the most basic Goggle Books search, and provided you with hyperlinks so you can easily verify that each one discusses "Syrian Kurdistan". How many times? The quote is the same in every book listed: "Syrian Kurdistan"! GPinkerton (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

My friend, you are the one making claims here. Bring me your evidence (e.g. quotes). It's not my role to prove your point, it's yours. Syrian + Kurdistan does not equal "Syrian Kurdistan". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, it seems you are the one refusing to read since you failed to see in the Talk page in question how many editors were on each side. Regardless of the opinions presented here, you claimed that I am the ONLY one representing this side of the story. Now you are attacking the other editor sharing my opinion here. You are trying hard to push your POV, same as you did as the NPOV noticeboard, ironic. Obviously, you are not qualified to judge or point at others. And let's keep this professional without personal attacks like you did above accusing me of supporting Assad regime (with no evidence whatsoever)! And by the way, on this note the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (who declared Syrian Kurdistan) are allies of the Assad regime and there is plenty of evidence that I will keep for another time. So, better do your homework before throwing accusation around. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Rank hypocrisy. I've expanded with quotes since you're too unwilling to lift a finger to pull the wool from your own eyes and read a book. GPinkerton (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: There is nothing wrong with Amr ibn Kulthoums edits. "Syrian Kurdistan" is a lie and a fraud, there are editor at that page that are pushing kurdish nationalist propaganda lies and attempting to rewrite history. We should thank Amr ibn Kulthoum for standing up to the truth. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

More denialism. Just look at the sources! "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", all the way down! Your claim it is a lie and fruad is absurd. GPinkerton (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who is in denial here despite all the evidence. For the third time, I am asking you to provide actual quotes (SENTENCES) saying "Syrian Kurdistan" from before 2011. Good luck with that! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you read? Or do you only spew? Scroll up. Read. اقرأ GPinkerton (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to stop the personal attacks? What does that prove? You are always going to find some random authors (look at the author names) claiming things and naming things as they please. One of them is saying "I shall refer to these parts as Turkish, Persian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan". The question is, is any of that reputable? Do you have an international map showing this, or do you have a respected paper/media outlet, international organization showing this from before 2011? Since you pick up languages so quickly, I'll challenge your French, why don't you read this article to update your history? The bottom line you are accusing me of pushing my POV but you are doing a lot worse. Cheers my friend. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah sure. Read an article that has little to do with the topic at hand and that will convince me that all these respected academic sources are somehow worthless. What planet is this editor living on? On earth, Syrian Kurdistan is a thing. The idea the idea it didn't exist before 2011 is as laughable as the editor's understanding of epistemology. GPinkerton (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

WP believes in sourced content and two sides to the story. More personal attacks. I don't think I need to respond to that. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes the two sides of the story: "Syrian Kurdistan has never been uttered before 2011" (fairyland, POV) vs "Evidence for the existence of the term long before عمرو بن كلثوم would evidently prefer." (Earth, NPOV). Somehow I think including the highly idiosyncratic and patently wrong POV you are pushing without a shred of evidence should be given short shrift in consideration of WP:DUE. How much credence can we give these uncited illusions? GPinkerton (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• See also this User_talk:Thepharoah17#تحياتي Canvassing. GPinkerton (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

After your old argument of my one-person opinion failed, you are using a new tactic. How is this canvassing? Look at the user contributions! This user is very moderate, and not involved in any edit-warring. They participate in the discussion very positively. Check out for yourself! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to thank GPinkerton for opening this debate and I hope an admin would step in. As the one who filed the first two discussions about Syria Kurdistan, I'd like to add that there were already numerous high quality academic sources for a Syrian Kurdistan even before GPinkerton brought his sources. Amr Ibn will very probably not abide by academic sources has even removed[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Kurdistan&diff=988047662&oldid=988045551&diffmode=source updated and new academic sources] before. To clarify: I have added high quality academic sources for a Syrian Kurdistan with no adaptions to the text, and Amr Ibn removed the sources. Amr Ibn doesn't seems to not like the fact that Kurds live in Syria and sees the Kurdish liberators from ISIS as occupiers. Other times he claimed that they are occupiers after they captured a town from ISIS is here, here. There are others as well. It would be similar if we'd portray the Greek or French Resistance fighting against NAZI Germany as occupiers of territory in France or Greece. I think this is a tough POV, as the vast majority of the media and probably all of the reliable academic sources view the areas liberated by from ISIS as liberated and not occupied. I seriously don't know, how this editor came through with this denialism of Syrian Kurdistan for so long with such an edit history.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, look who's speaking! An edit-warrior recently banned and who refused to abide by previous arbitration result by user Nightenbelle on a different page. Back to the page in question, we were reached a consensus before PC jumped in and started messing things up again. This prompted user Applodion, an editor on PC side of the story to remove part of PC's controversial edit there. Furthermore, user Sixula just chipped in and suggested an rfc. As a reminder, Sixula was helping with the NPOV case before user GPinkerton imposed themselves and jumped to conclusions. Again, I invite Admins to visit the Syrian Kurdistan page and Talk page (and other pages if they wish) to judge for themselves and see who the disruptive editor/s is/are. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

And, ISIS has nothing to do with this. You are basically saying "you can either be with ISIS or PYD/YPG Kurdish militia". Well, I don't want to be with either of those. This is not focus of this discussion or any other discussion I am involved in. We have a content dispute about the origin and adoption of the name Syrian/Western Kurdistan. Here is another academic reference saying PYD created the name rojava (West Kurdistan) (PYD invented rojava. P276 last paragraph). In the summer of 2012, the PYD took control of some towns in northern Syria which are predominantly Kurdish-inhabited. Over the following three years, the party expanded its territory and established a structure of autonomous government and associated institutions which it calls “Rojava” (west Kurdistan). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Two of the editors who deny an existence of Syrian Kurdistan, user Amr Ibn and user Supreme Deliciousness wanted to move the page Syrian Kurdistan (Today called AANES) to Kurdish occupied regions in Syria in a move discussion in 2015.. Wanting to call Kobane Kurdish occupied in the midst of a siege of Kobane by ISIS... This might give you another insight into the mindset of the two editors. The edits of Amr Ibn are clearly tendentious and should have been seriously questioned by admins since years. For that an admin comes into the dispute.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should you support either ISIS or the YPG? The YPG-linked PKK and ISIS are both classified as terrorist organizations by the United States and the European Union. Is one really different from the other? Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

One doesn't have to support any of the two, but one can try to portray commonsense=vast majority of the academic views or an ISIL/Turkey POV which as to me, is not supported in any reliable source. The YPG is supported by the Global Coalition against ISIS consisting of 83 countries and NOT viewed as a terrorist organization by any country other than Turkey which literally imprisons academics for demanding peace.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

As Sixula told you on the NPOV page, "WP:COMMONSENSE is not viewed as a concrete argument, more as a "I believe my edit was common sense" but it is not something which you can repeat over and over, because if there is a lot of opposition clearly it isn't viewed as common sense." Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Please ping me when discussing things I've said on a separate page, I like to see what is being said about both me and my comments. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 23:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Sixula, that was an oversight on my part. Thanks for your input. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC about Syrian Kurdistan going on at the Syrian Kurdistan article talk page. Amr Ibn wants to have it understood that if a source (Kurdish or/and Academic non-Kurdish) mention Syrian Kurdistan and/or Kurds in Syria or depicts a map with a Syrian part of Kurdistan it signifies that there exists no Syrian Kurdistan and therefore is an invention by Kurds. See here the diff of such an argument. There he refers to the sources presented by me and others. The ones added by me mention Syrian Kurdistan and/or depict a Syrian part of Kurdistan.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

POWERFUL 245

For several days POWERFUL 245 (talk · contribs) has been modifying several tracklistings of Michael Jackson pages. Powerful has been reverted by multiple editors and has been warned multiple times. It seems now that instead of discussing the changes (which are unsourced, by the way), Powerful has decided to start edit-warring. For example, at Talk:Pipes_of_Peace#Edit_warring, @JG66: ask them about the changes to the main page. For example, he tried to replace 1991 Dangerous with the 2016's re-issue of Dangerous[50]; 1987's Bad with 2013's Bad 25[51] (despite the fact that Bad 25 has a page). Like these 2, the other pages are the same, unsourced tracklist/replacing the original tracklist with the remastered version. Powerful was blocked at Commons for persistently uploading copyrighted images that would replace our non-free ones. So, this is a case of WP:COMPETENCE and as Powerful is not answering, I have decided to move it here instead. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I've also been confused by POWERFUL 25's behaviour. They've repeatedly made the same changes to track listings at Pipes of Peace (an album that Michael Jackson appears on), without including any explanation with the edits and then refusing to engage in any discussion. Not only is the change to a track listing template unnecessary, but they want to set the listing for the original (1983) release as if it's the 2015 "Archive Collection" reissue. I don't know what you do with this sort of disruptive editing: you end up violating 3RRR to correct their mistakes, and they just don't appear to acknowledge that anyone else exists on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

POWERFUL 245 has not edited in three days. It appears they have never made any talk space edits, and have received multiple warnings in the last few months on their UTP. They do not appear to be a mobile editor, so presumably they're seeing the notifications. If the mainspace editing problems and lack of communication continue when they return to editing, a communication-is-required block may be necessary. Lev¡vich 07:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Powerful returned today and continued reversing the removal of their unsourced [52] or (in this particular edit) incorrect [53] additions. For me, Powerful has no intention to discuss about it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Powerful is edit-warring for the seek of edit-warring.[54] (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

USER:Toltol15 adding WP:OR and non WP:RS, and refusing to discuss [and other things]

Waiting for Toltol15 to reply.

I recently removed an addition by USER:Toltol15 to the Somalis page citing a non-peer-reviewed scientific preprint (thus not WP:RS) (which also did not directly concern the topic of the page) exaining my reasons in the edit notes. User:Toltol15 reverted me without engaging with my explanation. I reverted once more attempting to explain again and asked them not to edit war, and was again ignored by the user, reverted, and accused (confusingly) of POV (without explanation). To avoid edit warring, I have not reverted them a second time. I then posted on their personal page trying to explain again, asked them to engage/discuss (and perhaps self-revert) and warned them tbat I would report them if they did not discuss. They deleted my message and accused me of "personal page stalking". Since they have refused to engage with the topic (and seem to be behaving in an uncivil and dismissive way) I am filing a report here. Any help is appreciated.

Also, a discussion on the Talk page of History of archery with myself, Toltol15, and USER:Richard Keatinge concerning their (Toltol15's) addition of original research to that page and to Saharan rock art: [[55]]

I also removed some material Toltol15 had added to the San people page (with a detailed explanation in my edit note) and was reverted similarly dissmissively by them (there also, I have not reverted their edit/reinstatement, to avoid edit warring). My edit and note: [[56]] And the page's edit history with their reversion: [[57]]

And here is the edit history of Somalis for reference:

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

And the non-peer-reviewed source they have persistently added to it:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.127555v1 Skllagyook (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) At Talk:Capoid_race#Link_to_Boskop_Man_removed and Talk:Somalis#Arab_scholars I got the impression that they didn't want to understand what other editors told them about OR and RS. Maybe they are still learning how things work. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(another non - admin comment) Indeed, some urgent education is needed. Toltol15 doesn't seem to understand policy; more worryingly, they don't seem to understand their sources very well either. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Rsk6400, I see what you did and I thank you for it. Toltol15, you have the opportunity here, and now, to explain what you were doing--and to acknowledge, perhaps, that you may need to brush up on what count as reliable sources here. If you don't, you might find yourself blocked for disruptive editing, which here points at a lack of collaboration and communication, edit warring, and using unreliable sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies:. It seems that Toltol15 has been active recently (has made a few recent edits, this past day I believe) but has still not responded, either to your warning on their page or to this report. I worry that they may begin to make problematic edits again without ever having replied here. About how much time will they be given to reply? Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Skllagyook, I see two edit where they're adding pictures, and gave edit summaries. I cannot in good conscience block someone for that, nor are we at a stage, I think, were we can just block for not responding in the first place. That can happen, and we have done that before, but really only in a scenario where for instance, after being warned in no uncertain terms, they make really problematic edits and refuse to acknowledge that. That hasn't happened yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Drmies:, I understand. Thank you for your reply. If they begin to make disruptive edits at a later time, should I message you, or perhaps file another report (perhaps depending on when it occurs)? Skllagyook (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A lot of difficulty removing copied and promotional content at Jerry Lorenzo

• Jerry Lorenzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Telfar Clemens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hood By Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Giakuan (talk · contribs)

I'd appreciate more eyes. Giakuan is a paid contributor, who recently added mostly copied and promotional content to these two biographies. These are not massive blocs of copied material traceable to one or two sources; rather, every sentence or two, each copied or closely paraphrasing its source, which I've taken pains to explain. So this is the standard problem I encounter coming from two directions--the original compromised content, and resistance in removing or even tagging it. Requesting rev/deletion and any other appropriate measures. 2601:188:180:B8E0:202F:67D9:4B39:6338 (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I support the request. I had reverted one of the changes. I did not understand the whole problem or detect it from the edit summaries. Given the clever way these invalid edits were constructed, I think the request has merit. Donner60 (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added a third article, Hood by Air, which could also use some checking for copyright and promotional issues. Donner, you did more than revert once. 2601:188:180:B8E0:202F:67D9:4B39:6338 (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi 2601:188:180:B8E0:202F:67D9:4B39:6338 – appreciate the response, def not a paid contributor here, just like to dig around fashionn brands I like and all my sources are valid, though if I've innfringed on any copyright rules I'm happy to amend. Don't think anything posted was promotional since they are all notable and recent, factual sources from New York Times, LA Times.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giakuan (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• There is NO doubt in my mind that Giakuan is a paid editor, but since I've edited an article or two here I'd like for another admin to have a look at this and make the call. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • A new account, with a coincidental similar field of interest, Dgirl4ever (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Deceptive edit comments and disruptive editing by Stonkaments

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

---

• Stonkaments (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2020 United States racial unrest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A thread Talk:2020 United States racial unrest § Opinionated language in Social Impact section was created approximately a week ago by Lmomjian about a sentence cited to three different RS. HaeB suggested the statements in question need better sourcing and attribution. Stonkaments deleted a portion of the sentence including its source with the edit summary “removed challenged and unsourced claim per talk page discussion” while presenting this edit in the talk page as seems unsupported by the current source. Nearly a week ago I posted at the talk page a note that the deleted sentence fragment was indeed cited (and had already inquired as to what possible form further support might take) but Stonkaments did not elaborate on any reasoning as to what was lacking in the source.
• Yesterday Davide King restored the deleted material and its cite and some other material, asking in the edit summary “sources spoke of "reckoning" and why was this removed”; Stonkaments reverted them with the summary “it was removed because of consensus on the talk page”. Note that this behavior appears to be described in the essay WP:SHAMCONSENSUS. (Though maybe it's just a matter of lying about a lack of consensus instead; it's difficult to tell because all discussion went into abeyance once I pointed out that cited material had been removed under a false pretense.)
• Today I restored Davide King's changes, pointing out via edit summary that what the talk page reflects is that the material “was deleted under the false pretense of being uncited”; and Aquillion added an additional source. Stonkaments then deleted the same sentence fragment with Aquillion's additional source and in the edit summary ordered everyone to “get consensus on talk page”, without yet having responded there to Davide King's question about the deletion of his edit from six hours previous.
• An important bit of context is that this section of the article is the result of a merge from a deleted article Talk:2020 United States racial reckoning § Merger proposal created by Czar which, notably, Stonkaments was among editors trying to preempt formal closure of on the pretext of a WP:POLL majority. My suspicion at the time was that merging into a an article with a different topic was an attempt to gain leverage in deleting material and this appears to be happening; half a dozen or more completely different rationales for deleting this single sentence fragment have been presented by different users in the talk page so far.
• And for example Stonkaments simply deleted 4½k of cited content originating from the merged article; when another editor caught it and reverted them, Stonkaments re-reverted, saying “Just because material is properly sourced does not mean it belongs in the article”—about material they'd only ten days earlier been impatient to merge in because it supposedly was not independently notable.
• There is also the matter that this article, the target of the merge, has received enough of a heightened level of attention from all quarters so as to have been mentioned in the popular media: “The White Extremist Group Patriot Front Is Preparing For A World After Donald Trump” at BuzzFeed News last month. So it seems to me that another objective in merging may have been to get the content under more sympathetic scrutiny.

The initial content issue appears resolved for the moment and my motivation in coming to ANI is exclusively the issue of user conduct. This appears to be a pattern of tendentious, if not more generally disruptive editing, by Stonkaments accompanied by intentionally deceptive edit summaries in article space. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry we had to come to ANI rather than resolving our differences personally. Here are my initial reactions:

When I originally deleted the challenged text, it had only one cited source, not three—and two other editors had already voiced their opinions that the source didn't adequately support the contested claim. Given that I felt their arguments were well-reasoned, and I was the third editor challenging the claim vs just one defending it, I determined that there was consensus on the talk page and stated that in my edit summary. Calling that an "intentionally deceptive edit summary" seems like a clear failure to WP:Assume good faith.

As I stated on the talk page, per my understanding of WP:BURDEN, I felt the onus was on editors seeking to restore the material to point us to a reliable source that directly supported the contested claim. Struthious Bandersnatch's arguments all struck me as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, so I didn't see any justification for restoring the contested claim.

Concerning the 4½k of deleted content from the merged article, I started a discussion on the talk page and didn't receive any response or pushback following the initial revert. Many editors voiced concerns about the quality and WP:POV of the merged article, so I don't find it particularly noteworthy to have deleted one unencyclopedic paragraph from such an article.

I would like to point out Struthious Bandersnatch's uncivil behavior on this same talk page: accusing editors of making unserious arguments and "finger-wagging", and making personal attacks about an editor's "low bar for what constitutes education". They are also currently the subject of an enforcement request. Stonkaments (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You're doing it right here in the faces of administrators—you linked to a diff above in which you yourself wrote, I removed the two intro paragraphs of the "Social impact" section, but they have since been restored by User:Davide King, and then you've characterized that here as didn't receive any response or pushback following the initial revert.

There are limits to AGF and you have blown past them all. Like I said on your talk page, this is not an innocent misunderstanding.

Another user, who was also involved in the merge effort I describe above, has filed a report against me at WP:AE, if anyone wants to read about unserious arguments and the rest. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 09:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Without getting involved heavily in the disagreement, I would like to claim that Struthious Bandersnatch seems bent on adding highly controversial claims to articles without proper evidence and support. When questioned he brings up his own reasoning rather than citing a reliable source that directly supports his claim in an empirical way. Struthious Bandersnatch is not in agreement with NPOV concerning his edits. Thank you Lmomjian (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to echo Lmomjian's points and also bring up that Stonkaments has been an excellent contributor on other articles that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. QRep2020 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lmomjian and QRep2020: You don't have to get “heavily involved” to comment on at least one specific topic of this discussion—whether Stonkaments's edit summaries I quote above were truthful. their general character, while pertinent in a discussion of editor conduct, does nothing to justify WP:SUMMARYNO deceptive misuse of edit summaries.

Stonkaments seems intent on discussing this matter extensively off-noticeboard. Anyone can of course read the full exchange by following the link to their talk page at the top, but I'll reproduce their latest comment and my response here as I think it showcases further intentional deceptive behavior:

I'm sorry I didn't respond, but what response were you expecting? The source that was cited did not support the contested claim, hence "unsourced claim". You unfortunately failed to address my request to provide anything from a reliable source that directly supported that claim, instead providing disparate facts that were WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and have now managed to antagonize three different editors on that talk page. I'd suggest reflecting on your own actions, as it may help understand why I might not have felt interested in continuing an unproductive back-and-forth with you. I happily continued the discussion when other editors weighed in.

to which I replied

Nice try at pulling a WP:DONTGETIT, but the “unsourced” sentence fragment you deleted attributing a list of specific U.S. racial disparities as the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias relative to the general population is cited to an article in the Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review (the citation you simultaneously deleted and had a week to verify while the content you object to wasn't even in the page) which says, of the exact same list of fields in which disparities are present, recognition builds of the many ways that racial inequality manifests both explicitly and implicitly.

The response of an editor acting in good faith would have been to acknowledge this, to retract OR and SYNTH claims (notably SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pages anyways), and to not revert two editors other than myself who restored the content—the editors you “happily continued the discussion” with after reverting their cited additions of content to the article with a completely different WP:SHAMCONSENSUS claim, knowing very well that the material was neither unsourced nor did consensus support its removal.

--‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Copying my talk page reply here, as I vigorously reject the unfair accusations of dishonesty and deception:

With all due respect, your reading of that excerpt is wrong—in no way does it support the contested statement. Note that it says ...the many ways that racial inequality manifests [emphasis added] both explicitly and implicitly. That is an affirmation that these inequalities indeed exist, and manifest themselves in myriad ways, but it makes no claim about the causes or origins of the inequality. The article goes on to talk about the ways in which racial inequality manifests itself in the criminal justice system through disparities in arrests, sentencing, etc. It makes one mention of unconscious bias in relation to NYC's infamous stop-and-frisk policy, and notes that Drug War-era policies were racially motivated, but besides that it refrains from making any claims about the causes of the racial inequalities it highlights. And those two isolated mentions are nowhere near enough to support a broad claim about the causes of racial inequalities across "education, health care, housing, imprisonment, voting rights, and wages", be it overt discrimination or unconscious bias or any other.

I would please ask that you at least consider the possibility that you're wrong here—about what exactly this source is saying, specifically, but also about my editing and my intentions more broadly. I'm still fairly new here, and I'm sure there are plenty of things that I can improve. But I don't take accusations of dishonesty, deception, and acting in poor faith lightly, and I would appreciate an apology.

(It's my understanding that an extended back-and-forth on the ANI page can often be unhelpful, so that's why I prefer responding here.)

Stonkaments (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute. What kind of outcome are you seeking from admins? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It is a content dispute, and the editor who posted this complaint has engaged in misbehavior themselves at that page and thereafter, as well as exhibiting a major problem with their approach to the topic. As they noted above, I filed this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Struthious Bandersnatch. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @SlimVirgin: There are no outstanding content matters related to the sentence fragment Stonkaments has repeatedly deleted over the past week; this is a user conduct matter. The issue is that this is all over a handful of words written four months ago directly corresponding to the wording in the source, a law journal; yet multiple editors have had to invest substantial efforts to maintain this tiny part of the article in response to repeated deletions under false pretenses by Stonkaments, who simply stopped communicating at the article talk page.
      This seems like the very definition of disruptive editing to me, and is representative of the scant other edits by this user I have examined. So the outcome I am seeking is whatever measures are appropriate to prevent disruptive editing.
      Edit: also, I should have noted earlier—this article is also under AE AP2 page restrictions. I'd somehow overlooked it before but Stonkaments has received the AP2 {{DS/alert}}, as have I.
      (I'd also point out, in response to Stonkaments's most recent comment above, that this is more dissembling—subtle variations in wording in the source do not explain or excuse all the deceptive edit summaries, non-communication on the talk page about that wording, or deletion of cited content restored by multiple editors. Reading the full excerpt also makes it quite clear that the source is indeed talking about causes of racial disparities; see Stonkaments's talk page for my full response.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 09:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Struthious Bandersnatch, please don't accuse other editors of "lying", [58] particularly not in edit summaries, and it would be helpful if you would create edit summaries rather than have your posts appear on watchlists. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring and attempting to short circuit deletion discussion

User:WilliamJE is edit-warring and attempting to short-circuit an ongoing discussion. He has re-added a speedy deletion tag at Category:Basketball players from New York City three times in 9 minutes. He has refused to engage with me on the talk page and instead bombed my talk page with warning templates.--User:Namiba 14:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:G4 reads- This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. Oh and categories have been speedy deleted because of 10 year old CFDs before. Check here[59]. The original basketball players CFD can be found here[60]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The complaining editor raised the categorizing of sportspeople by US city less than 6 months ago at a talk page. The reception wasn't positive.[61] Plus there have been a half a dozen at least CFDs on similar categories. There is a strong consensus against....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk about a NYC sportspeople CFD, here's one for Rowers[62]. It took place in 2019....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Just start another CFD. This shouldn't need to be a federal flipping issue.
Namiba and you clearly disagree in good faith here. Cool? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Rowing and basketball in New York City are not the same. There has been ample evidence provided at the CfD to demonstrate that basketball in New York City has been covered in book-length coverage and is a strong defining characteristic; nothing like that is available for rowing in New York City. WilliamJE seems to be be so dead-set on deletion that any sense of respecting consensus has been lost. Alansohn (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Could use a second pair of eyes at 8chan

There are some IP editors making some legal threats regarding the inclusion of a link to the 8chan website on the page about 8chan. I can see their argument that we shouldn't include the external link, but an uninvolved admin to help out with the edit war and legal threats would be appreciated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not make a legal threat; I removed a link to Child Pornography from Wikipedia that violates US Law and Wikipedia Policy. I was trying to get you to understand the situation and defer to legal staff at Wikipedia to make a determination. Wikipedia should not be linking to Child Pornography Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also creating a liability for people such as myself who have used Wikipedia in good faith and INADVERTANTLY (and because of Wikipedia) landed on a link distributing Child Pornography. This is an extremely serious issue and concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Just noting here that 71.203.10.104 has opened a discussion at WP:DRN#8chan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That discussion has now been closed under the reasoning of WP:NLT and because this particular discussion is also taking place here at WP:HAPPYPLACE.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

For now, I think we should just leave that link out until we reach a consensus on the matter. No harm can come of that. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Second that as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

None of us are lawyers (and those who are are not on the job). Pending a potential WP:OFFICE action (they might be interested in the subject), I don't think the legal argument is a good one. That being said, a link to 8chan doesn't provide any value whatsoever. -- Luk ^talk 00:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. We're not lawyers, but it's well within our capabilities to decide not to link to a site where we may inadvertently direct our readers to such content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Despite denying they are making legal threats above, I can't see how their latest comment saying "A link to Child Pornography has the unwitting effect of making Wikipedia Editors, Users, and Administrators Law Breakers. Law Breakers in the worst sense because a single Cached image from an unintentional viewing of Child Pornography meets the standard for prosecution." is anything but. I agree that the link probably ought to be omitted from the article, but the WP:NLT need to stop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt that anyone who wants to go to 8chan, out of curiosity or whatever, needs a link from us to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that linking to a site that ALSO hosts child pornography (or copyvio material, or whatever illegal stuff) EQUALS 'linking to child pornography'. That being said, IMHO this site would qualify for wholesale blacklisting because there is material on the site that we should not be linking to (and we should do our utmost best to make sure that it does not get linked), but a whitelist rule should be instated to a 'neutral landing page'. Although on a different level, we can link to sci-hub, we cannot link to a lot of the material hosted on sci-hub, thus the website is blacklisted, the root is whitelisted. For that, I think the IP was wrong here, as is removal of the root link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Issues regarding competence of Cristianpogi678

Summary: User:Cristianpogi678 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been bombarding typhoon season and storm articles recently with edits of questionable quality, while at the same time ignoring attempts at communication (along with blanking talk page edits about their edits). Most of their edits display signs of problems regarding competence, and attempts at correcting these have not worked.

This starts as far back as their second edit on August 28, which I had to fix due to the evident problems in English. Knowing that they were a new editor, I simply brushed it off as I assumed good faith, and that maybe their future edits would be better. For the next two months, their edits were mostly unproblematic, and involved simple linking and addition of hatnotes (although some of which still had a lot of typos and the like). However, the past month has been filled with problem edits, mixed in with the maintenance work previously done. This maintenance work had even decreased in quality, as it began to break MOS:LINK and other style guides.

This user has repeatedly inserted problematic content in a significant portion over their near-900 edits, of which diffs are provided below. Since the list is rather long, I've collapsed it for readability.

Extended content

Bad style issues. Issues with English, WP:SHOUTING (both in summaries and content), and a general lack of understanding (nor consideration, as I have linked them to the MOS multiple times) of the MOS. Also issues with WikiProject Tropical cyclones' own style guide. Special:Diff/976873936 – Shouting, English issues Special:Diff/983744379 – Actually decent, although the quality isn't the best. I later fixed this. Special:Diff/983817610 – Unintelligible text, which they tried to fix in 3 edits. Later reverted. And while I was writing this, another problematic edit with style issues. and a lot more of this, but collecting all the diffs would take a lot of time. You can just take a stroll through their contributions instead, and looking at the edits labeled "ADDED". (Mostly small-scale) copyright violations. This user repeatedly copied headlines, tweets, article texts, and other similar texts with no paraphrasing. These were (as far as I can tell) their only edits where they had proper grammar. 18 edits introducing copyrighted content to Mayon. Later reverted by an administrator, who issued a warning which was later reverted by them along with 4 attempts at an apology. Special:Diff/976479684, an insertion of content from the NDTV. Special:Diff/987651732, an insertion of a tweet by "Earth Shaker PH", word-for-word. Copying within Wikipedia without attribution. This was done at least an additional five times. 1, 2, 3 from 2020 Pacific typhoon season, 4 from Typhoon Saudel, 5 from Typhoon Vamco (2020), and a lot more insertions to 2020 Central Vietnam floods from various articles. I did warn them about this as early as [1]. Unwillingness to communicate nor cooperate. Their talk page history speaks volumes of an unwillingness to cooperate, evident by the repeated removal of warning templates, along with efforts at communication. Removal of a copyvio notice, which I mentioned earlier. Removal of a copyright information message. Removal of a internal copying notice (WP:CWW). Removal of my message explaining my reversion of their edits. Removal of my message informing them of multiple Wikipedia policies, which included a request at communication. Edit-bombarding pages, rapidly inflating the revision count. Almost all of these edits are less than 100 characters. This user never seems to show previews, and instead chooses to publish changes immediately, with no regards to whether the edits are of quality or not. The first 3 pages (when sorting by 50) of the page history for the Taal Volcano is nearly filled with their name. Scrolling through the histories of Typhoon Vamco (2020) and 2020 Pacific typhoon season show many edits by them, most done one after the other.

After all that, I realized it was time to drop the good faith assumption. I thought to myself that as soon as I saw that user edit another one of the pages on my watchlist, and if that edit was problematic, I'll revert them just like I do the standard process on Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. However, I was still holding back, as evident by the 4 warnings I issued, of which three were all level 2 warnings since they were of different reasons, and since I didn't want to escalate it into a level 3 warning. As expected, they reverted those warnings and continued to blank all of the warnings and messages left about their edits on their talk page. Since removing warnings isn't against policy, I let it slip by once, and I issued another reminder. Even this was reverted, along with all items on their talk page.

That was the final straw for me. They have failed to communicate and improve over the past 3 months, so I issued a stern message warning them of the consequences of even more disruptive editing. Only then did they ever respond to me as they tried to apologize with a badly-written apology which reads like an elementary English student wrote it (their user page is not any different, unfortunately), of which they even tried to fix three times. After this, they restored the warnings I issued previously, along with the first message I ever sent them regarding their edits (but not the one informing them of policy.) I expected this to be the end of the story, but lo and behold, they're back at their problematic edits with half-baked English, of which they even self-tagged with {{Rewrite}}. Knowing that this will never end and that I would have to deal with this user's problematic English for awhile, I've decided to take this to ANI.

The user shouts in their inserted content and edit summaries and shows a clear lack of interest in communicating with other editors, a lack of improvement after a near month of waiting for change, and a clear lack of competence as required from a Wikipedia editor. I understand that their likely making their edits are somewhat substantial and contribute to some extent, but this is already reckless. I've already exhausted all my options (talk page messages, summary mentions, warnings) which leads me to the final one: ANI. I just don't see how this user will be able to contribute a net positive if me and other editors have to mop up the mess they leave behind. Since I don't see this stopping soon, I'd like to request the administrators to please decide what to do with this user, since I am already tired of cleaning up after them. Many thanks! --Chlod (say hi!) 15:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: This user is now under investigation on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cristianpogi678. Chlod (say hi!) 00:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations and legal threats

Asking for a block of 2600:1008:B10D:A8D2:B4C0:A734:7A0F:2C6A (talk · contribs) and rev/deletion of their edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Also page protection of Max Scharping. This IP range has been there before. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

IP blocked for the threats and edits rev-del'd. I'm not the best on range blocking but it looks like one could be done in lieu of page protection. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I think there's more collateral damage with blocking 2600:1008:b100::/32 than protecting the page. -- Luk ^talk 00:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:ჯეო

On 2 June 2019, ჯეო was indefinitely blocked (not by me) on the Commons for repeated copyright violations. After a series of unresponsive/IDHT unblock requests, I removed talk page access there. Since that time, ჯეო has made numerous comments on my talk page here on en.wiki relating to that issue ([63][64] [65][66][67]), including what now appears to be monthly (22 September 2020, 13 October 2020‎, 13 November 2020.) The Commons issues have been clearly explained to them there (their talk page access was even conditionally restored in September, which they promptly violated). ჯეო has also been emailing me; I've asked them to desist in response. Although the content is banal, the inappropriate venue; the IDHT regarding the issues and venue; the failure to honour requests to stop; and especially the frequency, which now appears monthly (and is not limited to en.wiki, e.g., [68][69][70]), cause me to consider this as having moved beyond inappropriate and into harassment--whatever its motivation. I might suggest an interaction ban, but am open to any other remedy/sanction that would result in ჯეო's desistance. Эlcobbola _talk 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's do this:

• I'll block them from your talk page.  Done
• You turn off notifications from them in your preferences.
• If you haven't sent them email yet: Don't! And turn off email from them in your preferences as well.
• If you have sent them email before: we can't prevent them directly emailing you, but if they keep doing it, you should be able to forward the email to someone with authority at WMF (not 100% sure how it works, hopefully won't need to research) and they will likely be WMF banned.
• I make it clear to them that if they contact you anymore about a Commons-related issue, they will be blocked indef from en.wiki as well. Hopefully that will be sufficient deterrent.

@ჯეო: Leave. Elcobbola. Alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I should add that we can't do anything about pestering you on other projects. You'd have to either talk to admins there, or try to get their account globally locked. @ჯეო:, is this what you want to happen? If not, then stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I just wanted to get unblocked on Commons, because I think I can start work and I can help this project, I was trying to explain it--ჯეო4WIKI (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:CRS-20 is consistently reverting my edits and accusing me of vandalism

Back in October, User:CRS-20 reverted one of my edits, describing my edit as "vandalism" in his edit summary. A look at what he reverted will clearly show my edit was not vandalism, so I left a message on his talk page asking him not to make such accusations unless they are warranted. This warning clearly didn't work, as he did the exact same thing this month (here, and again here).

So I left another message on his talk page... but even after that, he did it again!

I am not sure what, if anything, an administrator can do about this, but perhaps CRS-20 will listen if an administrator repeats what I told him? Ultimograph5 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In the future, please remember that you must notify the user that is being reported on their talk page per policy at the top of this page and when you started this topic. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

CRS-20 should certainly not be calling your edits "vandalism", but you, on the other hand, should realize that having the parameter entries in an infobox line up makes it easier for editors to find and change specific parameters instead of having to hunt in and out through each line of the box. There is no advantage to eliminating the blank spaces, because they don't render on the published page, and, in general, making non-rendered changes is a waste of everybody's time. My suggestion to you is to stop making those edits, and my suggestion to CRS-20 is to read WP:VANDALISM and to stop mislabelling well-meant edits as vandalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I saw that Ultimograph5 left those warnings in the past - and saw that its now an ANI. Looked into this before (but haven't gotten involved). Just noting that looking at CRS-20's edit history, Ultimograph5 is not the only editor who has had their edits reverted as "vandalism" (here, here, here, here, here, here, here few others). While I do agree in reverting most of the edits, the edits were not WP:VANDALISM. Perhaps I should have left a message warning earlier. Both of you make good edits under the WikiProject Spaceflight pages. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I've issued CRS-20 a uw-mislead3 and made it clear that further reversions of these edits under the pretex of vandalism will result in a block. Ultimograph5 - accepting your edits were made in good faith, and understanding the reason why you made such edits - whilst not harmful, they are of little benefit either. If you can accept that some (most?) editors like the infobox parameters to line up for ease of editing and refrain from making such edits in the future, we can wrap this one up without any further administrative action. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Ultimograph5: As mentioned above, CRS-20 was wrong to describe your edits as vandalism. However, it is a very bad idea to "adjust" the existing style of an article. There are guidelines for spelling, dates and references saying that changing an existing style causes pointless disruption—don't do it. That principle applies to all things. If there had been a central discussion with large participation that decreed that wikitext alignment spaces should be removed, someone would have fixed articles with a bot. Until that happens, please do not impose personal preferences on articles. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Sadko doing a personal attack on other editors

User:Sadko in talk page doing a personal attack on other editors [[71]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.67.67 (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have issued a warning to the user. I don't know if I would call it a personal attack, but it is unproductive and harasses others. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It's okay to warn him or blocked from editing, but others have also complained about that editor which you only warn. Thank you93.138.67.67 (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Better policy about self promotion

We have come across a few editors over the years that are from other projects claiming they were asked to add content here as there job. Latest example was by User talk:Thehumantwig01 from Wikitongues who said I am an intern and it's my job to try to add these videos on as many pages..... Wondering if we should nip this type of stuff in the butt before it becomes even more common...with a better policy then we currently have. As in one geared to banning a site that does this type of actions related to paid editing to promote their own site.--Moxy 🍁 13:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure ANI is the best place to post this, but I agree. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

An intern eh? Are we getting into WP:PAID territory? Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Even if it's not paid, it's certainly a WP:COI violation. Every edit is adding "for Wikitongues" to the caption. For example, 1, 2, and 3 are their most recent edits. Woodroar (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thehumantwig01, can you explain a little more about this internship? Is there someone at Wikitongues coordinating the intern efforts that maybe we could discuss this with? I believe you're working in good faith, but we work by WP:CONSENSUS here, and if other editors are disagreeing with you about whether a language video belongs in articles that aren't about that language, you'll have to accept that or risk not being allowed to edit here. —valereee (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Sorry, Wikipedia logged me out so I didn't see these messages sooner. I am an unpaid volunteer intern with Wikitongues and I have been adding the videos of language speakers that they collect onto language pages and pages that I believe are related (such as adding language videos to the "language" portion of Wikipedia pages about people who speak the language or countries who have that language declared as an official language). If other users have an issue with me posting the video on non-language pages, I will stop. My issue was that very few people had issues until one user came and reverted 46 of my edits that nobody had messaged me about or had any issues with, which I didn't think was a "consensus" thing, and so I was trying to explain my case to him. I will stop posting them on language pages. As for adding Wikitongues' name for credit on the video, I wasn't doing that to try to like promote them or use Wikipedia as a way to raise money or anything for them, but in the videos I had seen on Wikipedia before beginning editing, the captions always cited the source they had gotten the video from, so that's what I did too. If I restrict the videos to only language pages from here on, can I continue editing? Thanks! Jessica Britt (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sock?

Can someone please do a check on User:Blocci and 84.212.193.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as their edit habits and summaries are very similar in edit warring at Italy national football team. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• I am going to do you one better and block User:Vesakin. Turns out Blocci has a habit of disruptive editing (edit warring, unsourced edits, socking--Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blocci/Archive). The IPs also make these unsourced edits, and at least one of them has been blocked for that before. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser

Recently, my WP:BOLD edit on Template:Jews and Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was reverted with no reason provided by a long-time edit-warrior with long history of blocks Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After edit-warring, I explained my edit on the talk page and asked him to self-revert. In response, he called me a liar, didn't undone his revert, and still demands that I explain my edit, without himself explaining why he's reverting it. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Please reread the diff you liked to, where you accused Debresser of calling you a liar. The first sentence of that is an explanation for the revert. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

An explanation is when someone says which links should not be removed and why. He didn't do that and he calls me a liar later in the diff I provided: "Oh, and you are a liar as well". --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: I disagree. Debresser did explain, although they would be better advised to engage in expanded discussion at the template talk page than to edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This appears to have a content dispute at its heart, with the only behavioural issues being that Triggerhippie4 should not have re-reverted, and Debresser should not have used the word "liar". I don't believe that either of those is at the level where admin action is warranted, so why not just discuss this on the template talk page? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute and is being discussed on the template talk page. Debresser replied to Triggerhippie4's inquiries a full hour before this complaint was initiated. Debresser characterized Triggerhippie4's calling attention to their block log as "poisoning the well", and they were right, it was an unnecessary ad hominem. Debresser responding in kind is really not actionable. Everyone here needs to remember that assume good faith is a policy. Nothing for admins to do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger and Ivanvector: This isn't a content dispute because Debresser doesn't dispute the content. In his reply on the talk page he admit that he has no arguments against the substance of my edits. He then ask me to explain minor, obvious part of my edit, but he never himself explained why it shouldn't be made. He could restore that part only, but he just revert everything against WP:GOODFAITH and then making up excuses why he did that. It does not help improving Wikipedia. I'm pointing out his block history because this is a continuation of his disruptive behavior of WP:OWN and edit-warring. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with Phil Bridger that Triggerhippie4 should have discussed and not re-reverted. I also agree with Ivanvector that Triggerhippie4 was unnecessarily poisoning the well. I would also like to point out that Triggerhippie4's edit summary "The last time this template was discussed, it was me who made it what it is today without objection or participation."[72] IMHO confirms that Triggerhippie4 has a WP:OWN issue here. There is active discussion on the talkpage. I was sincerely surprised when I saw the WP:ANI notification on my talkpage, and think that this is unnecessary drama. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Persistent edit-warring over nationality of films

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

---

M*tesh (talk · contribs) is persisting in a campaign to change the nationality of various films to whatever they consider it to be (usually "British"), despite repeated efforts by a variety of other editors to persuade them to stop and in the face of both cited sources and guidelines such as WP:FILMLEAD. Their only attempt to engage across the many articles they are editing is at Talk:Enola_Holmes_(film)#An_"American"_film?, where their sole contribution appears to be repeating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-style that IMDB says something so it must be true. I have tried to engage with their user on their talk page, and tried to raise their reverts at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:M*tesh_reported_by_User:Ninetyone_(Result:_) but this appears to have got no traction. The user has demonstrated a clear pattern of repeatedly re-adding material that is unsourced, improperly sourced or directly contradicts a cited source, despite clear edit summaries from other users explaining why they are reverting. The user is now purely disruptive and it is hard to see that they are hear to build any form of encyclopaedia. ninety:one 18:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Mike Novikoff

I'm sorry if this not the right place to discuss this (if this is the case, please move my message to a more appropriate location), but I have found myself in a fight with a user named Mike Novikoff. I saw him removing stress (accent) marks from names in the Cyrillic script (enclosed in a {{lang-ru}} template) and I've tried to stop him, but he continues. I have pointed him to WP:BRD and suggested that he starts a serious discussion of the issue on the Russian project talk page before continuing, but he doesn't want to listen. There's also another user that helped him.

Mike Novikoff even wrote an essay about the necessity to remove stress marks from Russian names (WP:RUSTRESS), which he promotes by including a link to it in his edit summaries. I've tried to move the essay to his user space, but he moved it back. (By the way, the essay is badly written, and it looks like an attack page against the Russian Wikipedia where Mike Novikoff is currently blocked.)

I don't really want to fight and I don't care much about the Navalny and Lenin pages where Mike Novikoff reverted me 3 times or so already, but I'm afraid that he starts to remove stress marks en masse. I'm concerned about the articles that don't have Russian-language versions. (There are many, cause the Russian Wikipedia has stricter notability rules.) And if there isn't a Russian version, there will be nowhere to go for the information on correct pronunciation, the information will be completely lost.

By the way, Mike Novikoff's essay says that an IPA transcription "is already present in most of the articles that need it", but that is simply not true. And Mike No\vikoff has already removed stress marks from some articles that didn't have an IPA transcription. Examples: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are links to previous discussions:

• User talk:Mike Novikoff#WP:Stress marks in Russian words
• User talk:Retimuko#Alexei Navalny

As you can see, I've tried to explain to Mike Novikoff and Retimuko that most (if not all) Russian encyclopedias and dictionaries mark stresses. And that if they wanted to remove stress marks, a wide and thorough discussion would be necessary. But they don't seem to understand. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Moscow Connection, I've found that the best thing to do when you are in a dispute with another editor is to get more, knowledgeable editors involved in the discussion so it evolves out of a "me vs. you" tug of war to a "how can we improve this?" discussion. So, I was going to recommend you bringing this subject to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia but it looks like most talk page messages there get zero responses. Are there places in Wikipedia, maybe Wikipedia:Manual of Style or Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages involving language, accents, stress marks and the like where some other editors could weigh in on this matter? I think you need to broaden the discussion beyond just the two of you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia is essentially dead. Probably WT:MOS could be the best place to discuss the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

71.234.217.123 and the US presidential election

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

---

Despite a 36-hour block for edit-warring to remove Joe Biden's victory at 21st century, the very first edit made by 71.234.217.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) after that block was to repeat their removal. Could someone take whatever action is deemed necessary please? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you gonna ban me for standing up for the truth? Typical lefties, it's sad how you've even infested Wikipedia now. This is why there's a cultural revolution against you. --71.234.217.123 (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Blocked IP vandal removing talk page warnings

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

---

See this history. I assume what’s needed here is removal of talk page access. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. A blocked user removing block notices is not a good idea. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, as per WP:BLANKING, he is entitled to blank his own talk page. — Czello 22:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

If that’s the standard rule, then OK. I was looking at WP:USERPAGE and the comments there to the effect that user talk page material is needed for reference by other users in most cases. Given the history (repeated removal of warnings, followed by revandalzing after block expiry) I think the IP is simply trying to remove incriminating evidence to help avoid an immediate reblock if they should offend again. But if BLANKING allows this, OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Block history is in the block log. I'm not an administrator, but I imagine admins look at that when considering a course of action. In any event, they don't need the talk page to go by. Largoplazo (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:BLANKING, editors can remove most notices from their talk pages except declined unblock requests if the editor is currently blocked and a few other exceptions (Speedy deletion tags, deletion discussion tags). But warnings, yes they can be removed and they should not be replaced if they are removed by an editor. I'm mystified that several editors reverted their legitimate removal of notices. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and accusation of sock puppetry by No Great Shaker

No Great Shaker accuses me of being a sock puppet of Lazman321 [81] Sick of editors throwing around baseless accusations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

See the GAR and the baseless accusation of "bad faith". Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

File a case at WP:SPI if you think there's evidence of sock puppetry. Otherwise, you need to keep your suspicions to yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead, No Great Shaker. Go ahead and list me in the Sockpuppet investigations list. Go ahead and have a reviewer use checkuser on me and Hawkeye7. Just ask yourself this. Why would an experienced editor with tons of featured, A-class, and good articles to his credit create a sockpuppet user a week after re-nominating Albert Kesselring and wait two months before having the sockpuppet user work on getting "Levels (Avicii song)" to GA status along with other edits before eventually reviewing Albert Kesselring and passing it. If you still believe that I am a sockpuppet user of Hawkeye7, then go ahead, No Great Shaker. Go ahead and list me in the Sockpuppet investigation list. Lazman321 (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous accusation. Combined with the personal attack on the GAR page, this is an indication that NGS needs to take a break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Insistent SPA engaging in disruptive behaviour

User:WikiCorrection0283 is a single-purpose account, whose only activity to date has been composed of adding heavy WP:OR and WP:POV violations to the article List of massacres in Cyprus, e.g. [82]. This has been going on for a couple of months really but has really recently escalated. The content is a collage of content copied and pasted from other articles (content that I myself wrote), random references that have little or no relevance to the topic and pure original research without any sources. Despite attempts at communication and clear previous consensus amongst editors on what to include, the user insists on making these mass additions and responds with walls of texts on Talk:List of massacres in Cyprus, replete with personal attacks against me, which is frankly in harassment territory by now, taking into consideration their edit summaries too. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Pinging other users involved: Beshogur, Mr.User200. --GGT (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:GGT you should have waited for my response and of other fellow editors on the article talk page, also this by your part is really not helping, it never helps. User:WikiCorrection0283 was a Anon IP before October 2020, seems he tries to help in Wikipedia at his particular way. I hope more can be achieved in the talk page that apealing to warns and reverts. I propose that WikiCorrection0283 use his draft space to propose a version for the article and make the observations opinions on it.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my original conclusion - the user is a clear SPA as any third-party editor will be able to see from their contributions and the walls of text, personal attacks and mass manipulations of references are clear red flag signs that the user is not here to build an encyclopaedia. --GGT (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User Wikicorrection0283 shows particular interest on that article, during a short period of time, likely a SPA. User:GGT also edit several Cyprus related articles too, but have more time editing. Maybe a concensus could be achieved.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, in fact they only show interest in that article. That's why they're called an SPA. I've worked on these articles for years and I know a POV-pushing SPA when I see one. The reason I'm calling for administrative attention is because all the red flag signs are clearly there. --GGT (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Being an SPA is not a violation of policy. Most editors start out their editing careers as SPAs. It's the WP:OR that I'm more concerned about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure I looked like one: created account, made 12 edits, then created a bio on someone whose first name was Valerie. Hahaha... Agree with Liz, the simple fact it's an SPA isn't the problem. —valereee (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That is true, but letting the SPA emphasis aside, that the single purpose here is OR is quite a problem. And the OR is quite insidious. I've been working on these articles for years and wouldn't be able to identify it if it wasn't for 1) the user copying content that I wrote myself 2) me having relatively easy access to a legal deposit library. Another editor could very easily overlook it. The user has been made fully aware, and has only responded with walls of texts and personal attacks. --GGT (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Mass unsourced edits or vandalism to university articles

Mainly enrollment and faculty numbers by 2600:1702:1190:2AA0:114C:DB72:AC1:7CD5 (talk · contribs), removing sourced content. Unless there's an indication that any of these are valid, a mass rollback seems necessary. And a block, of course. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

They're not valid. None of the changes are sourced, and often there is removal of content, including citations, for no reason. I have reverted dozens of their edits. It's vandalism, pure and simple. Sundayclose (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Sundayclose, especially for taking the time to revert the edits. I was hoping an admin would do that in one swoop and block the account. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Namiba continues populating category during ongoing CfD

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

---

Namiba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Namiba continues to add pages to Category:Basketball players from Los Angeles despite its ongoing CfD, which they have !voted at. Earlier discussion on their talk page with another user, Rikster2, was unsuccessful and deleted.[83]

Not sure if their intent is to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. My biggest complaint is it is flooding my watchlist with changes that may be reversed depending on the CfD close. I am uninvolved with the CfD.—Bagumba (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bagumba. Is there a policy or guideline that says that editors should not be adding categories to articles while a category is being discussed at CfD? If so, please point to it. At least seven editors favor keeping that category, so it is not as if there is consensus to delete it. Namiba responded to Rikster2 and has the right to delete that conversation. As for your watchlist, you have 100% control of it. If you are getting too many notifications, you can either trim it back or change your settings. I do not know why you think this is a matter for ANI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I dont't know of a policy or guideline. it seems common sense. I'm not seeing the loss to the project of waiting a few days more to continue adding the category, when it might no longer be in dispute. Otherwise, it's potentially adding more future reverts to WPs databases. There is no reason to burden editors to change their watchlists when they want to see real changes, not a widespread continuation of a known dispute. —Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, it doesn't seem like common sense to me or to Namiba. The database can handle the reverts quite easily. Why do you think this is a matter for ANI? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, it seemed like something obvious to me that should be stopped now, so I took it here as opposed to AN. Now if there was say an MOS dispute open, but another user continued to do mass formatting based on that known, ongoing dispute, you wouldn't see a proble'? Or is this somehow different? Thanks in advance. —Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328: The spirit is captured at the policy WP:CONSENSUS: Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Otherwise, allowing continued edits in disputed areas will force others to unnecessarily revert and edit war to justify a noticeboad post. That's not what we should want.—Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, the fact that seven editors support keeping the category (eight including me) indicates to me that consensus is shaping up to keep the category. Namiba did not ignore the discussion on their talk page. They responded. Namiba did not "stonewall" the CfD discussion. They participated appropriately, and several other editors agreed with them, the majority of those who have commented to date. I still don't understand why you think this routine content dispute belongs at ANI. What am I missing? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, the encyclopedia is not put on hold once an XfD is started. Articles can be edited after an AfD starts. Categories can be added after a CfD begins. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

To me this looks like it could be a good-faith effort to simply help show why keeping a category is reasonable? I don't find it necessarily disruptive. This feels like a content dispute. —valereee (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Harassment by User:Ben45io99

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

---

In the talk page of Ben45io99, the user harassed me by calling names and he wanted to fight me: diff and diff. This incident was happened after I reverted its edits on Christian Pulisic, and giving this user a second warning. ----Rdp060707 (Your questions?/My fight against the devil) 03:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia is politically biased

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

---

Content is published that is definitely not neutral and clearly politically biased. This is a problem because Wikipedia is considered factual, especially by younger people who often rely on Wikipedia alone for information. More worryingly, politically biased content is often locked preventing further discourse seeking to advance a position of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosmikjerk (talk • contribs) 04:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kosmikjerk. Vague, generalized complaints of bias accomplish nothing. Plus, this noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. You need to make a specific case for changes on each article's talk page, grounding your arguments in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Kosmikjerk has made a draft with this same title: Draft:Wikipedia is politically biased. Curbon7 (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Edit summaries by User:A.S. Brown are very problematic

Hello! I wanted to bring up a problem I noticed with a user's edit summaries. A.S. Brown is a prolific contributor, but I am concerned that some of his edit summaries may create an environment that is unfriendly to other users, reflect bias in a way that is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and violate NPOV. I suspect a thorough examination of this user's extensive contribution history may reveal more problems, but here are diffs for a number of examples that stand out:

• On the Japanese
• On First Nations people
• Again on First Nations people
• On Afghans and Sikhs
• On Irish travellers
• On a BLP where, the subject's nature aside, bias is evident
• On women being whores
• On money and a sex life
• On an article about a woman who had multiple partners

I have found many other instances of bizarre or biased edit summaries, but in the interest of concision, I'll just leave those nine for now. In general, this user adds an immense amount of detail to articles, some of which may be helpful or useful from an encyclopedic point of view. Other times, though, it is difficult to see what interest, beyond prurient, a reader might have in some of this content. The whole article on Barbara Skelton is filled with so much unneeded detail on her sex life with King Farouk that it is obvious it serves no purpose except to titillate the reader with the exploits of the dead. Most of the same content can be found on the King's page as well.

This is my first time at ANI, and I have never called out another user like this before. I just thought that these edit summaries were beyond the pale and deserved attention from more experienced editors. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do beyond notifying the user in question on their talk page with the necessary template. Thank you. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yikes. Some of these are outrageously offensive, and need to be revision deleted as serious BLP violations. A.S. Brown, is there anything that you can say to explain what was going on here - how can you justify referring to a named, living individuals as 'scumbags' (multiple times in the recent history of Satan's Choice Motorcycle Club), or your sweeping generalisations about various cultures, religions and nationalities? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) Whoa. You weren't exaggerating. A.S. Brown, what in the world? Please 1. explain if you possibly can and 2. stop. —valereee (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I love a carefully crafted edsum as much as the next editor, but the examples provided show me that this chap doesn't belong here. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wtf? Apparently it spreads into edits too, eg Special:Diff/986639301, which smells somewhat of POV. Some of these summaries are just completely inappropriate even if not BLP violations. What is going on here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• WTF indeed. more than 50k edits. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Two sense: (1) Wikipedia is so big, it's amazing how long some things can go on for before anyone notices. (2) These edit summaries read like they're coming from that guy at the bar: "Lemme (hic) lemmetellyasumthinbout Afghans and Sikhs..." Lev¡vich 18:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not just edit summaries. I just removed a sentence they added to the above-mentioned article, which asserted that Irish Travellers are a group of people who "make their living by criminality" - a sweeping, throwaway generalisation about an ethnic group that has no place being anywhere near article space. I'm worried at what a deeper look into their contribs would throw up - I was about to go block them, but Cullen328 beat me to it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, I spent a fair amount of time looking at their contributions, and decided that an indefinite block is appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I want to commend Ganesha811 for bringing this matter to this noticeboard with a well-organized and convincing presentation. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

        Agreed - thanks, that was a necessary and we'll-put-together report. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Girth Summit, Cullen328, Valereee, and others - thank you for your prompt attention to this issue, and for taking action about it at once. I'm concerned, as you may be too, that given this user's extensive contribution history, other "bad" edits may exist. They have added a *ton* of content, and given what has been unearthed so far, it seems probable that some percentage of it is biased, unnecessarily prurient, accompanied by bigoted edit summaries, or possibly a BLP violation. They were also autopatrolled, so they have created many articles with little oversight. How can we go about making sure this content is reviewed, and, if appropriate, removed from Wikipedia? Ganesha811 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  Re autopatrolled: articles can be manually unpatrolled, or by script, to pop them back into queue. Also, a list can be seen here. Regarding other edits, no real way other than by taking a flick through contribs, but it'll undoubtedly take some work to carefully resolve everything that may need resolving. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should also delete their user pages. It's a mass ofexternal links. Some are just to articles, but an inordinate amount of them are links to Youtube videos that appear to be documentary series uploaded without the permission of the rights holder. So it's basically a collection of links to copyrighted material. Canterbury Tail talk 21:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually I've gone ahead and deleted it. I looked into many of the videos and they were clearly recorded off TV. You can see "Play" indicators where they are playing the VCR, and watermarks for CityTV among others. I think it should be revdelled. (Well at least I told it to delete it, but the linkfarm is so huge it's taking the DB a while to do anything with it.) Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Slattky1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has created this account purely for the purpose of changing legitimate and sourced artists names for either "Hoodrich Pablo Juan" or "Hoodrixh Miko" in record label related articles. Probably some wanna-be rapper/producer but this vandalism is becoming extremely disruptive and warnings do not seem to be working. Examples of this can be seen here, here, here, here and here. Robvanvee 15:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as NOTHERE. I saw they already had a block in May of this year, and learned nothing from it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Rick! Robvanvee 15:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Rude and aggressive comments from User:Sailor Sam

The discourse can be seen here on my talk page. I nominated a page (Zappa (film)), which I thought non-notable, for deletion about 3 weeks ago. it was hastily declined. OK, whatever. But User:Sam Sailor seems to have taken exception to this, questioning, among other things, my knowledge of the Danish language, my editing history (which I stand fully behind), making (in my belief) unfounded accusations of disruptive editing, and generally communicating in an aggressive and generally uncivil manor towards myself.

Additionally, upon further inspection, he/she has made reverts of at least one edit I made in an unrelated article, Astronomy (song).

Also, the editor in question has made rude commentary about the incident on another editor's talk page.

I have also explicitly informed them not to contact me again.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@L1A1 FAL: First, you seem to have ignored the big warning telling you that you must notify any editor you bring up for discussion. I will do so for you, but please make sure to do so yourself in the future. Anyway, I don't see why this is at ANI. You asked the editor not to contact on your talk page. Fine. If they editor kept contacting you, I could understand an ANI thread, but that has happened yet. Reverting a single edit they saw in your edit history (I assume) is clearly not anywhere enough to count as WP:Hounding. Their discussion with Lugnuts seems to be just two editors exasperated at what they felt was a terrible nomination. The stuff on your talk page seems mostly fine. Asking you if you spoke Danish was reasonable under the circumstances. WP:BEFORE means you should generally look for sources before nominating and although it looks like a bunch of English sources were found, it's possible most sources for a Danish film will be in Danish, so if you didn't understand Danish, completing before would likely have been difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, remember that while you are allowed to ask editors not to contact you on your talk page, this doesn't mean you can escape responsibility for your edits. If there are problems with your AfDs and an editor has tried to help you but you've ignored them and told them not to contact you, they will be well within their rights to bring it ANI to have you sanctioned e.g. topic banned from AfD if the problem continues. The community is likely to accept that attempts to discuss the problem with you were limited by your refusal to discuss the matter, and that therefore sanctions may be warranted even with limited attempts to resolve the matter first. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The AFD was speedily declined, within 24 hours. I had minimal opportunity to respond to the matter. Offer help? Sam Sailor didn't even contact me until after the matter was closed. He contacted me over a matter that was, by that point, closed. I find that nonconstructive, to say the least.

The particular edit he reverted was a valid edit that I made, removing informtion not relevant to the target of the article. I believe he simply reverted it based on my edit summary, and their and my back-and-forth, rather than the actual matter of the edit, or having any knowledge of the subject themself.

I did not see the warning. That is on me. I am beyond exasperated with this editor, and just wanted this issue addressed.

And why should I be sanctioned? I didn't act in bad faith. The matter was over when he/she contacted me. I tried to engage them.. I've never had any issues about AFD before, so I believe that your understanding of this matter is incorrect. Their communication with me was unnecessary, given that the AFD was declined, and it was additionally, needlessly accusatory and WP:uncivil.

Additionally, they came at me today, after probably about a week of no communication. While they probably ultimately have good motives, there is no reason that the substance of their conduct should not be addressed.-L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Again it's a single edit. Right or wrong, it's minor enough it's unreasonable to expect sanction over it, the same way it would be to sanction you over a poor AfD or not notifying them. If there is continued dispute over the edit, take it to Talk:Astronomy as always. There should be no reason why it needs to be at ANI. If there is a continued pattern of reverting your edits especially unnecessarily, or following you around, then sure sanction may be justified. But not over a single edit. Also substance of what conduct? What on earth are you talking about? Editors aren't required to use Wikipedia 24/7 nor are they required to respond to stuff straight away. You've told them you no longer welcome communication. Just leave it at that and stop wasting everyone's time. If you continue to make poor AfDs, that's on you, so please do seek feedback in appropriate venues if you're not willing to discuss the problems. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Looking more carefully, I see you did say "And unless you actually have something to discuss, please do not contact me again, or a complaint will be filed" and the editor responded. Them replying after you said this seems okay since they felt they did have something to discuss. The fact you didn't welcome their reply is unfortunate but it wasn't a clear request to stay away. Their reply could have been more polite, but yours could have been as well. Now that you've left a clear request to stay away, this should be respected and I've reminded them that they should do so. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw your comment on their page, and can't help but feel as though you have more-or less invited them to counter-report me. I find this unfortunate. I also had more to add, but it got caught in an edit conflict. I'm not retyping it, as I feel that this is going nowhere, and I have real-life matters to attend to. I would greatly appreciate it if you would address Sam's tone in his communication, but I can see you feel different than I. Good day.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Shakshak31

Shakshak31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ever since the eruption of the new Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, some new user/IPs have arrived to this site, including User:Shakshak31, who seemingly is not here to here to build an encyclopedia, but rather, to be on a mission of Turkification.

Some of his diffs:

Personal attacks: speak properly dummy. I'm not sockpuppet of someone. I just didn't see the archive

Major lack of WP:CIR [84] [85]. Honestly this person is impossible to work with, admittingly I don't have the best patience for this kind of stuff, yet my point remains.

Removal/alteration of sourced information and edit warring in a GA article to push his own POV, completely ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and whatnot [86] [87] [88]

Some of these removals include cited stuff such as:

Basarab's name implies that he was of Cuman or Pecheneg ancestry, but this hypothesis has not been proven.[8][11][12]

A scholarly hypothesis states that he was descended from Seneslau, a mid-13th-century Vlach lord.[4][5]

Changed the lede as well: Although his name is of Turkic origin, 14th-century sources unanimously state that he was a Vlach. -> There are multiple theories about his ethnicity.

Anti-Iranian behaviour or at least more disrespect from his side:

I'm deleting my own comment. because the iranian guy deleted my other comment.

== Persian chauvinism == Hello teacher, farsi editors on wikipedia are making Turkish history Iranian. They constantly write "Turco-persian, Turco-afghan, persianized" to Turkish states, but for example, they treat safevis whose origins are controversial as if they were purebred Kurds. Also, I added the posters to the List of Turkic dynasties and countries list. The guys watched all the articles about Turkish. If anything they don't want, they say unreliable source and delete it directly. I've never seen such a lousy site. These are the thieves of history. I will be glad if you can do something. I, too, that same farsi complained to someone I don't know called sockpuppeti and I will be banned soon. Come easy to you. You can delete the message after reading it.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I've already explained all my edits about Basarab on The talk page. [89]--Shakshak31 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I never deleted the sentence he was talking about. It's still there. I just cleared the page, made grammer edits, and deleted theories such as the theory that his name came from the dacio-thracian language. Because Dacian-thracian language died out almost a thousand years before Basarab's birth. [90]--Shakshak31 (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Also this translation sucks. what is "hello teacher"? Lol--Shakshak31 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If User:Shakshak31 is responding here, can he explain his comment, "these are the thieves of history" (Google translated from Turkish). I am familiar with past disputes about the origins of the Safavid dynasty. Over the years, that page has had to be protected about 15 times, mostly to deter people who want to make the Safavids more Turkish and less Persian. Sources seem to agree that they were both. If Shakshak31 shows by his talk comments that he is unable to edit neutrally in this domain, some restrictions may be needed. Also, if you really think this is 'a lousy site' why wouldn't you take your efforts elsewhere? At present I'm not convinced that Shakshak31 is a sockpuppet, though socks are often known for their sudden arrival on Wikipedia with strong opinions that they make known immediately. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston It's not about the Safavids. I added the Afsharids to the List of Turkic dynasties and countries because they were Turkmens from the Afshar tribe. Also Nader Shah's mother tongue was Turkic and Nader Shah doesn't have any Iranian (as ethnicity) ancestry. But a Persian editor revert it. That's what that sentence was about. --Shakshak31 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Shakshak has made unacceptable statements in his edits as can be seen above, referring to other editors as "thieves of history", amongst others. When confronted with these edits, right here at ANI, he still refers to another editor as "a Persian editor",[91] a clear violation of WP:NPA. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that Shakshak31 is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Mass of unsourced content, added to possibly hundreds of figure skating articles

108.49.100.163 (talk · contribs). WP:BLP stuff. I'd prefer not to waste the next hour reverting everything, one by one. According to the user's talk page, they've received numerous warnings and plowed ahead with admirable disregard. Requesting administrative assistance for a quicker resolution. Thanks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I really hate the thought of being permanently blocked because I have a right to edit Wikipedia as much as everyone does. I will be very upset if I get in big trouble for trying to help by editing. Please do not block me at all. - Signed: Meaghan Brown, Holliston, MA

Meaghan, nobody has the right to disregard warnings and guidelines as completely as you have. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm only trying to help because I have been finding information based on Google templates on search pages and mylife.com for American female single skaters. There are times when I do add sourced content, but I find the easiest website possible to add new information for other readers to learn about. I hate harsh criticism and threats to block or ban me from editing Wikipedia because I am trying to follow the guidelines that you all have been trying to teach me, and I'm just having a lot of trouble sourcing pages because they either come as errors or they're completely deleted. I need all your help, because there are things I am very new to.

The scope of unsourced edits is truly impressive. If you're genuine in your desire to continue here, I suggest you begin by deleting every piece of unsourced content you've added, rather than leaving it for other editors to sort through. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

What unsourced content do I need to delete? Can you help me?

Everything you added without providing a source. Have you read the guidelines? Or the many messages left at your talk page? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines and many messages at my talk page but I have reached out to those who were harsh with me and threatened to block me. I just need to know if I need to delete unsourced birth dates, unsourced programs, etc.?

I have just started reverting the unsourced material to WP:BLP. I am very genuine about my desire to continue editing, but I don't want to make it out as if I am vandalizing or hurting pages like that. 108.49.100.163 (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Meaghan Brown (User talk:108.49.100.163)

The Image Editor making mass undiscussed changes to bio infobox images/edit warring

*The report below was archived without action, despite the reported user continuing their behavior. I have un-archived it and request that it be formally actioned or closed without action by an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The Image Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been making unilateral changes to infobox images (usually of people) without discussion for months. They usually leave edit summaries claiming their preferred images are "better" or "more recent". They have a habit of removing paintings in favor of photographs, and replacing black-and-white photos with color ones. They also have a tendency to edit-war when reverted. They have been warned many times—by GoodDay, myself, and Sundayclose—and have agreed to seek consensus before making these changes. They've been reverted by many other editors. While they have opened some talk page discussions after being told to do so, they've also continued making unilateral changes, which are highly disruptive. By my count, they've received ten warnings after their agreement to wait for consensus before making these changes. They've also routinely uploaded blatant copyright violations, such as a screenshot of the first 2020 presidential debate that they tried to use as the infobox photo for Chris Wallace. Most recently, they changed the portraits at Template:Joe Biden series and Template:Franklin D. Roosevelt series: [92], [93]. They have ignored most of these warnings, but responded to my most recent warning, arguing that their changes are supported by their "interpretation of the guidelines of Wikipedia", and that their continued undiscussed changes are acceptable because they discuss "most" of their changes now. I and others have assumed good faith and given them the benefit of the doubt many times, which they have chosen to abuse. A block is now needed to stem future disruption.

Diffs of undiscussed image changes

[94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301], [302], [303], [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319], [320], [321], [322], [323], [324], [325], [326], [327]

Diffs of warnings given: [328], [329], [330], [331], [332], [333], [334], [335], [336], [337], [338], [339], [340]

― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support a ban after briefly looking over his history. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 15:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Support, if that's what it will take to get the message across. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support some sort of sanction along with a warning that continued changing of images without discussion will result in a more severe sanction. This editor seems to have appointed themselves as the Wikipedia authority on both image quality and copyright. Sundayclose (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Some time ago I got the impression that the community supported the notion that attitudes could edit text without prior permission (with some rare exceptions), but the replacement of images with a different image (as opposed to adding a new image) was frowned upon without getting consensus. With rare exceptions, if I plan to replace an image with a different image I first post my intention on the talk page and wait to hear to see if there's any dissent. I want to support editors who have image editing skills, as there are many examples of images that could be improved either by editing the image itself, or tracking down a superior image. However, while someone with such skills might feel confident that a color photograph is better than a black-and-white, a photograph is better than the painting, and a cropped photo is better than an un-cropped photo, this doesn't necessarily follow. The communities' judgments might differ from the particular editors judgment. For that reason, I think editors should be generally encouraged to open a discussion on the talk page before making any such changes, and mandate that option if they have made such changes in the past and had them challenged. It's my understanding that this editor agreed to open discussions prior to making changes, and I support enforcing that. I'd hate to block someone if they simply misunderstand the communities view but given the number of warnings on the page it's hard to accept that as a possibility, so I reluctantly support a short block and hope the editor will agree to seek consensus before making any more changes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support I looked at 7 or so of the example diffs, & only 2 were imo improvements - Chadwick Boseman, though that should be cropped at the bottom, & the Evan McMullin. Albert Einstein uses a colourized image, which we don't like. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support On one hand the suggestion that anyone has to check with others before making edits is ridiculous on its face and against the wiki spirit. "You really should stop making unilateral image changes across articles." How dare the unwashed masses trod upon the holy temple of infobox images. The issues with edit warring and refusing to discuss after being reverted are the actual issue here. I suggest a topic ban on adding or replacing images until the editor agrees to mentoring and shows an understanding of copyright policy and edit warring guidelines. --Laser brain (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Laser-brain (and disagree with Sphilbrick) in that the problem is not changing images without prior discussion, since that's no more than normal Wikipedia editing procedure. The problem is replacing good images with ones which are not improvements. A more recent photo is not necessarily better than an older one, depending on the photos, nor is a color image automatically better than a good black and white one, especially if the b&w image presents a subject in their prime and not their old age. Even an image with better resolution is not absolutely better with one that's lower in resolution. It all depends on the images involved! It's an editorial judgment call, the kind we all make all the time with text, no different than that. If Editor X's judgment is bad, and they're favoring a less good image over a better one, than that change needs to be reverted and explained to the editor. If Editor X constantly makes those kind of poor judgment calls, then a sanction, such as a topic ban or a short block, needs to be put in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: I understand your point that changing images per se is not necessarily anything unusual on Wikipedia, but in the case of this particular editor, the changes have been very frequent, and often when the change is reverted, this editor reverts back without discussion. Additionally, there have been many requests that changes should be discussed; the editor agreed to discuss in the future but often does not. Also, the copyright violations are a serious problem; there have been warnings about that but the violations continue. Another annoying pattern with this editor is that they seem satisfied with their own edit summary such as "changed to better image" or "changed to color image", but they will argue that a similarly expressed reason for reverting is not acceptable. This editor seems to consider themselves as not being subject to the need to abide by policies and to edit collaboratively. Sundayclose (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

    Sundayclose, I completely agree. I should have made it more clear that I don't see changing images without discussion as a problem in and of itself. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Close needed: @HeartGlow30797, GoodDay, Sundayclose, Sphilbrick, Johnbod, Laser brain, and Beyond My Ken: This editor added a nonfree image to two pages while this discussion was ongoing: [341], [342]. There seems to be a consensus here for either a block or a topic ban, and I think one of those should now be applied given the ongoing disruption. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Topic would suffice (for now, at least). Just hope this isn't the same fellow who was blocked for disruptive image downloads & later for socking around that block. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, you've piqued my curiosity. What was that editor's handle? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

He was Lennox Theodore Anderson & his sock AndersonL7333. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that an admin should impose a topic ban on image changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797, GoodDay, Sundayclose, Sphilbrick, Johnbod, Laser brain, and Beyond My Ken: There was a very clear and strong consensus here for a sanction. Why wasn't one imposed? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, no administrator has imposed it. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, that's what I'm saying. I'm asking why. This is one of the most frustrating things about noticeboards. Often discussions are archived without action being taken even when there's a very strong consensus for a particular action. It makes putting these cases together feel like a complete waste of time. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to put in a request for a formal close. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but remember that you only filed the report a week ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, yes, but in my experience, it being archived often means an admin won't touch it. I wouldn't be as frustrated if it were still sitting at WP:ANI. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

My error, I didn;t realize that it had been archived. I'm going to un-archive it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: If this is archived again without admin action, we need to contact some responsible admins about this problem. And we also need to reopen the case with a link to this discussion if the disruptive edits occur again; even if it's just one. Letting this guy off the hook will send a signal that it's acceptable behavior. Sundayclose (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sundayclose, agreed, especially since they have chosen to ignore this discussion and have actually made more disruptive edits while it has been ongoing. This is a pretty straightforward case with a unanimous consensus for action. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for close

Would an admin please review the report above and decide if a sanction is warranted? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof

The editor NorthBySouthBaranof seems to revert politically contentious edits, edits intended to improve an article's neutrality, on articles that have serious left wing biases in certain places. This has been a problem for a while, starting with George Floyd's article, where I wanted to add more information on Mr. Floyd's medical examiner report. He reverted that edit, and claimed that reverting his revert was a blockable edit warring. Looking at his userpage, you can see many cases, and even more if you look in the talk page's edit history, of people complaining about him reverting edits intended to improve the representation of both sides in an article.

He has been a significant hindrance in me trying to improve the representation of all people, regardless of whether or not they are progressives or conservatives, in articles. It seems that I try to remove more liberal biases than conservative ones, but the fact of the matter is that there are more liberal biases than conservative ones.

Thanks, --JazzClam (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you considered the parable of The Mote and the Beam? Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)