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

User:Mike Novikoff

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

---

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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. --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)

Indeed, having a clear statement on this matter included in MoS would be the best of the options. I just hadn't aimed that high yet. Generally, I am removing these stress marks from Russian words (not only names) for a couple of years already, for the sake of the correct spelling, and such edits were never reverted until recently, so I dare say there is a kind of silent consensus on that. Only once I've been asked a question by a user (who didn't revert, just asked), then a user suggested that I write a more detailed description, hence I wrote WP:RUSTRESS and continued to happily edit using the shortcut instead of wordy summaries.

All of a sudden, Moscow Connection came down like a ton of bricks on me, and despite all the conversations I'm feeling a constant pressure from him for almost a month now. Did he mention that he moved my essay away twice, until having been stopped by an admin? Then he proceeded to constantly watch and revert my edits, including weird reversions, and he continues to do so. And he had put {{uw-3rr}} on my talk page thrice, despite it being a single-issue template, despite WP:Don't template the regulars and despite my request to stop it after the first one. He acts as if I'm doing something really disruptive and he has to stop me by all means, he even said this explicitly: "I can't allow him to do it". It looks like WP:HOUNDING (he really does inhibit my work), I'm sick and tired of this, so can you please tell him to slow down a bit? While we don't currently have a rule to remove the stress marks, we don't have one to put and keep them either, so Moscow Connection's behavior shouldn't be so aggressive.

there will be nowhere to go for the information on correct pronunciation, the information will be completely lost
A typical fallacy of an inexperienced editor (even though Moscow Connection doesn't look like one). If a research is so unique and original that it "will be completely lost", it definitely has no place in Wikipedia, that's what WP:OR is all about. — Mike Novikoff 02:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

How is it both "your" essay and not in your User Space? It's either one or the other, surely. Nfitz (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Stress marks in Russian words to allow us to focus on content. ◅ Sebastian 01:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Rude and aggressive comments from User:Sam Sailor

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)

It is interesting that Sam Sailor is pretending to coach L1A1 FAL on dispute resolution and conversation, in the same edit with the ad hominem attack "I chose to disregard that you did not wish to discuss your incompetence". And yes, starting by challenging his knowledge of Danish, when he had never claimed such, was an aggressive and counter-production way to start a conversation. So whack Sam with a trout or something. Dicklyon (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to follow this, but it looks like there have been some personal attacks by User:Sam Sailor. Sam appears to have argued back against an AfD nomination by User:L1A1 FAL that Sam considers to have been poorly thought out. User:Nil Einne provided some good advice above to the filer, L1A1 FAL, and I doubt that any admin is going to sanction anybody due to what's reported here. When you open an AfD and then appear to forget about it, and object afterwards when it got speedy closed, you don't have much standing to complain. Thanks are due to the filer, L1A1 FAL, for striking through their last comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 21 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 [9] [10]. 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 [11] [12] [13]

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. [14]--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. [15]--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",[16] 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)

Is Persian an insult?--Shakshak31 (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You say it in demeaning way, you do realize we all have usernames? Do you refer people by their background instead of names irl too? Also, instead of asking questions, shouldn't u answer Ed already? This is exactly what I mean that this user is impossible to work with. He won't answer your questions / avoids them, and when he actually does, it's barely. HistoryofIran (talk)

• @Shakshak31: I will block you indefinitely if there are any further comments along the lines of "a Persian editor revert it" (diff above). Any similar terms that attempt to describe an editor are also totally unacceptable. At Wikipedia, what counts is the edit (the text that is displayed in an article). Any assumed characteristic of the editor making an edit is irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that @Shakshak31: became active again a few hours after his disruption at Basarab I of Wallachia (which he forced on the article by edit warring) was partly reverted by another user. He is yet to answer what he was asked here. He has now resumed his attempt to Turkify the article once more by removing sourced info and this time even adding his own personal opinion [17] [18]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

First read what the sources state and then talk. [19] [20]--Shakshak31 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

We've literally already had this discussion, you are trying to force a theory into a fact. Hell, you even added your own personal words to the article. WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT at best. We have rules here, which you are breaking right left and center. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:54, 19 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)

(Non-administrator comment) @JazzClam: I strongly suggest providing WP:DIFFs that support your claim. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll echo what Tenryuu said. We can't possibly know what you're talking about, and thus make any determination as to whether there's actually a substantive behavioural issue, without a few illustrative examples. Otherwise it's just hearsay, and your subjective interpretation... Which obviously isn't fair to the editor being reported if we were to only rely on that. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Op seems to be engaged in a content dispute on Ilhan Omar204.76.134.30 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Where it looks like a number of editors have reverted their "improvements" to the article. It seems that the PoV may be on the other foot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Beyond My Ken: Bravo! 👏204.76.134.30 (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think OP could benefit from discussing their edits on the affected articles' talk pages. Checking Talk:Ilhan Omar as an example they haven't engaged other editors as to why their edits are being reverted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

My revert on Ilhan Omar is self-explanatory. Their edit removed the well-sourced description of Donald Trump's false, defamatory claims that Omar praised al-Qaida and smeared American soldiers. This is, of course, unacceptable - WP:BLP demands that we not falsely defame living people, and thus if we include notable false claims about a living person, we must be crystal clear that they are false. For that and other reasons, their edit was objectionable and I reverted it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, JazzClam posted a notice on your talk page 2 minutes after this report was submitted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

And see the OP's talk page. I'm wondering if an AE sanction is need here. Doug Weller talk 06:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The OP's record here is not terribly impressive -- basically a run-of-the-mill POV pusher. They have also violated 1RR at Ilhan Omar. --JBL (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to stop at Ilhan Omar; JazzClam seems to have been trying to remove properly-sourced negative Trump statements from several articles, such as their thrice-reverted removals of content from Postal voting in the United States that described (with sources) Donald Trump's efforts to obstruct postal voting this year. There's also a copy of George Floyd's toxicology report that they pasted into Draft:Pyrotol (a completely unrelated title), which seems to be part of a plan to revisit their proposal to state, in Wikipedia's voice, in the lead of the George Floyd article, that his death was the result of a fentanyl overdose and not from having a police officer kneel on his neck for nine minutes (example). What they describe here as "improving neutrality" is really glossing over or removing any reliably-sourced information they appear to disagree with, which has the effect of skewing these articles to a more pro-Trump point of view which is not supported by material published in reliable sources. I suggest a topic ban covering the scope of WP:ARBAP2 is probably in order. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to edit for political gain, that's it. I'm trying to improve the political neutrality of the encyclopedia. The fact of the matter simply is, that there are more typically liberal biases on this encyclopedia than typically conservative ones. I mostly remove politically contentious keywords and replace them with neutral ones. In the case of the Ilhan Omar article, I changed a line saying "Trump claimed without evidence" to "Trump claimed". That was it, the content of the line is still the same, a claim is a statement, whether or not it is true, in this case it was false, and the "without evidence" portion simply served to villainize (not saying i approved of what he said) him, that's it. All i do is remove or change keywords like that, things that detract from this encyclopedia's neutrality. I don't remove any facts, or add any competing ones, I just remove sketchy wording that makes articles seem more like an opinion piece rather than a neutral, irrefutably factual, article. JazzClam (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You grossly fail to understand NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@JazzClam: On Wikipedia, WP:NEUTRAL means that we—as editors—must neutrally summarize what reliable sources say. It does not mean that Wikipedia needs to maintain a WP:FALSEBALANCE between left and right (or science and religion, or any other X vs. Y dispute). If more reliable sources favor one side, then we give WP:WEIGHT to that side, and we characterize the other side as a minority position. If most or all reliable sources favor one side, we may not even mention the other side at all. That's what NPOV means. Woodroar (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@JazzClam:, Woodroar is right. I suggest you read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang sanctions against JazzClam

• JazzClam appears to be here for political reasons rather than for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. See WP:NOTHERE. The least response would be a post-1932 US politics topic ban. Otherwise an indefinite block. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• 1st choice, Indef block. 2nd choice TBAN post-1932.(derp) for JazzClam; I have little confidence in their desire to not propagandize or (in their eyes) RGW. That they spread the POV pushing to an area outside post 1932 US politics and that they bring a complaint to ANI when someone does not go along with their agenda makes clear they would not be able to contain themselves. They are NOTHERE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support TBAN post-1932 - This user JazzClam has some constructive edits outside of political topics. But I saw a few red flags while browsing their contribs. They thought it okay to use a draft page to put together a table of the toxicology report for George Floyd ([21]) while pushing to include info about a "fatal" fentanyl level in his blood. Recently, nearly all their edits have been to keep "NPOV" by removing Trump-critical content, and even "China-centric" content ([22]). There is also this user page edit that is somewhat concerning. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  Just for clarity, @Deepfriedokra and EvergreenFir: can you clarify if you mean you support a block/TBAN against NBSB or JazzClam? At a glance it appears to be the former, but I think you mean the latter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare: Thank you for noticing that. I was referring to JazzClam. I will edit to clarify. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Per my comment above I support AP2 topic ban, but oppose indef block. The user has constructive contributions outside of this scope, I haven't seen any evidence of WP:NOTHERE but whoever said WP:RGW hit the nail on the head (I was going to say WP:TE). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban for JC -- the RGW stuff needs to stop, but I think it's worth exploring the possibility that they can contribute constructively in other areas. --JBL (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for JazzClam - an indef is not necessary at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for JazzClam. The degree of their failure to understand NPOV is appalling, so they should stay away from controversial articles until they have learned to understand that policy. -- Valjean (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for JazzClam. The area is sufficiently troubled without someone who totally misunderstands NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for JazzClam and request close per above. Lev¡vich 21:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• also support AP2 ban. JazzClam doesn't get it. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 (or post-1932) TB for JazzClam and an admonishment to stay away from other controversial articles until they understand WP:NPOV and WP:RS. ◅ Sebastian 02:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB or Indef for JazzClam. Even after policy explanations and (most of the) !votes above, JazzClam still thought it was a good idea to add "liberal" to the lead of MSNBC because Fox News is described as "conservative". Editors who refuse to listen and understand our policies shouldn't be editing in this area. Really, they probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. Woodroar (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for Jazz Clam in light of the user's problems with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

IP-hopper stalks users and calls them Serbian propagandists. Should this be an LTA? Should he be community banned for harassment?

WP:HARASSMENT. This user is an IP-hopper that stalks a group of users's contribs and constantly reverts them, and calls them Serbian propagandists. Is there any solution to this? Examples: Special:Contributions/93.138.151.117 Special:Contributions/93.136.125.178 There are a lot more socks, but these two are the ones came to my head. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 00:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

4thfile4thrank I agree there is a bad problem here, which you have tried to find help for. These IPs, possibly rangers are prolific. I'm not an admin who can handle this, but you certainly need admin intervention in this situation. Whoever is behind the IP seems willing to keep the edit warring indefinitely. — Maile (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

93.138.76.165 and Government of National Salvation

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

---

One looks at the talk page User talk:93.138.76.165 shows that this IP is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia, and is now making personal attacks via edit summary [23]. Could someone please block them? I have protected the article. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Block me. Listen to the disguised great serbian propagandist. 93.138.76.165 (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Just wait until someone blocks you. Just wait. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the same as the IP mentioned above, so making this a subsection. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Can Hrvatska radiotelevizija be semi-protected? Look at the revision history. I was battling reversion with that disruptive IP. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 01:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be an LTA. This has been going on for months. Look at the socks. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 01:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)  Done. I have blocked this particular IP (93.138.76.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) for 48 hours. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have also been attacked by the same individual. [24] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm only just driving by here but please see User:Ivanvector/Serbian Army vandal and/or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VJ-Yugo. I'll look into this some more when I get to a PC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• I have already reported the Zagreb-based group of IP's for long-term abuse, but no one responded.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler

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

---

Can I get some uninvolved admin eyes on User:Bus stop's behavior at Talk:Parler? It's getting absolutely ridiculous. I initially created the RfC in part because we were going in circles, but it doesn't appear to have helped. The user keeps WP:REHASHing the same arguments over and over and over again—claiming that people have not explained why the mention of antisemitic content on Parler ought to be included in the lead when they have (often more than once), and most often repeating the WP:OTHERCONTENT argument that "if it's not in the lead of Twitter, why should it be included here?". Multiple users have asked them to stop, but they are continuing. I don't know if they genuinely believe it's a legitimate argument or if their intent is to overwhelm and derail the discussions there, but the end result is the same. Talk:Parler#Description_of_this_service is the most recent example of the behavior, but it can be viewed up and down the talk page including in Talk:Parler#Heavy bias circumvents guidelines of conservative, dispassionate descriptions. Please remove subjective and unsubstantiated "antisemitism" claim and in the RfC. They began doing this on November 7 (see my comments then: [25], [26]) and have shown no sign of slowing.

Diffs of multiple editors explaining to them they need to stop, that their behavior is disruptive, and/or that discussion of Twitter should happen at Talk:Twitter:

• Myself: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]
• IHateAccounts: [35], [36], [37]
• Slatersteven: [38], [39]
• XOR'easter: [40], [41]
• Grayfell: [42], [43], [44]

I am also seeing that Bus stop has quite the history at ANI, including numerous discussions about disruption at articles related to Judaism that go quite far back. Not sure if anyone more familiar with their history could provide additional context.

Thanks in advance to whoever wades through that long talk page to try to sort this out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop is on a roll again--an AP2 topic ban would be a great help. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• This has happened many times at AP articles, often over minor issues or trivia, as at Donald Trump and Stefan Molyneux. [45] SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop's first comment in this mess, to the best of my knowledge, was their inserting language ranting about "social media oligarchs", specifically naming Twitter, in a response to a thread that an abusive user titled "User GorillaWarfare Twitter Troll" [46]. The abusive user in question vanished after GorillaWarfare asked for others to step in here [47]. It got more crazy when Bus stop jumped in to support the abusive user's illegitimate call for a "vote" [48] in which said user accused GorillaWarfare repeatedly of being a paid employee of Twitter, and then they went back to complaining about and trying to compare Parler to Twitter [49][50][51][52][53].

This has been going on for the better part of two weeks now and I have felt for several days that it had passed into the realm of Sealioning and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing behavior, but today's comment that started with "I am merely asking you for your reasoning, GorillaWarfare" and falsely accusing GorillaWarfare of being unwilling to defend her reasoning [54], followed by regurgitating once again "There is no reason this article should deviate from the Twitter article. Left-leaning politics is not a reason" [55], was definitive. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is standard operating procedure for Bus stop. Even when it is explained to Bus stop that they could easily get a consensus for their desired edit, Bus stop can't resist the opportunity to browbeat an editor instead of simply seeking an easy consensus. Here's my experience in which I explained to Bus stop that I would not oppose their attempt to change consensus. It seems that Bus stop relishes the bludgeoning process. Sundayclose (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I've warned Bus Stop multiple times about bludgeoning since July, including this one which referenced a commitment on their talk in September of 2019 to no more bludgeoning discussions. —valereee (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'd support an AP topic ban. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think a rate limit would be more effective, like a sitewide restriction of 3 posts per thread, appealable in six months. I don't think the posting-too-much is limited to any particular topic area. Lev¡vich 19:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • A rate limit seems like it would be easy to circumvent by just starting a new thread. --WMSR (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Indeed -- part of the issue has been that Bus stop is bringing up the same argument at practically every new thread on the page (and the page has attracted a lot of new users who are starting new threads because they don't know to read up on the talk page to see if the discussion has already started). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Levivich. If bludgeoning is the only behavior issue then some sort of voluntary/mandatory restriction on talk page discussions is in order. Perhaps they are allowed 1 reply to another editor per day unless the are reply to a comment made directly to them. This can be a bit of rope before an AP2 tban. Springee (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Given MastCell's comment about prior blocks (below) I have less faith in my more narrow approach. Springee (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm pulling that back. The most recent block was from April 2011! [56]] If that was the last block I think some rope should be allowed in this case. Springee (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• An AP topic ban seems like the minimum appropriate response, given this editor's history. He has at least 3 indefinite blocks in the past, primarily (it would appear) for obsessively partisan editing and a fixation on tagging people he identifies as Jews. Each indefinite block was lifted in exchange for mentorship and a promise of good behavior (here's a representative example). His mentors are mostly gone from Wikipedia, but he's still here, and his behavior is still poor (as the diffs above demonstrate). At some point we have to show at least some nominal respect and value to the constructive editors who have to deal with Bus stop's disruptive editing, instead of endlessly enabling him. Cutsomized post restrictions would potentially be appropriate if this were the first, or second, or even third instance of disruptive behavior, but we're well beyond that. An AP2 topic ban would be appropriate and can be enacted by any uninvolved admin, although an indefinite block is also more than justified by his history and ongoing disruption. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I would like to see what they have to say about the situation but mostly I am swayed by Levivich and Springee. Seems the most common sense and helpful approach. PackMecEng (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• AP topic ban. Pretty simple. They've had plenty of rope over the time and haven't changed behavior.--Jorm (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Topic banned. I've topic banned Bus stop indefinitely from all pages and discussions concerning post-1932 American politics. Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
• I'm late to this party, and here only because I saw the notice of indefinite AP topic ban on Bus stop's UTP. He has been a clear net-negative on article talk pages for years, and my exposure to that has been mostly outside the AP area. So I agree it's not just AP, and perhaps a more appropriate sanction would be community ban, but the AP ban is far better than nothing. By the way, the serious problems also include persistent circular and repetitive argument that tends to make it less likely that arriving editors will read any of the existing discussion, largely defeating its purpose. Despite repeated exhortations Bus stop has seemed unable to grasp the concepts that a discussion is more than a debate between two or three editors, and that one doesn't need to keep repeating the same arguments over and over. While I doubt this TBAN will be the end of the Bus stop problem, it's a welcome step in the right direction. I only wish it didn't take years to reach this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  I imagine that continuance of the behavior that just led to an indefinite AP topic ban would make a pretty convincing case for a community ban, if it comes to that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  It's been going on for 14 years, including previous complete Wikipedia bans, yet here we are again. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  Please add these to my list: 1. Repeatedly asking you to answer a question that you have already answered multiple times, and, when you finally stop responding to those demands, accusing you of not being willing to participate in constructive discussion. 2. Believing that a discussion must continue until one of the parties is convinced by the other. That almost never happens, and it is not the purpose of discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse the AP2 topic ban, and the notion that violations should lead to an indef block and a CBan discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• This is just the latest in a long line of topics and discussions that Bus stop has mercilessly bludgeoned. A year ago he was banned from Aministrator Noticeboards for 3 months for bludgeoning a dicussion there: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1017#Formal_proposal_2. After that he stated "I commit to no more bludgeoning", yet I've seen many discussions since then which he has bludgeoned. User:GorillaWarfare, User:Valereee and User:Mandruss have it right in that this isn't about AP2 per se, but about 14 years of bludgeoning discussions. After each sanction (or serious threat of one), Bus stop "reforms", but it rarely lasts more than a couple of months. User:Sundayclose is correct when they write "It seems that Bus stop relishes the bludgeoning process". I appreciate the topic ban User:Bishonen, but that just means the bludgeoning will soon start up elsewhere. Building on User:Springee's idea, I think a limit of one comment/reply per page per day might help Bus stop overcome his apparent need to bludgeon. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Y'all deserve to be bludgeoned Parler:

  Parler is an American microblogging and social networking service launched in August 2018. Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters, conservatives, and right-wing extremists. Posts on the service often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories. Wikipedia

  If you take the time to read the referenced sources, the main themes are: free speech, explosive growth due to mass exodus of conservatives, fracturing of our information sources, and yes about 2/3 down in most articles highlighting the nasty content. Editing so as to get the most damning aspects of something you don't like to show up in the google search results seems the way WP is written these days. fiveby(zero) 23:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reality is just biased. GPinkerton (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • People are biased, reality just is. It is a shame they did not even get to reply or defend themselves though. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Check out BitChute. Same deal. I initiated a discussion on the lede, which can be found here. That was on 4 September 2020. Here is what the lede looked like on 4 September 2020. It read BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists.[9] The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube,[10] and some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetized") have migrated to BitChute.[2] The Southern Poverty Law Center has said the site hosts "hate-fueled material".[11] That's not the way a lede should be written. That constitutes left-leaning point-of-view-pushing. A lede is not a billboard. The point-of-view-pushing on Wikipedia is not primarily being done by those of us who might be considered "conservative", whatever that means. Thank you, Fiveby, PackMecEng, for weighing in. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I think this [57] is relevant. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Repeating, once again, arguments you've repeated ad nauseum about an AP2 topic on the thread in which you've just received a ban in the AP2 topic area for bludgeoning discussions, and where people have expressed concerns the behavior will continue, is certainly a bold choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't write ledes of social media articles that maximally disparage the underlying entity. This is what I am objecting to. Ledes are not required to do anything. It is entirely gratuitous to load the lede of a Parler or a BitChute article with every reliably-sourced, negative comment we can find. Bus stop (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Astonishing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that fiveby said "y'all deserve to be bludgeoned" above, isn't that some kind of threat? IHateAccounts (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No, in context I don't think so, when the metaphorical use of "bludgeon" is omnipresent in the conversation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Community ban now. I'm convinced this is the best solution after reading all the comments and evidence above. -- Valjean (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• I ran into an EC when Bish issued the TBan, and decided not to add. But, since this continues: The bludgeoning issue has existed for a long time and warnings haven’t helped. I asked Bus Stop to read BLUDGEON long ago, they said thank you, and then shortly after continued. This is quite disruptive on a page with several editors. I don’t think restricting edits per thread makes sense as repetition of an argument is more of the problem than sheer number of edits. An AP2 TBan would certainly help the situation and perhaps will provide time for the editor to understand the problem. O3000 (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse per Beyond My Ken. Firestar464 (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Bus stop and I have had major editorial disagreements on four pages, two on articles I had originally created. I can't recall ever agreeing with them. That said, their disagreement, and repeated replies to other editors, never caused any disruption: in every case they were outnumbered, they argued their case, and that was the end of it. Given this, I don't understand why they are being banned from AP. Yes they respond with their opinion more than you want, and yes most of you (and me too apparently) disagree with them, but I don't perceive how having their opinion on the talk page is disruptive. In fact, when arguing with Bus stop in the past in the AP area, I've been acutely aware of the fact that a majority of reliable sources are on my side, but that Bus stop is expressing the view of a minority of American editorial boards - presumably those on the right of American politics — and is also expressing the views of perhaps 30-40 % of the United States. I'd rather have that view represented in the talk pages. And from a procedural perspective, why is action being taken against a long-term editor (not a vandal) after less than 24 hours of discussion? And before they've had a chance to defend themselves? -Darouet (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: The issue and disruption is Sealioning, WP:SEALION behavior. In this case, they have been ceaselessly re-demanding that GorillaWarfare and others expend time and energy responding to the same questions that have been answered over and over again, all the way from November 3rd to now. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Darouet: 1. Your experience with Bus stop has been completely different from mine. 2. You are largely missing the point. 3. As for defending himself, he has offered no defense on his UTP, and his only "defense" here has been to continue the same "I just can't shut up" behavior that everybody is complaining about. GW calls him on it here, and what is his reply to that? More of the same! Could the evidence be any clearer that Bus stop just doesn't get it? Given the long history here, could the evidence be any clearer that Bus stop is incapable of getting it? From a procedural perspective, Bus stop has shown that it would have been pointless to wait. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, please look at the diffs provided and not rely on your memory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: if an admin feels that a topic ban is justified and the requirements to impose such a ban under the WP:ACDS process is meet, they do not need any specific community backing/consensus for such a ban. That's the point of the process, it allows admins to act without needing a long community discussion for each case. The topic ban can be appealed by Bus stop, as with all such bans. The number of endorses complicates things a bit, but in general, Bishonen is free to reconsider the ban based solely on Bus stop's request, and arbcom themselves could be willing to modify the ban. By comparison, for a community ban, it could not be simply overturned by Bishonen, and while arbcom is I believed technically still allowed to overturn such bans my understanding is they've said they won't overturn community bans. Also appealing a community ban just after it was imposed is nearly always an instant fail, whereas it's theoretical possible an instant appeal of a DS ban will succeed. Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse AP2 Topic ban. But I don't know if American Politics topic ban covers discussion at Talk:Parler. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  It definitely does, and the discussion at issue was entirely about the presence of antisemitism and other far-right content on the platform. There's been an AP2 notice on the talk page for some time now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• This [58] is completely bonkers.

1. Ranting about Ted Cruz attacking Jack Dorsey (as if Cruz isn't your basic demagogue).
2. Something about frozen peaches, I'm not really sure.
3. Yet again ranting about the ledes.
4. "I "bludgeoned" the Talk page to try to introduce a little fresh air into the stuffy room. To tell you the truth it's a pleasure to speak freely. If they ban me, fine. So be it."
5. "Let them tell me that they admit wrongdoing for trying to make Wikipedia into a partisan screed. Then I can admit wrongdoing for "bludgeoning" the page"

I have no words left to describe it. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You have a strong fixation on seeing any "opponents" sanctioned. You've already been warned before so let me restate that comments such as "as if Cruz isn't your basic demagogue" is a BLP infraction and calling other editors "bonkers" is a NPA violation.--MONGO (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

First: you're wrong. Second: I did not say the editor is bonkers, I said the comment (which I linked) is bonkers. Third: as a statement of opinion regarding "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument" I believe I'm on pretty safe ground here. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You really do need to be a lot more careful with BLP issues. Even here calling people white supremacists is not great. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I Hate Accounts, no, you're wrong. You best read up on BLP as it applies everywhere and referring to those who are under the BLP covenant here as "demagogue" in your own voice is a BLP violation.--MONGO (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

As an editor mostly uninvolved in this subject (I haven't edited the article, but I do live in the US and make posts online) I will echo the sentiment that this might not be a great series of posts. In an AN/I thread about a political argument you were involved in, I'm not sure that posting stuff like "completely bonkers", "basic demagogue" and "frozen peaches" (what??) is a helpful approach. jp×g 09:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse AP2 Ban Bus Stop definitely has a bludgeoning style of debate (regurgitating ones' arguments and asking odd questions about that which causes discussions to go in circles) and while I don't edit many AP2-related pages, this comes up on the WP-space pages where AP2 factors come into play - BLP/N, Jimmy Wales' talk page, etc. policy pages, etc. Assessments above related to highly partisan editing and not using those discussions to try to come to consensus but continue to push a point are my experience, and reviewing the talk page of Parler shows the same problems (mind you, I see valid points raised on neutrality and tone but Bus Stop is going at it all wrong). --Masem (t) 16:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Site ban now BS has just violated his TBAN on his talk page. This has been a long time coming. It's time to stop wasting community time and resources on this. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban but a 1 week block including talk page might work nicely as a cool down period. I've looked over the Parlor lead. It clearly fails IMPARTIAL but the general editorial atmosphere there is too toxic to bother with. I understand why an editor would be pissed. It also doesn't help that IHateAccouts seems to be campaigning for action against Bus Stop [[59]]. Clearly Bus Stop's emotions are up. Let them come back when they calm down a bit. Springee (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not "campaigning". Commiserating with someone else who has had to deal with Bus Stop's Sealioning. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) IHateAccounts is fairly new to the project and has been to an extent using me as a sounding board to get a feel for the norms of the project (when to raise an issue at a noticeboard, when to let it go, etc.) Given the topic areas we both edit in, it's a tough place to dive in, and I think they've been wise to do what they're doing rather than just barging in headfirst at noticeboards etc. where there are a lot of "unwritten rules". IHA is perfectly aware that I am WP:INVOLVED with Bus stop and not going to take action with respect to them, and their comments on my talk page are not asking me to take action. They've primarily been using my talk page to get feedback on their concerns, which I think should be encouraged, as well as to vent a little bit on what has been an extremely frustrating experience on the talk page of the article. It should be noted, while we are on the subject of people campaigning for action, that you have seemed to be doing some of the same with respect to IHA, based on your recent comments at their talk page, followup at valereee's talk page, and now here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  My comments on their talk page and later on Valereee's talk page were related to their civility issues. The original post to their page was in reply to interacting with them on other discussion sections. I'm not the only editor who has noted their civility standards. Springee (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  GW, IHateAccounts is not fairly new as they were around long enough to IP hop for some time before they created this account. It's nice they did create an account as now its easier to make sure they are compliant with our policies.--MONGO (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  I am quite familiar with IHateAccounts' editing as an IP; I was one of the people who encouraged them to create an account while also trying to remind our editors that there is no requirement one do so. I was including their time as an IP editor when describing them as "fairly new". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Super! I knew that too! Whats the cutoff for no longer being "fairly new"?--MONGO (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know, a year or so? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Excellent. Thats a nice long training period.--MONGO (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, it should be abundantly clear by now that this discussion is no longer about recent behavior at one article. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  This. I may have some agreements in where Bus Stop is taking his arguments in terms of the tendency for articles in that area of the political spectrum to have poor NPOV wording and tone and where its hard to get traction with the editors that heavily edit them, but the way Bus Stop has argued for that throughout several cases is bludgeoning and the fact that they turned right around after been AP2 banned to add more AP2 shows a bit of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is common to numerous past discussions. This is more disruptive than helpful at this point. --Masem (t) 18:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  I am inclined to agree with this comment; the actual political merit of the arguments in question seems like a distant issue from the objectionable way in which they've been prosecuted, which is obviously detrimental to the encyclopedia. jp×g 09:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse AP2 ban as per Beyond My Ken's concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose sanctions for violating the topic ban at this time. Re the suggestions here that Bus stop is violating his topic ban in his comments here and on his page: I disagree. To be topic banned from a major area is a shock. When users are blocked, we tend to tolerate venting and angry comments about the block — I know I do — and the same principle should apply to topic bans. I won't sanction Bus stop for anything he has said in this thread or on his page so far, and I hope nobody else does either. If he were to post a lot of drawn-out commentary/discussion infringing on the AP area, instead of appealing the ban, that would be a different situation. But we're not there yet. And, Springee, I see your point, but we don't do "cooldown blocks". Bishonen | tålk 17:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC).

  I just wanted to +1 this. Although I was surprised to see Bus stop continue the exact line of argument that led to this topic ban, we do usually allow a little leeway to editors venting a bit about a major sanction. If it continues for a protracted period of time or they continue on editing AP2 articles/their talk pages as if there was no topic ban, that would be a different story, but I don't think an immediate sanction would do anyone any good here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable. It's like the Acela. If we are on the right track, another one will come along fast enough. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Gotta love a good train metaphor. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem, you write I may have some agreements in where Bus Stop is taking his arguments in terms of the tendency for articles in that area of the political spectrum to have poor NPOV wording and tone and where its hard to get traction with the editors that heavily edit them, but the way Bus Stop has argued for that throughout several cases is bludgeoning and the fact that they turned right around after been AP2 banned to add more AP2 shows a bit of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is common to numerous past discussions. First of all nice sentence. I couldn't have written a longer sentence myself. Did I bludgeon the Talk page of BitChute? I don't think so. A light bulb went off in my head when, subsequent to the BitChute experience, I saw something very similar happening at Parler. The parallels were striking: another second-tier social media article with everything but the kitchen sink in the way of criticism in the lede. I'm not sure what "several cases" you have in mind, Masem. But the immediate precedent and the case I had in mind in my argumentation on the Parler Talk page was the BitChute article. I wanted to stem the trend. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

While I disagree with you about a lot, I don't think that you're wrong about everything. That said, you really ought to consider opting out of these huge endless arguments with people who are obviously never going to agree with you. I mean, right now, you are on AN/I, in a thread where you have just been topic-banned for doing this, posting about the exact same thing! I exhort you to relax for a while. The first time I saw your posts on a talk page, it was in a similarly ill-advised jousting match on Jimbo's talk page, which went on for kilobytes, to absolutely no productive end. It's one thing to argue for NPOV; it's another thing entirely to spill gallons of ink on talk pages when consensus is clearly not in favor of your changes. jp×g 09:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

JPxG—the much ballyhooed policy of WP:NPOV does not mean much if the Wikipedia community fails to endorse it. I think Wikipedia has some principles and practices that should only be altered after considerable discussion. Pertaining to the ledes of articles on social media sites, such a discussion has not taken place, to my knowledge. There should not be 2 different standards for the first and biggest social media sites and those smaller social media sites which have sprung up—call them second-tier sites—in response to users being banned from the first and biggest social media sites. I've been here long enough to recognize principles that permeate the project. We do not write glowing ledes about the first and biggest social media sites and then throw every negative piece of commentary that is reliably-sourced into the ledes of articles on second-tier social media sites. That is putting one's finger on the scale and therefore, in my opinion, a violation of WP:NPOV. I am guilty of "bludgeoning". I can admit to that. But I am also explaining to you and others why I have argued vociferously on the Parler Talk page. I am addressing a very real problem. I should not be penalized for doing so. I would never think to write in the lede of the BitChute article that The Southern Poverty Law Center has said the site hosts "hate-fueled material" yet that is what an administrator is doing here. I only discovered that moments ago; it has no bearing on why I "bludgeoned" the Parler article. Let's all be honest about our roles. We have our opinions. What is called for, in my opinion, is an earnest discussion about how WP:NPOV applies to articles on social media articles, specifically the ledes of those articles. We can't have 2 standards in place. I contend we presently have a de facto dual standard in place—one for the big companies and another for the small companies. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy to address this comment if others think it is appropriate and worth discussing. However, I am extremely hesitant to do so here/with you since it seems to be largely agreed that you are violating the topic ban that was just placed. Although I agree with those who think people should be given a bit of leeway as they adjust to a new restriction, that patience usually wears a bit thin if the person continues to behave as though the ban was not in place, and I don't intend to encourage such violations or appear to be baiting you into a sanction by engaging you in the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I clearly agree with Bus stop for those that know what I have argued on other places like NPOV/N and the like, but to Bus stop, the issue is not that you're taking this point, but your are repeating the same arguments over and over again, adding rabbit trails to the arguments that are ongoing that editors have to stop and address, and basically not keeping a focused discussion on the matter at hand. Once in a while topics can get out of hand, but this has seemed to be a common problem in the discussions that you have been in that I've been a part of as well, as also part of the diffs shown in this thread. Even here, you're trying to point out the logic of the NPOV issues on articles, but the focus here is your behavior and style of debate; what the topic area is or concerns are not relevant here (particularly when you're trying to argue that you feel you are correct and thus justifying your behavior that way - that's never a good starting point). Focus on why there's a topic ban, and it is not because you are arguing for a more neutral take on these articles, it is because the way you present debate on these articles is getting in the way of practical discussion. --Masem (t) 23:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse AP2 ban but we should be relaxed about appeals once the dust has settled - maybe mid 2021? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • JzG—you refer to Andy Ngo as a "neo-fascist apologist". It boggles the mind that you can recommend that my editing privileges should be curtailed. Admins are supposed to set examples for others. You are not exactly setting good examples for other editors. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Only because he is, though. And to be clear: he is allowed to be an apologist for neo-fascists, it's just that we're not allowed to pretend he is a neutral commentator. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually it's a WP:BLP violation. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you're still violating your ban and should be blocked. Valeince (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This is getting silly. jp×g 04:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Bus Stop, I'm sympathetic with the IMPARTIAL issues you are worried about. I think your concerns were very valid but you need to stop discussing AP2 material. The admins above were willing to let things slide shortly after the block was imposed but that grace period is not, to the best of my knowledge, a rule and I would say it has expired. Please respect the Wikipedia process and the Tban. I suspect if you chill for a while, show you can be a productive editor in non-AP2 areas and then come back with some self imposed anti-bludgeoning restrictions you may be able to return to AP2 topics. This isn't going to help. Springee (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Cunard Afd Practices

Hi, I want to make a complaint about User:Cunard and they’re series of behaviours at Afd, specifically the mass dumping of reams of text. I don’t normally complain about an editor. I think this is my first time. I think I have reached my limit. This after two years looking at this. I stopped taking part any of Afds that Cunard has been at. About a year ago, they’re was a VPN article, which is a dog of a company. Now we have an article, that people will assume is good, even though they were at absolute bottom of the ranking, about 3500 down the list. That was the limit at the time. This is absolute limit. I think it is simply unacceptable to dump huge blocks of text in this manner. The most recent example I came across is a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zocdoc. I don’t think Cunard really cares of about Afd. I suspect his whole purpose is to ensure the article is kept, even at the expense of destroying the whole conversation. Looking at Zocdoc article.

advertisement.

It an advertisement. So they’re posting anything to stop the conversation, assuming folk are going to put off reading it because there is 16k of text here. That would take more than 10 hours of work if it was article being created. Instead he/she has copied it wholesale out of the website, which is itself a violation of copyright. Nobody wants to read this text. If is effectively a stop on the discussion. This is another example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok. Not a single one of these references are valid. More so, there is 39 of these hotels, so in effect this is an attempt to break the Afd. It has chilling effect on new Afd participants, who look at it, and crap out. I know that for a fact. It has a chilling effect on established editors, because it takes so long to work through the text and determine if it valid and often it is not. When the Afd is closed, the closer isn’t reading the text either, so it breaking the close function. scope_creep^Talk 09:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• I too have found the gigantic walls of text to be offputting, and anyone habitually !voting delete with comments of such extreme length would have been blocked or topic banned ages ago. But is there anything stopping you from just ignoring it, scrolling to the bottom, and putting in a vote of your own? It's not like anyone is forcing you to read through it, and it's not as though you'd be missing anything of value by ignoring it. It's basically Wikipedia lorem ipsum. Reyk _YO! 10:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed the quote blocks from two open AfDs: having 10K of quotes is problematic for copyright reasons, and didn't really add anything. However, these were pre-hatted, so took up little space in reading mode (they were annoying in editing mode). The addition of lots of sources to AfDs is what we expect editors to do, so I see no problem there (assuming they are good sources, which I haven't checked). Fram (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

They never are though, that's the thing. It's inevitably just a grab-bag of advertisements, blog posts, press releases, and marketing churn. Good point about the excessive quotations being potentially a copyvio problem too. Reyk _YO! 11:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• July 2020 ANI for same issue —valereee (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Which seemed to be just as baseless. Nfitz (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Nfitz, if other well-intentioned experienced editors working in the same area are finding it disruptive to the point they're willing to open a thread here, I'd argue that makes it not a baseless concern. Disruptive editing doesn't need to have ill-intent behind it. —valereee (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bizzare to see this complaint. For over 10 years I recall being stunned by the quality & quantity of hard to find RSs Cunnard brings to AfD's. As Fram says, it's expected from good editors, though none seem to do it quite as well as Cunnard. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No one is saying he/she is not doing good work in other areas, but this is ridiculous and its errant behaviour and disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It is the equivalent of reference-bombing an article to mask the overall weaknesses of the sources. I doubt many closing administrators take the text walls seriously. ValarianB (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Kudos to Cunard for their efforts. Consider the Zocdoc AfD, which is the basis of the complaint. First notice that the AfD had to be relisted because there were zero valid responses during the first round. Cunard then stepped up to do what no-one else would volunteer for and their input is outstanding. For example, they list an NYT source that seems to really hit the spot in demonstrating notability. And notice that they don't just give a raw URL which might hit the paywall but go the extra mile by providing an archive link. This is quality work and Cunard should be congratulated on their diligence.

The OP complains that they have to read this material. This is an absurd complaint because, per WP:BEFORE, a nominator is supposed to conduct such a detailed source search before they waste our time with an inaccurate nomination. If the OP is failing to do this work and can't even be bothered to look through the sources when they are presented on a plate, then they are not doing due diligence. A boomerang should be considered.

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness sake. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok and look at the !votes.

• 11:19 - User:scope_creep points out that most of the sources are press releases and similar.
• 11:44 - User:Andrew Davidson votes "Keep" for no reason other than someone quotes an essay. No rebuttal of the sources.
• 12:02 - User:FeydHuxtable votes "Keep", saying "highly notable hotel as ably demonstrated by Cunard".

• This nonsense is never going to end, is it? Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• What the nay-sayers seem to be saying is that, if you list sources it's bad, and if you don't list sources, it's bad too. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• No what the people who have deal with cunards wall of useless texts is that A)if you post sources to refute notability, they should be good, not a bunch of regurgitated PR crap scraped from a Google search. B)if you are going to just vote keep you should actually address the core concern, not rules lawyer over reference to essays, c)if you are going to vote 'keep as per list of crap' you should address the concerns with that crap. Since as black kite has demonstrated it is impossible to get editors to do this, ideally people closing the diacussion would rightly disregard such arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(EC) AFAICT, no one is saying that. What they are saying is that listing bad or crap sources is bad. Note I make no personal comment on whether any of the sources are bad/crap sources. I simply read what others said and tried understand what they were saying. Editors may disagree, perhaps strongly, on whether the sources are bad or crap, while still understanding (and probably agreeing) on the overall point. (I.E. that just because someone listed URLs doesn't mean these are useful reliable secondary sources that demonstrate meeting WP:GNG.) I can see why there may be a problem if you couldn't understand the point Black Kite and others seemed to be making, rather than simply disagreeing with their view of the sources. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Christ. This is the Wikipedia equivalent of technobabble. Nothing actionable about it, unfortunately, but I certainly don't agree with Andrew on a boomerang. Seriously, we need to stop throwing rocks at people for bringing legitimate concerns up to ANI.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with WaltCip that this is a valid issue to bring up at ANI. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be actionable in the (looks to be unlikely) case we were able to develop consensus; the most productive editor can also be very disruptive. Anything that other experienced, well-intentioned editors are finding disruptive enough to bring two cases to ANI in four months is maybe at least worth making clear to Cunard that this is being seen as disruptive and they should try to avoid 1. posting walls of text 2. quoting carelessly collected sources 3. including copyvio to AfDs. —valereee (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Cunard does legwork that we want people to do for an AfD, finding what sources exist. It was a problem when he took up a massive amount of space in the discussion. Now that nearly all of the content is hatted, I have no issue whatsoever with the practice. Yes, Cunard always goes for keep ... and is about the only one of the always-keepers that actually backs up that opinion with sourcing. Sometimes those sources are misguided, but often they're not. Looking at ZocDoc AfD, I see NY Times, Wall Street Journal, journal articles, etc. Those aren't garbage. Yes, you're free to respond/challenge those sources and it's entirely possible they don't constitute notability (I haven't looked closely at them yet), but these aren't self-published press releases/spam. They're the kind of thing that anyone would find if they set out looking for sourcing, and which you should expect to have to counter if you're arguing to delete. We have plenty of people who fill AfD with baseless keep (or delete) !votes based on handwaves to sources or personal interpretations of notability with no effort whatsoever. The problem is not someone who does the research. The copyvio claim is IMO a big stretch, and I'm surprised anyone is willing to act on it without finding consensus that including a limited quote, with attribution, is a copyright violation (or that including multiple quotes from multiple sources for some reason makes it worse). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't call e.g. a 268 word quote a "limited quote" (see the first quote I removed here, it's about 1/4th of the full article. In the second AfD I pruned, the first quote was 198 words[60]. The Brownlee quote was 249 words, from a 590 word article. That's not a "limited quote" at all, that's excessive. And yes, adding more and more quotes makes it less and less defensible to claim fair use and brings it closer to being a copyright violation. (Note that I have only removed these from the two most recent AfDs, but the practice can be found in many older ones, like a 360-word quote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Art Association, many long quotes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street Medicine Institute... Regularly adding 10kb+ of quotes to AfDs is not an acceptable practice. Fram (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • From where are you getting the idea that 268 words, 1/4 of a work, or 249 out of 590 words, are excessive? Lev¡vich 16:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
      • If I would write an article and someone would copy 1/4 or 1/3rd of it, not even to comment on the quote (e.g. criticising what I wrote or praising the prose), but simply to strengthen a point they are making, then I would consider this as clearly excessive. When someone routinely does this, even more so. There is no hard-and-fast rule for this, ut if 1/4th isn't excessive to you, then what is? Anyway, looking online gives rules of thumb like "max 300 words from a book-length work", or "best at the most 10-20% for a short work". Fram (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
        • It doesn't matter what you would consider or what I would consider. Neither of us are experts or authorities on copyright law. You are expressing personal views/assumptions/results of online research, none of which make a good basis for claims about copyright law. In other words, if you don't know what the rules are... Lev¡vich 17:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
          • There's so much wrong with that response... For starters, there is no hard-and-fast rule, that's the main issue with fair use application. Wikipedia has historically treated this much stricter than required by law, see e.g. our fair use rules for images which don't even allow such images on an article talk page even if you would discuss it, nor in a draft article. And then, when I do try to find some outside guidance, from things like Stanford Uni, it still isn't acceptable and even those aren't a "good basis". I would like to see you propose an alternative then. Would quoting 99% of a copyrighted book (with attribution) be acceptable to you? 75%? 50%? 25%? Where and how do you draw the line? Or are you proposing not drawing a line at all and letting people quote as much as they like, as long as they use quote marks and attribution? That won't fly. We have to draw a line somewhere, and posting more than 1/4 of a work is generally (and by me) considered excessive (just like posting many long quotes is more excessive than just posting one, as there is less and less need to post additional quotes, so less and less justification of "fair use"). If you can't suggest some better alternative, if you can't actually indicate what the rules are and what is or isn't acceptable then, then I will continue with that rule of thumb. Fram (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

            You're making up rules because you think you have to make up rules. You don't have to make up rules. We don't need a rule about how much quoting is too much quoting in an AFD discussion. We don't have to draw a line anywhere. You're inventing a problem that doesn't exist. No one in the history of Wikipedia has every complained that their copyrighted work was being quoted too much in AFD discussions. It's just a ridiculous made-up thing to be worrying about. Lev¡vich 02:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

            • Actually, it is policy. It is scattered over multiple pages, but we have things like "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used [...] Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."(WP:NFCCEG). Lower on the same page: "Unacceptable use: Excessively long copyrighted excerpts.". Note also "The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is therefore subject to purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law." There is no definition of what is "brief" and what is "excessive", but the distinction is a basis of our (or any) fair use policy, and some cut-off is needed. That doesn't mean that my cutoff is correct or undisputable, of course not, but to simply reject that any cutoff is needed is going against what is required in our policies, and not simply "a problem that doesn't exist" or "a ridiculous made-up thing". Fram (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

              I started out by asking you the basis for your claim that 268 words, 1/4 of a work, or 249 out of 590 words, are excessive within the meaning of our policies and/or copyright law. In your responses, you have admitted multiple times that "excessive" is not defined in either our policies or copyright law (neither is "extensive", "brief", or other such descriptors of quantity). Thus, you have no basis for claiming that 268 words, 1/4 of a work, or 249 out of 590 words, are excessive; you are quite literally making up the "rule" that those quantities are too much. Thus, you have no basis for claiming it's a copyright violation, and thus no basis for removing the quotes under WP:TPO. As such, I have restored the quotes. If you think we should have a rule that copying 268 words, 1/4 of a work, or 249 out of 590 words, or any fixed word count or proportion, are excessive under WP:NFCC, propose the change to NFCC. But please do not enforce rules that you have just invented (e.g., that 268 words, 1/4 of a work, or 249 out of 590 words, are "excessive" under NFCC). Lev¡vich 16:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm surprised people are complaining about him listing coverage it gets, and even quoting the relevant parts so you don't have to click on each one to go and read it. This is rather helpful in an AFD. And it doesn't violate copyright laws to quote something for this purpose, this clearly fair usage, it not in the main article just in a deletion discussion. Dream Focus 16:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Uh, "quoting the relevant parts so you don't have to click on each one to go and read it." is definitely not a fair use defense. That's it is in an AfD and not in an article also doesn't make it better, e.g. fair use images are only allowed in articles and not anywhere else, including in AfDs. Fram (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Listing sources and quotes is helpful (I don't agree the quoting is copyvio). The ZocDoc AFD is a bad example for this: the sources Cunard listed include NYT and WaPo; while I quibble about one or two sources on Cunard's list there, overall they seem solid. Conrad Bangkok is a bit more difficult to parse: lots of travel guides and such, which I don't think make for good sources. Still, if we cover hotels (and we do), travel guides and hotel reviews are going to be sources for those articles, just like book reviews are sources for articles about books. I think both of Cunard's lists would have been stronger if they had 5 items instead of 10, and that would be my big suggestion to Cunard: do lists of 3 or 5 instead of 10. If you're listing NYT and WaPo, don't list things like Entrepreneur and NYObserver: they actually weaken rather than strengthen the list. But, this isn't ANI-worthy. Yes, there are problems with churnalism and promo articles surviving AFDs, but these two are bad examples (better examples: bagelry, toy store, lawyer), and I think !votes without sources and quotes are a much bigger problem than someone !voting with "too many" sources and quotes. We should encourage sources and quotes at AFD, not discourage it. Lev¡vich 17:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't agree the quoting is copyvio. Well, to quote you: It doesn't matter what you would consider. Hold yourself to the same standard. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

    No evidence has been presented supporting the copyvio claim. Better? Lev¡vich 17:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

    • • For the sake of not pressing it further. Sure. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• What reams of text, User:scope_creep? I see a list of references. I feel guilty now for just providing links, instead of such well formatted lists of references. Personally, I'd be more concerned by the first delete vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok, that once again, did 7 delete votes in 7 minutes, which quite clearly means they did not do the required due diligence. I'm also concerned you aren't doing enough WP:BEFORE nominating. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Fram has removed the quote walls, you'll have to check page history. (E.g. this) Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. But boxed. Not sure they needed to be removed - small amounts of quoted text should run afoul of copyright - though perhaps some were a bit long - not quite sure where that line is. At the same time - I don't even see anyone posting on Cunard's talk page in month, and only a single post there since summer! Has User:scope_creep tried to discuss this before coming here? Cunard in the past has been dragged to ANI (see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1042#User:Cunard, rather unnecessarily in my view, and now has added quotes to demonstrate the RS. And now there's complaints about that. To me, this looks more like an attempt to bully an editor that one doesn't agree with, than anything real. Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• First of all, I find User:Cunard to be one of the single best contributors to AfD. I find that he makes it really really easy for me to evaluate sources. He provides great detail and finds sources that I can't find even after looking for 10+ minutes. Secondly, in the worst case, just hat it. Third, I'm not a lawyer, but I do teach copyright law as a part of my job. With my understanding of fair use, it is really really unlikely that this wouldn't count as fair use. Really. If copied onto a commercial site (which our licence allows) and if indexed in a way that made it so that one could easily find the quote when looking for the article? Then it *might* get debatable and I'd recommend to anyone who asked me to contact a lawyer. In any case, I see no problem with what he posted. I *do* see a problem with Fram's reversion. He shouldn't be editing someone else's text. If he really thinks there is a copyright problem, he should be asking for it to be removed from the history too I should think. There is a whole template and set of directions for dealing with copyright issues. See [61]Hobit (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Removing copyright violations / excessive fair use without taking further action is often done. Yes, one can go the extra mile and ask for revdel of the revisions, but in this (and many other) cases that would be overkill. People removing fair use images from pages where they aren't allowed usually don't bother with revdel and so on either. As for the fair use, remember that we are and have always been way more strict than what may be necessary by law. Fram (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Images and text are two unrelated things. Images aren't allowed unless you can prove its necessary, and reduced to be as low quality as possible, this is for server load reasons. There is nothing wrong with quoting parts of a news article in a deletion discussion to prove it gives coverage to something. Dream Focus 12:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
      • "For server load reasons"? So somehow free images don't produce server load issues, but fair use one do? That sounds rather unlikely, anything to back up your claim? Fram (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
      • You can check this at WP:FILESIZE, your claim is totally wrong. Fram (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Huh, I stand corrected. Exception: If the image is copyrighted and used under fair use, the uploaded image must be as low-resolution as possible consistent with its fair-use rationale, to prevent use of Wikipedia's copy as a substitute for the original work. Anyway, as far as the text goes https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html explains it quite well. So you need to undo your incorrect removal of text. Dream Focus 15:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
          • That link doesn't indicate that my removals were correct or incorrect, it basically boils down to "it depends" and "every judge can decide on their own" (no, this is not a legal threat, I wouldn't start a legal case over extremely blatant copyright violations, never mind over these good-faith borderline cases, and I doubt anyone else would). There is no fixed, easy-to-use rule, that's why you can find all kinds of advice in books and online (from good sources); but if they do give numerical values, then 10-20% or 300-400 words (whichever is less) seems to be often used as a rule of thumb. The quotefarms I removed violated this at least in part. See also Masem's comment below, who is kind of an in-house copyright expert (together with User:Diannaa and some others I now forget, User:MER-C probably as well). Fram (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• For notability AFDs I would always take at least 15 minutes to analyse the article and its possible references – sometimes I take far longer. Now, I realise some people just throw in a !vote one way or another but I hope, for substantial articles, those swaying the final close will have done considerable work. Therefore "it takes so long to work through the text and determine if it valid and often it is not" puzzles me. Surely anyone nominating or supporting deletion will have gone through such references already and will know which are unsuitable in their view. You do not need to study them all over again. For some matters other than notability, such as promotionalism, it may be possible to take a view without studying large numbers of references and you can quickly skip over any suggested list of references. An invalid deletion harms the encyclopedia and can sometimes be devastating for editors who have put in hours of work creating it. It is not something that should be done in a hurry. I welcome Cunard's work and have found it helpful on AFDs I have tackled. Thincat (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• This doesn't look as though it is going anywhere. Discussion on Afd protocol are really redundant, as everybody is different. I read very fast and there is various shortcuts you can employ to shorten the time further, so a function of time to evaluate Afd isn't particularly valuable. There is no qualitative comparison that can be made between two editors. I stick to one type of Afd, on the whole, so its even further different. I see a lot of folk supporting Cunard, he is an excellent editor, but this isn't the first time this has been reported, which I didn't know. So there is dissatisfaction, obviously various groups. If it not addressed, I will need to go further. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If you don't get what you want, you will "need to go further" and repeat this same thing again when you think the random group of editors to notice and comment might agree with you? He has done nothing wrong, and should not be discouraged from helping people sort through the evidence that an article meets the notability standards. Dream Focus 12:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • That depends. Sometimes his sources are useful. sometimes they are not great. If they could be useful all the time, there'd be no issues. And certainly, people block !voting "Keep" and quoting sources that aren't any good is a problem. Black Kite (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think the issue is the excessive quoting. Providing N sources at an AFD when challenged (where they then are discussed if they are good or bad) is absolutely fine, and should be part of an AFD process. But there is no need for the large quotes from those sources as well, as that does veer on the copyright/fair use problem - this is part of our WP:NFC policy. Let the !voters review and make comments and if a specific source becomes the subject of debate, brief quotes can be used then but they are almost certainly not needed upfront when providing the sources (as in the Zocdoc AFD). But as for dumping a list of sources they found in AFD? Great. It would be nice if they had a bit more awareness of what are poor sources like press releases and the like that would be dismissed immediately for notability concerns, but that itself is less an ANI than the large quotes leaning into copyright. --Masem (t) 15:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• I just voted on the Conrad Bangkok article. There's really two issues I have had with Cunard over the years: Not all of the coverage that's found passes WP:GNG even though it's frequently presented as such, and the large blocks of text which disrupt the process generally. The first isn't a problem as long as you have quality participants at the AfD. Often a string of "keep, there are sources" which follow without doing the critical work, and there have been a couple articles kept which really should have been deleted because of it - for instance, I'm noting that the travel reviews of the hotel at the AfD aren't suitable for determining notability, though enough sources exist in that article where it's not a problem. The second problem is on Cunard to take to heart - providing a list of sources with links is great, and identifying the WP:THREE best sources for WP:GNG purposes is even better, as opposed to the long quotes of text, which can be mildly disruptive at times and a possible copyright issue as others have noted above. I think if Cunard can agree to add sources in list form and only use limited, select quotes where a source may not be easily accessible online, it would be an additional benefit to the encyclopaedia, but there's nothing specifically sanctionable here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just gonna pile on to say that providing one good source trumps multiple mediocre sources. If you are going to the trouble of finding these sources it would be useful to at least highlight the best ones instead of dumping them all in indiscriminately. This just creates extra work for others and I can see how editors would find it disruptive. I have a bigger concern with the pile on !votes from editors pushing quantity over quality. AIRcorn (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• It seems apparent that Cunard is already being quite selective in the sources that they list. Consider the OP's case of Zocdoc, for example. When I use a plain Google search for this then the top ten results are:

1. Zocdoc – the company's own website
2. Glassdoor – employee feedback
3. Wikipedia – our article
4. Google Play – the Android app
5. App Store – the iOS app
6. The Motley Fool – investment advice
7. Twitter – their social media
8. Wolff Olins – a branding case study
9. Harvard Business School – a student case study
10. Instagram – more social media

Now there's lots of good detail in these hits and Google will have its reasons for putting them at the top of the list. But they might not be well-accepted at AfD and notice that Cunard does not include any of them in his list. So, Aircorn's criticism fails to appreciate the extent to which Cunard is already doing what they are suggesting. I've produced source lists like Cunard's and it's a significant effort to find, filter and format the results. If people think they can do better then they are welcome to try but I'm not seeing much competition. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent analyses Colonel. Our buddy NA1K sometimes makes source lists of similar quality, can't think of anyone else. About the only thing Cunard might want to take from this discussion it to maybe cut back a bit on the quotes. Otherwise, their energy & sound judgment are an exemplar to less skilled editors like myself and perhaps some others here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• I had a discussion with Cunard about a particular AfD some time back, where I offered some advice that was taken in the right spirit. In the specific case of Conrad Bangkok, one thing I don't like is when people !vote "keep" at an AfD without improving the article, simply hoping that somebody will do the work, which makes the closure something of a pyrrhic victory. I would much prefer people took the sources they found and expanded the article with them, rather than simply listing them at the AfD. It's all well and good for assessing consensus, but it doesn't directly help the reader who won't see it. I realise I do this as well because the article is something I don't know much about or don't have confidence in editing it to a sufficient standard, but I do so with the knowledge that if the AfD closes as "delete" because I didn't put the work in, then that's tough luck and I have to endorse the consensus given. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot to be said for that view Ritchie. But it works best if it's a two way thing. I.e. if editors who has previously nomned or voted delete are willing to recognise the WP:Hey. Back when I was an ARS reg I'd often totally re-write an article up for deletion, and many of these articles remain largely untouched 10-12 years later. What killed it for me was this AfD. War and conflict is the one area of human activity I best understand, so I was confident of a Keep after I spent several hours addressing the valid WP:Synth concerns & improving the article with top tier sources. But it was still deleted. Since the horror of that sunk in I've been loath to touch articles under attack at AfD. Not sure I could handle a repetition of that sort of rejection. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I have put a lot of effort into rescuing articles in the past but this is a thankless task. Either the nominators refuse to recognise the work that has been done or, if the article is kept, they sometimes claim the credit for getting the work done. This then encourages them to nominate more topics for deletion as a way of getting them improved. Rescuers are routinely burnt out by being taken advantage of in this way. For example, see Nicholson Baker's account The Charms of Wikipedia and note that they don't do that any more. Myself, I am now more sparing with my efforts too. And the good thing about putting detailed data and text into the AfD rather than the article is that it is unlikely to be deleted. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• It seems like the only thing controversial here is the box o' quotes, which although I don't think it's actually a fair use problem may be a NFCC problem. Unsure. That may merit a discussion at a different venue. But one thing this discussion made me realize is that while I've seen a Cunard quote dump probably hundreds of times now, and while I've gone through the sources linked therein, I don't think I've ever actually read the quotes. Because, y'know, context and judgment and whatnot. I assumed the quotes were to help people decide which sources to look into more, but I find you don't have to click on each one to go and read it actually a rather terrible outcome here, if that's what they're intended to do. We need people to see the sources for themselves whenever possible, to see the context of the quotes, the rest of the quotes, the source itself, etc. It sounds like the existence of Cunard quotes is an excuse for a lazy keep !vote. As I don't think they really do anything good, I'd be in favor of ditching in the quotes, but unless we can get definitive consensus that it's a NFC problem I still feel reluctant to support any sort of enforcement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned above, they border on NFC problems. Obviously unlike images, we allow "non-free text" on non-mainspace, but this should still be considered in the NFC-like framework - is it supporting the constructive purpose of the encyclopedia, is it minimal use, etc. If one pulled a source in an AFD and quote a sentence that showed why per that source the topic was notable as part of their argument, that's fine. But the practice we're seeing here seems to be a semi-mechanical approach that does take too much of the original sources. Quote-dumping without explaining the purpose doesn't help (particularly as many above had said, better energy would be directed to explaining the value of each source or weeding out press releases from quality sources). It's not a red-flag COPYVIO warning, but it is a practice that strongly should be stopped as it is very much borderline. More selective use of smaller quotes and adding reasoning why a source was included would go a long way to help the AFD arguments to keep while avoiding copyright issues. --Masem (t) 15:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

    Note that Fram started a discussion about the COPYVIO question at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 November 19, which I think is a much better place to discuss that issue than ANI. Lev¡vich 17:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• The copyright issue needs to be separated from the behavioural issue. The initial issue that was raised here was behavioural, and is totally without merit. People are expected to provide evidence at AfD for their position, and Cunard does so. If you disagree then simply say why the sources provided do not meet notability guidelines, or ask in the discussion for the best sources to be identified if you don't feel like looking at them all. The copyright issue was raised later and is better discussed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 November 19. I must add that I have had several instances where the nominators at discussions or others who are asking for deletion have asked me to provide quotes from sources that I have added, or even copies of the whole source, so this practice needs to be stopped if it is a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Providing a quote to support a request at AFD is reasonable. (Providing whole sources on the other hand should not be handled on WP, or at least, not the source text). The issue here which is partially behavior and partially copyright is blinding including quotes from a source dump. The source dump is "good" (this could be improved but nowhere close to a blockable issue), but quoting each article with that source dump is both a copyright issue as well as behavior (how does that help at AFD if that quote hasn't been requested?) --Masem (t) 18:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It helps me because then I don't have to click on the link or find the most relevant section. In any case, probably best to keep this discussion about behavior and have the copyright issues discussed at WP:CP. Hobit (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• For what it is worth, I think that providing excerpts from the sources is very helpful. I'd much rather look at few key sentences from a source, showing in-depth, non-trivial analysis than be given a link to a source and a claim that somewhere in it there is substantial coverage. Of course, per WP:QUOTE, such quotes should not be overly long. Fair use and all of that. As for the behavioral issue, this boils down to whether the sources are good or not, on average. And whether Cunard learns to avoid low-quality stuff like press releases. Sometimes he finds good sources, sometimes bad, but since he has been here for years, I'd expect that the ratio of good to bad should be increasing over time. If it is not, hmmm. Honestly, even if most of his sources are bad, this is just a bad vote to ignore by the closer, but nothing sanctionable. The onus is on the closers to distinguish good arguments from bad, WP:AFDNOTAVOTE and all of that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Uesr:Mulman82

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

---

Please delete remove the following edits by Mulman82 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) who is taking deletion discussions personally and responding with vague threats of violence, accusation of pedophilia and homophobic slurs.

• Delaware Black Foxes
• My user page (not sure how to show diff for page creation)

Ytoyoda (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I deleted your User page, as the only edits were those edits, and revdel'd the edit summaries on the Delaware Black Foxes page. I've also blocked the user for a month for those gross attacks, as they were recently blocked for 2 weeks for sockpuppetry. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Outside of the user issue concerns, I've contested the prod; please take to AfD. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User adding unsourced content to Donald B. Gillies and reverting edits which remove it

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

---

A user (SystemBuilder) has been adding unsourced content to Donald B. Gillies. Example diff. I have asked them to stop as per WP:CHALLENGE as their material is likely to be challenged. They then posted a rather rude message on my talk page saying that he was his dad and there are no sources to support their material. I then said that this material shouldn't be added at all. To avoid 3RR sanctions, I have stopped reverting their edits and would appreciate if someone else would get involved. Eyebeller (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I am adding references. Please don't be such a dick, who do you think wrote 100% of that article to begin with? SystemBuilder (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

SystemBuilder, the references you have added were only for one section; the challenged material is still unsourced. I have reverted your edits again; please don't edit war, especially not over content that, in its present form, violates WP:BLP. Best, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs, the subject appears to have been deceased since 1975, so it should be clarified that WP:BLP may not apply directly to this article. However, the edits do violate verifiability and no original research, and I have left the user a message explaining these policies as well as a warning about edit warring. Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mz7, whoops, my bad. Must be getting late here. Thanks for the correction. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"who do you think wrote 100% of that article to begin with?" Just gonna drop WP:OWN here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Edits by AndyCBaer

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

---

Can someone else please take a look at edits by User:AndyCBaer? Based on recent reverts and talk page discussions, they don't seem too interested in following rules. This edit summary suggests they'd like to report me, so I invite them to say what they see fit. Thanks, --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Making you aware of this discussion because of your edit while I was writing the above comments. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary and am not surprised. I think this editor is on a dangerous path. I saw their rude and combative comments, their fluffy and unencyclopedic edits--this is not going to go well. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) These ESs 1 2 trend towards WP:NLT, and suggest indifferent understanding of US copyright law. Narky Blert (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That editor has never edited an article talk, nor until last night their own talk, which they didn't know how to sign. Possibly they didn't even realize talk pages existed? I've pointed them at the one for Odyssey III. —valereee (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I see User:EstateofTonyRosenthal (now blocked) may be related. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User:AlsoWukai

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

---

I have previously raised my issue with this user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wukai, as I thought it may have been appropriate, but it appears not to be an example of sockpuppetry. I'm repeating the text here to bring it to the attention of Wiki admin staff.

I recently edited Rashida Tlaib to make a small improvement to the grammar, as I believe that starting sentences with the word "but" does not fit the tone of Wikipedia articles. I also added a comma to help make the text more readable. User:AlsoWukai reverted the edit several days later, contravening the policy at Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary: "For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." I have tried to discuss this matter at the Usertalk page: User_talk:AlsoWukai#Rashida_Tlaib. As the user has contravened the reversion policy, I reverted back to my original edit. Less than a day later, that edit has been reverted again, this time by User:Wukai, with the unhelpful tag "that's just, like, your opinion, man" (isn't this the kind of thing a teenager would write in high school, not a professional editor?). I don't think this is the kind of civilised discourse we are meant to be using on Wikipedia, nor is the tag placed by the associated account when editing their User_talk:AlsoWukai page - "get over it!" : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlsoWukai&type=revision&diff=988257002&oldid=988156294 Again, this has a rather hostile tone. In any case, User:AlsoWukai has reverted my edit unnecessarily twice, once with their current account of that name, and then using their older account, User:Wukai. The User:AlsoWukai page states "I am the user formerly known as User:Wukai. For unknown reasons I am no longer able to log into that account on my desktop or laptop." The same person also needlessly reverted my minor grammatical edit to Sirhan Sirhan a couple of years ago, which, again, was unwarranted. The latest addition to our discussion reads: "Your sense of the 'tone of Wikipedia' seems to be nothing more than a misguided aversion to beginning sentences with conjunctions. Please get over it." This user has had problems with edit warring before, it appears, and objects to the grammar employed by other users. The kind of hostile, casual language utilised by User:AlsoWukai/User:Wukai isn't helpful to Wikipedia, and I personally find it unpleasant, so I'm bringing this behaviour to the attention of Wikipedia administrators. --TrottieTrue (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, since the two accounts are openly connected, there doesn't appear to be any problem from a socking point of view.

With regard to the reverts, have I understood this correctly: you reverted each other a couple of times a week ago, Wukai used a dismissive edit summary, and they reverted you once a couple of years back? Is there anything else in the way of improper conduct?

From where I'm sitting, there's not anything that warrants administrative action here. While it would have been preferable for them to have discussed the sentence construction on the talk page rather than reverting you, they didn't press it after you reinstated your edit, and haven't touched the page in over a week. Unless there is a history of disruption that you haven't mentioned, we're not going to block someone for an errant revert or two with mildly unprofessional edit summaries.

We don't rule on content disputes on this board, so the question of whether or not it's better to use 'But' or 'However,' to start a sentence can't be resolved here. I would use the latter myself, but that's really something to discuss on article talk, or to look for guidance in the MOS about. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

As a former English major, "but" vs "however," is probably the sort of question that is unanswerable, or one that English majors debate endlessly. Is there anything in the WP:MOS? May I suggest, "on the other hand"? "Despite the forgoing," has a nice ring to it if it fits the context. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

In Scotland and Ireland, many people actually end a sentence with "but" in the same way you might end a sentence with a trailing "however", but. Cnbrb (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

O, tempora! O, mores! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Gen. ii.6, KJV. Narky Blert (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: surely these phrases are all covered (except for "on the other hand"} in WP:EDITORIAL as words to watch? Doug Weller talk 11:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I was going to say the same thing. Starting that sentence with any of these is subtle editorializing. —valereee (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth_Summit The use of "but" or "however" to start a sentence wasn't really why I brought this issue to ANI. It seems to me that the tone of Wikipedia is that of an encyclopedia, in which "however" is preferable to "but" in starting a sentence. It just doesn't sound right to me on Wikipedia, having read and edited many other articles over the years. However (!), that isn't really the issue here. The user in question reverted the edit, contravening the policy at Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. My edit did not make the article worse, and therefore did not need to be reverted. I reverted it back, and they then used their old account to revert again. A second reversion of an edit which doesn't make the article worse strikes me as being petty for the sake of it. I did not want to go into edit warring, so I decided to rewrite the article text in a different way, which also removed the "but" and added the comma I had inserted. That edit seems to have been left alone.

I did the same on Sirhan Sirhan recently, which the user had reverted for a similar reason. I also modified the text for that article in a way which avoided merely replacing "but" with "however" at the start of a sentence. On certain articles which Wukai is presumably watching, replacing "but" with "however" at the start of sentences seems to trigger the user reverting the edit.

At User_talk:Wukai#Starting sentences with conjunctions, I found a previous incident over the "but" vs "however" issue, in which Wukai had been outvoted. When I replied and pointed this out, Wukai answered with "That's just, like, your opinion, man." This is the kind of dismissive passive-aggressive tone a school student might use. You say that "they didn't press it after you reinstated your edit", which isn't the case - my reversion was re-reverted by Wukai, rather than AlsoWukai. I'm not suggesting blocking the user, but that their inappropriate behaviour needs to be looked at. --TrottieTrue (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, be aware that the essay you cite is just that - it's one person's advice, not a policy. Also, a prior discussion on their talk page about the question of starting a sentence in that manner has no weight at all - user talk pages are not a place to discuss editorial best practice. Again, for the matter of the content dispute, while I agree with your position, that is a question either for the article talk page or, more generally, the MOS. As for the tone of the commentary, it's not ideal, but high school students are welcome to edit here, I'm not going to sanction someone for sounding like one.

As for the question of whether they should use two accounts in one discussion - it's not that unusual, provided the disclosure is clear and they do not attempt to use it to game an edit war, I'm not uncomfortable with it. If there are cases of misuse, I'd be happy to investigate. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"As for the tone of the commentary, it's not ideal, but high school students are welcome to edit here, I'm not going to sanction someone for sounding like one." I'm sure that plenty of high school students are capable of interacting in a polite and courteous manner on Wikipedia. The point is that such language is neither polite or courteous. --TrottieTrue (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, absolutely, I agree with you - we should all try to be entirely courtious to each other. What I'm saying to you is that absent an identifiable personal attack, or a long-running and well-documented string of low-level incivility (which has been hinted at, but not evidenced), I don't believe there's anything for admins to do aside from saying 'play nice'. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth_Summit Well, that would be a start. Such behaviour certainly shouldn’t be encouraged. —TrottieTrue (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

TrottieTrue: Fair enough.

AlsoWukai: Please remember that this is a collaborative environment, and that we're all on the same team. Play nice. And by that, I mean that not everyone you are interacting with has the same cultural norms as you, they don't all use the same flavour of the English language as you do, and they aren't all men. Phrases like "That's just, like, your opinion, man", while certainly innocuous to some, have the potential to offend or upset others. The best approach is to be unfailing polite and collegiate in all your interactions with other editors.

Both: can we close this report now? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth_Summit Yes, you can close it. I feel I've made my point, and I hope that User:AlsoWukai takes on board what has been said here. --TrottieTrue (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• This minor edit war seems to have been resolved with some improved wording. However, Wukai is a very hostile and non-collaborative editor prone to endless edit-wars even over things of little consequence, and also has a habit of using his/her alternate account to edit war with, in an apparent attempt to evade 3RR when edit-warring with lesser-informed people. One of those accounts should be permanently shut down so that this does not happen anymore. And Wukai should be warned about continued hostility and non-collaborativeness.

  TrottieTrue, keep discussion of content off of usertalk. Discussing content on usertalk only leads to problems. Keep those discussions on articletalk instead. Softlavender (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding, Softlavender. I didn't want to revert my edit again and get into edit warring, so I got round the issue by rewording it. The reversions and language used by Wukai are somewhat hostile though, and it's unusual for me to experience behaviour like that on Wikipedia. I would agree with your summary, Softlavender, from what I've seen of the user.

I thought that discussion of a revert was best brought up on the Usertalk page, but I will avoid that in future, and instead do it on Articletalk. --TrottieTrue (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• They've sometimes bounced back and forth within minutes on the same articles, which doesn't look good. It would be pretty incompetent intentional socking-to-edit-war; the accounts are named to make them easy to connect, but if they can't fix the access problem on their laptop for Wukai, they should just enable AlsoWukai on their phone and abandon the old account. —valereee (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• So do we need warnings or a block for User:AlsoWukai--User:Wukai? They've not responded here. Were they notified? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to stop using my Wukai account if that will appease y'all. AlsoWukai (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem is less the alt account than the edit warring. The issue is not appeasement, but disruptive edit warring Please see WP:BRD. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, I did indeed notify the user at User_talk:AlsoWukai#Rashida_Tlaib. You're right that the alternative account is less of an issue here, but the user could appear to be using it to edit war. It is, as you say, disruptive. --TrottieTrue (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I will stop using the Wukai account. Edit wars can be addressed as they occur. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

AlsoWukai, my above commentary notwithstanding, since you are aware of the edit warring policy, it should not be necessary for us to deal with edit warring from you since you can ensure that it does not occur. 3RR isn't a licence, it's just the point beyond which it is absolutely taking the piss to go. 1RR is what a responsible editor should hold themselves to in normal circumstances, then they should hit the talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

31.5.133.157

• 31.5.133.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi All, IP User 31.5.133.157 is mass-editing articles such as Eurasia and List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia without providing any edit summaries and zero sources, since yesterday. Most information being added such as on Federation of Euro-Asian Stock Exchanges and Eastern European Group‎ does not seem to be constructive or accurate. I have tried to revert where possible, however the volume of edits is just too high in most cases. Many thanks, Archives908 (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is deliberate, but it seems that some of their edits consisted of adding super-inflated world maps and other landmarks to various articles that disrupted the layout of the page, so I reverted some of them. I have no idea what the IP is trying to accomplish here but their edits probably need some eyes. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 15:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I have no clue either. They are still at it...a new (unexplained) edit every few minutes. The user seems to be focused on geography from what I can see, but they're sporadic editing style with zero explanation is certainly not constructive; nor is the content they are adding. In the Eastern European Group‎ and Federation of Euro-Asian Stock Exchanges articles, the user added Turkey and Azerbaijan, respectively, as members (which they are not). In the Eurasia article, the user added Turkey and Pakistan under Soviet states (which, again they are not). I cannot explain what they're objective is, but it is disruptive nonetheless. I have managed to revert these edits prior to the disruption, but based on the trends in their edit history, this chaotic style of editing pursues. Any further guidance? Much appreciated, Archives908 (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, have a glance at Istanbul Process, none of the edits make any sense. 12 edits done in a about 1 hour, with zero explanation. Archives908 (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

And now, they have moved on too List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania, 14 unexplained edits in less than 15 minutes. Archives908 (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

...and subtracted 1 mill square kilometers from the area of Angola ([62]]), blocked on Wikidata, reverted on Commons... - 4ing (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, 4ing for your help reverting the Users continued disruptive edits. Archives908 (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: Have you tried talking to the IP editor about these edits? Lev¡vich 06:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring by WilliamJE

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

---

FYI

 – Heading was refactored by Liz. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

After User:WilliamJE edited the article for Mike Straka to remove details regarding books he had written (see this edit), I reinserted the material, adding reliable and verifiable sources about each of the books. WilliamJE has started an edit war today (revert one, revert two and revert three), with the argument that this is all "book spam". WilliamJE inherently acknowledges that the material is encyclopedic and believes that there is some part of this that doesn't belong here, but refuses to comply with WP:PRESERVE and fix the problem, choosing instead to revert the edits and remove all of the content. It appears that the material is being removed out of spite to make a WP:POINT. Furthermore, WilliamJE has started to follow me to articles that I've recently edited within the previous day and that the editor had never edited before, including Essex County Country Club and Randolph High School. Half of WilliamJE's last dozen edits involve following me around from article to article. Any ideas? Alansohn (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE is quite correct to remove references that cite Amazon book sales pages - it is book spamming. - Ahunt (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The complaining editor should have a boomerang headed back at him. Ideas he asks

1- His last edit to Mike Straka was in 2013[63]

2- I came to Essex Country Club after this post[64] was made to a WikiProject talk page. A talk page I've made almost five dozen edits[65] to going back as far as 2010.

3- Working on alumni related edits is something I do all the time. Just one example, this USER talk page post[66] I did 3 days ago.

The above allegations are absurd. What I removed from Straka were multiple links to Amazon book pages. Is WP here to promote an author's books? Nope. It is bookspam. The complainant was told twice to make a bibliography section similar to one found at Mary Higgins Clark without the Amazon links but they shrugged it off. One of shrugs included this edit summary[67]- 'rv malicious removal of sourced content. Even you don't believe that this material is not encyclopedic or reliably sourced; you're just doing this out of spite. This time read WP:PRESERVE, WP:POINT and WP:DICK, especially the latter.

Wrong accusations from an editor with clear history of practicing WP:OWN when it comes to New Jersey related articles. Any ideas?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is that WilliamJE believes that all disliked content should be removed, not merely questionable content. If the edits in question only removed the content in question there's no issue. all three reverts in question -- one, two and three -- remove details about the books with multiple reliable and verifiable sources, and this appears to be done purely out of spite and in direct violation of WP:PRESERVE, as has been discussed with this user. Alansohn (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources in those three reverts. Which sources is reliable? HuffPo? In my view, a bigger question is why an editor with 450k edits over 15 years is adding inline external links to amazon.com in a mainspace article. No editor should be linking this way: Straka is the author of ''[https://www.amazon.com/Rowdy-Rousey-Ronda-Rouseys-Fight/dp/1629372390/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1487098998&sr=8-1&keywords=%22rowdy+rousey%22+%22mike+straka%22 Rowdy Rousey],''. Alansohn, what gives with this linking? Lev¡vich 18:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The link you cite was added in February 2017 in this edit. Alansohn (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's not play games, let's just talk about the real issues. Yes, the original link was added in 2017, but after it was removed by WJE, you (Alansohn) reinstated it here, here, and here. The question isn't "Who put it there first?", the question is, in my mind, why is an editor who is #36 on the all-time-edits list edit warring to keep policy-violating link spam in an article? You know it's wrong to link to Amazon.com this way, why insist on it through multiple reversions? Lev¡vich 18:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The aggressive removal of content by WilliamJE can also be seen at this edit, where sourced material about a book was removed because the editor did not look at what was changed in the article. WilliamJE does not believe that WP:PRESERVE -- and the obligation to "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia" -- has any relevance, even where other editors have added sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

...and that edit was self-reverted 8 minutes later. (And the original reversion would be valid under DUE grounds.) Why even bring up a self-reverted edit, and not mention that it was self-reverted? That doesn't strike me as an accurate presentation of the evidence, Alansohn. Lev¡vich 18:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I cleaned up the links in that article, probably still needs some work. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"Based on spite" is not a phrase that should be used in a title here. How do you expect anyone to look at an issue dispassionately when you use it? I have no idea who is right or wrong here, and will not even look when a discussion is framed in this way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

My edit above has now been rendered meaningless because the section title has been changed. It originally had "based on spite" at the end. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Alansohn: So much for WP:AGF. Should we just close this and pretend it never happened ? Edit warring to restore a link to amazon is pretty high on my list of absurdities, in world where absurdity is becoming the norm --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Alansohn:: Just some friendly advice: you are clearly in the wrong here, so best to admit it, apologize and thus hopefully avoid a block for edit warring to add spam links. Perhaps this can then be closed without further action. - Ahunt (talk)
    • My recent interactions with WilliamJE began with this edit, in which WilliamJE removed reliably sourced content about a book with the edit summary "NP section criteria Born, raised, lived in Foo. Not set their novel in Foo. Get a RS that says the author is from Vineland", an edit that was ultimately self-reverted by WilliamJE. I had tried to communicate with WilliamJE in this talk page edit and to discuss the issues. These interactions placed me in a mindset in which I may not have been appropriately assuming good faith when WilliamJE removed sourced information about books by Mike Straka in another series of reverts. My intention in restoring the material was to focus on adding sources, and in doing so I did not pay adequate attention to the links that had been there previously for several years; I was *NOT* adding spam links, I just did not pay attention to what had been there before. In turn, WilliamJE was justifiably addressing an issue with links to Amazon that WilliamJE was seeking to remove. The issues with the Amazon links raised by WilliamJE were legitimate, and I was not getting the clear message that was being sent to me. Direct communication with other editors (and not snippy edit summaries) is the best way to address this and other similar issues, before escalating into edit wars and ANI. My sincere apologies to WilliamJE and to all those participating in this needless discussion. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Nick Cordero

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

---

Just days ago on November 15, an RFC was closed at Talk: Nick Cordero with consensus to include COVID-19 as the cause of death. User:Tubbyty is repeatedly removing the content, stating in an edit summary that "I don't give a shit about consensus". I have reverted twice and am now requesting assistance to let this editor know quite clearly that they are obligated to follow consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. for edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

I've removed talkpage access for personal attacks, but left the present block term alone. Other eyes will be useful - this is a classic example of an edit-warrior who demands that the rules be changed because they believe they're right. Note that I have no views on the rightness of their edits - their conduct is the issue here. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Tictictoc various issues

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

---

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

See contribs.

• On 12 November (after having been inactive since January 2019), Tictictoc started mass-welcoming users with no contributions.
• On 18 November Tictictoc removed content from Vijay Kumar Aggarwal with the edit comment "removed promotional content". Complete nonsense as far as I can tell.
• The same day they added obviously incorrect {{copypaste}} tags to Monoblock LNB (diff) and Versatile Video Coding. (diff) Very obviously wrong and reverted by User:J. M.. On their talk page, they defended this saying Ohh, but those articles are copy pasted from somewhere else that's why i added the templates. that can't be nonsensical. Later they claimed that these reports were based on Earwig's Copyvio Detector.
• They moved Dr Sandeep Roy to Sandeep Roy. As the article is virtually certain to be deleted, this is completely pointless and just a waste of time for new page patrollers and possibly (if there's no bot that does this) an admin for the deletion.
• They tagged Mr. Roy with the {{db-animal}} template. They claim Off-course not, i added A7 for biographies. If it appears for animal it might be my mistake of typos. I apologies for this. I didn't do all this intentionally. This is rather strange: they used Twinkle, people are the first A7 entry in Twinkle and animals the second to last, a somewhat improbable mix-up, but at any rate I don't see how such an error would be a typo. It's confusion all around and Competence is required.

My request:

• Can an admin check recent deleted contributions from Tictictoc (if any) to make sure no rubbish speedy deletion tagging was accidentally granted?
• At the very least, give Tictictoc a clear message that these shenanigans shan't continue. I'm not entirely convinced that J. M. and myself are really getting through to them.
• Someone else (doesn't have to be an admin) also go over their recent contributions in case I missed something.

Thank you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't done the other stuff but there are no deleted contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tictictoc: is User:Sumikamloops an alternative account of yours? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

On slightly closer look, I'm sure it is. And as you are reverting what Sumikamloops added there is a serious problem here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, Sumikamloops stopped in July. Odd, though. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz, Thanks for notifying me. I am not connected anywhere with user Sumikamloops.Tictictoc (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Draftified Sandeep Roy --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Besides the content removal, Sumikamloops was warned about mass welcomes in July, yet Tictictoc started with them last week. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Editing patterns make it obvious, perhaps it was a WP:Sleeper. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, CrystallineLeMonde, and J. M.: I almost missed it because Tictictoc squeezed their response in between some others, but above they say "I am not connected anywhere with user Sumikamloops". Sumikamloops hasn't edited recently, so presumably CU can do nothing. But as this looks like a duck, what do we do know? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, their edit summaries are similar, their user pages are identical, too. There are indeed striking similarities. Anyway, is this the real problem here? The (possible) sock puppetry? Did the user create a new account because of the warning on their old talk page, to avoid consequences? I'm not completely sure something needs to be done about it. The user hasn't made any edits since the start of this discussion. Perhaps we could wait and see, and only if the disruptive editing continues (and we may watch for similar, newly created accounts, too), something should be done. To be honest, when I reverted the edit in Versatile Video Coding, I wasn't sure if the edit was meant seriously, and Tictictoc's replies on their talk page didn't clear it up for me. Intentional trolling is sometimes hard to distinguish from genuine cluelessness.—J. M. (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

However, it's a quite bit interesting that both users have an interest in a certain article. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I will AGF and unless there is abuse from the old account, not worry about it. If current account is editing disruptively, someone (not me. I'm out of service) will look at the disruption and act accordingly. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

If someone can rem0ve their access to TWINKLE, that would be for the best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a neat idea, but the process doesn't seem to be set up for that. WP:TW only describes a block as a consequence of using this tool in violation of Wikipedia policies, and offers no way to request such a removal. Deepfriedokra, you may want to bring that idea up at WT:TW. ◅ Sebastian 08:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

E-960's topic ban

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

---

User:E-960 is subject to community imposed TBAN at AN/I (imposed by User:Wugapodes) from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed due to his combative behaviour. I saw E-960 appear at the edit warring board, and looked deeper seeing continuing breaches of this ban:

1. [68] on Christian minorities fleeing Europe to the new world.

2. [69][70][71][72][73] edits leading to the edit warring report, on abortion in Poland.

3. [74] discussing editing on "Jesus Christ King of Poland" from six months ago.

This is persistent defiance of the community ban and is wrong.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That last edit, from six months ago, appears to be the editor mentioning edits while responding to a noticeboard thread about the edits in question, unless I am mistaken. jp×g 10:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The last edit is from today, November 19th. E-960 brought up today, on his own independent initiative, a six month old dispute on Jesus in Poland in an edit warring report on the separate subject of abortion in Poland.--Astral Leap (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, now I'm glad I put "unless I am mistaken" at the end of that sentence :^) I am mistaken. jp×g 10:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sanctioning admin note I mention in my close that "European secular politics" shouldn't be interpreted as "European politics". It should be interpreted as the separation of religious life from European political life. Since the Catholic Church and various branches of Christianity have generally opposed legalization of abortion and homosexuality, it's hard to see how the Poland edits aren't related to the separation of religious and political life, but it's not entirely obvious and I really don't know the history of Poland all that well. The edit warring was disruptive, but it's stopped, and the other two diffs don't strike me as something requiring a block to resolve (yet). I think we're at the stage of giving a formal warning that, yes, legalization (or prohibition) of abortion or homosexuality in historically Christian nations of Europe fall under the topic ban. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Wugapodes, I agree, I tried to tell E-960 and Abortion legality in Poland is square in the middle of his ban, but he brushed me aside and continued to discuss abortion afterwards. Abortion politics in Ireland and Poland are tied to the Catholic Church and secular politics. A warning here will paint a clear line. Could you also warn E-960 to stop getting close to the topics he is banned from?--Astral Leap (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Note to the reviewing administrators - please relate this to just closed at "no action" report where the same new account (Astral Leap) has already brought up the above issue.[75] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said at the 3RR noticeboard, while I have no opinion right now on E-960 behavior, I think a WP:BOOMERANG investigation may be needed on the filler. AstralLeap account has been created just a few months ago, yet it displays extensive knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings. Something is very fishy here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Tosh. Twaddle. Trumpery. I have been here for several months. In the original ban discussion, the Piotrus and GizzyCatBella accounts opposed the community voice on E-960.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Close per Wugapodes I have long since learned that what I find obvious will not be shared by all. While it seems a clear Topic Ban violation to me, I can see how someone who deebly cared about the subject could convince themselves they were on the safe side of the line. Give a formal warning that polical debates where religious arguments are a dominant part of one side fall under the topic ban and let E-960 get back to more pleasent topics.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment by E-960

I would like to say that other editors/admins involved in the "abortion" discussion did not necessarily see it as directly infringing on the ban [76]. Also, given that there is an sock-puppet investigation going on, I did point out that an unusual patter of editing occurred during the "Jesus Christ King of Poland?" discussion on the Poland talk page (which occurred well before my t-ban), raising concerns to administrators regarding disruptive editing, entrapment, creation of multiple user accounts, and/or harassment (which this may well be part of — connected to another bigger issue) should not be silenced by evoking a t-ban. I would like to point out that Astral Leap's account was only created in February of 2020, and given the ongoing investigation regarding a flood of new accounts, who get involved in exchanges with editors and topics connected with Poland, I am not comfortable with how this situation is unfolding. --E-960 (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I went ahead and self-reverted on the first point [77]. Indeed, the ban affects Christianity topics as a whole and European Secularism specifically, I got things a bit mixed up in my mind, and when making a series of edits on the United States page, I carelessly added the word "English" in front of statement related to "dissenting Christian groups". I acknowledge this was a honest mistake on my part, as I unwittingly just lumped the ban as pertaining to European related articles only. --E-960 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@E-960 You accidentally revealed your IP --> [78] Are you okay with that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If it can be changed to E-960 it would be great, though I think i did this already a few time in the past anyway, hehe... --E-960 (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• NOTE: Also, I'd like to raise attention about user:Astral Leap account activity, it appears that the vast majority of the user's edits actually relate to either being engaged in admin board or talk page discussions, but lack any meaningful article content editing — mostly relegated to "mico" edits, such as the following examples: [79], [80], [81], [82] or [83]. I raised the issue with contributors who are familiar with the on-going sockpuppet investigation to perhaps see if there is a connection. --E-960 (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Per my comment above, I concur, this pattern is very odd, and suggests an attempt to rack up an editing count by someone who has been here for a very long time and knows how to game the system well. WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:EVASION, WP:BOOMERANG... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Tosh. Twaddle. Trumpery. I have been here for several months. In the original ban discussion, the Piotrus accounts opposed the community voice on E-960.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Several months you say? Let's see... you opened an account on February 8, 2020 [84], and you edited for 2 minutes (total 2 edits). Then you came back on February 15, 2020 [85] and edited for another 50 minutes (total of 10 edits) with two more edits on February 22, 2020, where you spent 11 minutes. Then you went dormant for 3.5 mothns and returned on June 5, 2020 [86] were you made several edits until June 29, 2020, for a total time of approximately 13 hours. Then you went dormant to return on July 11, 2020[87] to spend a total of 3 hours editing in July. Then 5 hours in August [88], 5 hours in September [89], and then you perfectly wrote and linked this [90]. In October 2020, [91] you edited for a total of 4 hours, and in November, you edited for approximately 30 minutes before you wrote this [92]. So to let's add this up (give or take), you have been here for a total of 31 hours spread out over a few months, and then you arrived here with a perfectly formulated, flawless report.[93]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note - [94] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Editor inserting extreme POV additions to Syrian civil war related articles

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

---

AleviQizilbash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing major POV-pushing on the Syrian Civil War and Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War articles. Here and here are the problematic diffs. The user is trying to change the narrative in two ways: Saying that Western propaganda is the cause of the protests, and that the protests themselves are about killing the Alawite and Christian minorities. For the first part about Western propaganda, their source is simply an editorial in The Guardian. Some of the other sources they use are also problematic, but for these the main issue is that they all seem to describe individual incidents of intimidation or ethnic conflict between the opposition, and do not support either of these narratives. In other words, the user is trying to synthesize extremely heavy claims with sources that do not directly support said claims -- They're synthesizing an extreme counter-narrative. That, and telling me they hope the Syrian rebels will kill me, though I don't think their guns can shoot that far. Eik Corell (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've quoted 6 sources all of them has confirmed this slogan of the early protests "Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut" so your objections doesn't make any sense , You have labeled Genocidewatch of Gregory Stanton of geroge Mason university , The Christian Post , Tim Anderson's book , Agos News , The Spectator Magazine and more as " Dubious sources " !! then you falsely claimed that none of the sources say anything about genocide of Alawites and expulsion of Christians which is not true at all , all of them have this exact sentence " Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut " , your defence of the terrorists or rebels or whatever you want to call them is one sided dishonest narrative ,I said western propaganda is one of the causes not the only cause , I quoted the Guardian , your so called " editorial " claim doesn't make any sense since it's investigative Journalism , already the rest of the list mentioned as causes by other editors doesn't have any source , you kept them and didn't object to any of them while once I mentioned a fact with a cited source you started to panic in defense of your beloved rebels , You are the one who want to make POV Push , while I allowed the different narratives to exist and let the reader be the judge not your western type of censorship and Intel service manipulation of western media . enjoy yourself with your beloved rebelsAleviQizilbash (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

AleviQizilbash Comments such as wish someday you will have the same fate as your beloved pissful western sponsored "Syrian rebels" are utterly unacceptable, and that's before we even get into comments like you just want to defend your terrorists. This alone, frankly, should result in a block from editing. — Czello 19:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Quote left by AleviQizilbash on Eik Corell's Talk page:

"...anyway you just want to defend your terrorists and make the wiki article with single narrative , that's fine , I'm not going to fight with you since your intentions are malice from the start and the wiki project is controlled by your likes , so do whatever you want in the already fucked up page , I will never revert your cover up project again , wish someday you will have the same fate as your beloved pissful western sponsored "Syrian rebels" ,Cheers , ByeAleviQizilbash (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)"

If nothing else, this is a major violation of WP:CIVIL. I haven't looked into the diffs, but this isn't the way to resolve issues on Wikipedia.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Judge the diffs then block me later . this guys Eik corell's behavior has angered me and I don't believe that he has a good faith in his reverting , I have no problem with people who revert my editing based on good faith , I became irritated with people who keep reverting editing while they are having bad faith and malice intentions like this guy corell and his likesAleviQizilbash (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to engage in good faith, which is why I explained all of this on your talk page. What I said there is that you are synthesizing extremely heavy claims from isolated -- even if widespread -- incidents. What you're saying could be true, but sources cannot be stacked in the way you're doing to support broad claims like these. For example, I could say that all Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists are terrorists, and then stack on sources that cover individual attacks, but that wouldn't substantiate what I said. That's what WP:SYNTH deals with -- Extrapolating a position/conclusion from information that while it may be peripherally relevant to the topic, does not support the conclusion. I can tag on one last example: The recent conflict between Armenia/Azerbaijan -- I could say that either side wants to annihilate the other, and cite either side's numerous attacks/killings of civilians, and it still would not support such a statement. Eik Corell (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok man but please explain to me what does it mean " Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut " all the sources that i mentioned has documented this early chant of the rebels and they clearly said that this was their slogan , chant and " almost official jingle" when more than 6 sources agree together about this fact , then it's true and it has nothing to do with saying " all Muslims or all Buddhists are terrorists " also I'm not talking about the numerous attacks , I'm talking about the chants of the rebels , their chants are their demands , plain and simple , if you have other chants you can add them too along with the chants that I mentioned without the need of deleting an important widespread chant and demand during the early stages of the uprising . I apologize for being rude with you , I don't fear getting blocked , I have no problem with that , to be blocked gives me a rest anyway , but I just apologize because you seems to be a good person and your last answer shows that you are nice person ,I don't want you to go to sleep while feeling annoyed . maybe it was just a misunderstanding between us , I eat lots of sugar too which may contribute to my hot temper , my apologies , Thank YouAleviQizilbash (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I also eat a lot of sugary food, and at no point have I said anything like wish someday you will have the same fate as your beloved pissful western sponsored "Syrian rebels". — Czello 22:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

There was a previous civility ANI thread in October that ended when AleviQizilbash retired [95], followed a few days later by a return to editing and a one-week WP:DE block by EdJohnston [96]. Recent edits like this have multiple problems (initially demanding democratic reforms genocide was a surprising change), and when those problems were raised at the UTP, responses like [97] (quoted above) and [98] are not civil. When concerns about those responses were raised at EdJohnston's talk page, responses like [99] and [100] are also subpar. We have the sweet apology above but the subsequent post at the article talk page [101] makes me think we should fulfill the request made on Ed's UTP. Lev¡vich 06:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In light of these links, I think the time has come to accept that AleviQizilbash is only on Wikipedia to push a certain PoV and cherry-pick sources that adhere to his WP:AGENDA. He is a classic case of tendentious editing, and any attempt to correct him on these matters is met with hostility and him casting aspersions on others. — Czello 11:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah surprising change ! Cherry picking ! and POV push ! , Really ! are you really unaware of the holocaust against our Alevi and Christian brothers in Syria Mr LEVIvich and Mr CZello or are you pretending to be blind about this fact ?

• International Christian Concern 4 May 2011 here , I'm quoting : "Last week in Duma, a suburb of Damascus, Salafis chanted, Alawites to the Grave and Christians to Beirut . Christians in Syria are concerned that the agenda of many hard-line Islamists in Syria, including the Salafis, is to take over the government and kick Christians out of the country. “ In a Christian village outside of DARAA, in southern Syria, eye witnesses reported that twenty masked men on motorcycles opened fire on a Christian home while shouting malicious remarks against Christians in the street In Karak, a village near DARAA, Salafis forced villagers to join anti-government protests and remove photos of President Assad from their homes. Witnesses reported that a young Muslim man who refused to remove a photo was found hanged on his front porch the next morning ."
• The Christian Post 5 May 2011 here , I'm quoting : "Christian communities across Syria have been attacked by anti-government protesters in recent weeks.protesters in Duma, a suburb of Damascus, were last week heard shouting: Alawites to the Grave and Christians to Beirut "
• The Spectator 27 October 2012 here ," I'm quoting : First up is Boutros (not his real name), a 26-year-old from the nearby Syrian town of Qusayr where once Christians and Sunnis lived side by side. So how did the fighting start ? ‘At first the Sunni rebels offered us a choice: join us or leave. When we refused, they turned on us. Our neighbours!’ says Boutros in outrage. Then the Sunnis began to threaten us. They would shout: “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave”.’ This chant is so often repeated and reported, it’s become almost the official jingle of the civil war."
• Gregory_Stanton#Genocide_Watch of Gregory Stanton the former Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention at the George Mason University 1 May 2013 report here , I'm quoting : "Calls for genocide against religious minorities from rebel leaders in Syria are numerous and frequent , the chant Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut" has been reported at anti government demonstrations since the earliest days of the revolution"
• Agos 17 October 2016 here , I'm quoting : "Alevis to the grave, Christians to Beirut' is still a common slogan" This article is an interview with Harout Ekmanian who is Working in various international human rights associations, he says : "Alevis to the grave, Christians to Beirut' was a slogan invented during the first days of the rebellion and it is still commonly used" Harout Ekmanian is a Harvard school Lawyer and a fellow of the Institute For The Study of Human Rights here and a speaker at the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute here, the Institutes Mission is to To educate students in public policy and human rights, to support faculty research, and to foster creative dialogue here
• Reuters : Insurgents seize Syrian Alawite village, killing 19: Observatory here
• BBC : Syria rebels executed civilians, says Human Rights Watch , the deaths occurred in villages inhabited predominantly by members of President Bashar al-Assad's minority Alawite sect near the coastal city of Latakia.here
• France 24 : Syrian rebels 'executed' Alawite villagers here
• Zee News : Rebel attack on Syrian Alawite village kills 40 here . Yeah surprise ! You are the only ones who make POV Push and cherry pick while rejecting all of my reputable sources because you are supporting the pissful rebels ,want to whitewash their asses , yeah they just want democratic reforms , this is why they chanted " Alawites to grave , Christians to Beirut" then slaughtered Alevis and Christians . Hypocrites . — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleviQizilbash (talk • contribs)

I think you've just proven my point: you're trying to edit in such a way that pushes a certain narrative, which is why you keep running into trouble. This is a clear case of WP:AGENDA and WP:TE. — Czello 13:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The Real push of certain narrative and agenda is to whitewash the Syrian rebels since 2011 till now in order to serve your CIA/MI6/DGSE/BND masters game in Syria , the real agenda push is to hide all the sources that I mentioned and only reveal certain hand picked sources to depict the rebels as innocent lovely liberal sweet democrat hippies who just want democratic reforms . if you weren't hypocrites , you would at least accept to publish the both narratives . You are the only extreme POV pushers and cherry pickers , this is why I came into troubles with the Wiki hypocrites , since their master the Zionist ex porn industry mogul and sex trafficker of Eastern European women , his holiness mr Jimmy Wales supports the Zionists of Israel and the terrorists of Syria aka the pissful rebels AleviQizilbash (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The personal attacks from AleviQizilbash seem to be a continuation of the pattern reported at ANI back in October by User:AppleBsTime. Though AleviQizilbash does have some knowledge it seems like he is only happy here when he is quarrelling with lots of people. I would go ahead with an indefinite block, since on his current path he won't be able to contribute successfully. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't done more than skim the pov pushing, but it's clear from the personal attacks alone that this editor is NOTHERE. Support an indef. —valereee (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with you Eddy , the applebstime issue was serial harassment against me , it's clear stupidity from your behalf to equate the two cases , since applebstime andthe other Zionist harassers with him can't be equated with Eik Corell , Eik seems to be nice person but he is just dumb . I don't agree with the indefinite block since by doing so you will want me to beg some worthless admins to remove the block , you will just want to humiliate me , something I will never do which will result to an eternal ban since I'm not programmed to be a humiliated sissy hypocrite asshole like the average westerns . Block me for a specific period , this is more appropriate and practical , Thank You Eddy AleviQizilbash (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This comment is beyond the pale. Indeffed. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Changing what is written in the source

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

---

User:Griboski ,changing what is written in the source.She changes something irrelevant and adds her own or deletes what is written in the source and has been doing it constantly, for months. Someone notices it from other users and returns it, someone doesn't, so he writes what he doesn't write in the source, here is an example today.[[102]] , [[103]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.60.225 (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Note - most probably we have more of the same IP editor who has been active lately [104]. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User Sadko I don't know what you're talking about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.60.225 (talk) 2020-11-20T11:47:04 (UTC)

The below message was a reaction to SebastianHelm's closure of this thread with the note “This is not an appropriate post for ANI. There is no indication that the OP tried to resolve this amicably first. Also, the OP did not leave a notice on the editor's talk page, as the top of this page clearly stipulates.” of 11:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright Sebastian .It is important that you have seen what changes he is making, and that is not written in the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.60.225 (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you insist, 93.138.60.225, we can keep this open. But be aware that this might very well backfire. ◅ Sebastian 12:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Since 93.138.60.225 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) refuses to follow the rules here, I alerted User:Griboski instead. ◅ Sebastian 12:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• The IP editor here is the same ( Confirmed) editor as was blocked in the thread referenced here from further up the page, and they jumped to another IP and carried on editing right around that block. The range 93.168.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is blocked for one month. I'm quite certain this is the same IP editor who has been harassing and disrupting Serbian and Croatian army topics for several years now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Make that 93.138.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Proofread your IP blocks, kids. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The Croatian nationalism article was more or less in the same state as I put it, before the IP made this massive POV change a while back. The change on the Serbian nationalism article was a minor grammatical change (and adding an sfn style citation) which the IP has now made worse. Unfortunately, this IP is persistent, stubborn and unwilling to learn the basics of editing such as following what sources say and NPOV.

Can someone put both articles on semi-protection for some time? Otherwise the IP will continue his disruption. Thank you. --Griboski (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, that CU log reminds me of how much I miss Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Muirchertach1 and WP:TE/WP:3RR

Muirchertach1 is an editor who dabbles in highly controversial areas but does not seem inclined to remain civil or discuss changes nor gain consensus. Their first block was in 2019 for editing 9/11 conspiracy theories and edit warring. Their second block was for edit warring at Stop the Steal (and attacking editors on the talk page), as was their third. They seem to be aware of edit warring as per this edit summary (Undid revision 989709868 by Praxidicae (talk) OK, so just for the record, you are reverting my edits. You once, bradv once. But I'm sure I'll soon get banned for 3rr anyway. Then you say 'take to talk' as usual. YOU take it to talk - and you haven't started a discussion there - if you want to revert and it have a problem with it.) so these short term blocks don't seem to be working. They've even reverted again since I started this - upping it to more than 4 reverts. They have been DS warned, 3rr warned (and blocked previously for it!) but seem only interested in pushing their point of view. I believe that at this point a topic ban from either American Politics or conspiracy theories broadly construed is appropriate, if not an outright indefinite block. Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I just gave them a 1-week block per standard escalation and more edit warring. I'll leave this open mostly for comment on whether an indef is appropriate. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears that in between me starting this, Primefac temp blocked however I think this is still a discussion worth having - an editor with 126 having four blocks for edit warring in the same area seems unproductive to me. Praxidicae (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that a topic ban should be fine. If they continue, indef. Invalid^OS_talk 15:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

They don't seem to do very much at all other than fight against reliable sourcing on AP2 articles. A topic ban ought to help; they were DS-alerted on November 10. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Support an AP2 topic ban. I have experienced the same issues with this user and the fact that they are not taking any feedback on board makes me extremely skeptical they can edit productively in this topic area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps an indef is just more appropriate in this case. They don't seem to edit anywhere else and only appear to be here to stir trouble...Praxidicae (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Praxidicae. I've been watching this user's edits and even if they did edit in other areas I doubt their behaviour will change. I'd support a topic ban as second choice. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. This isn't the first time they've waded into AP2 (c.f. 9/11 conspiracy theories in September 2019) with unpleasant results, but otherwise they've made generally constructive contributions, including fairly significant additions to Native American Church and Crispus Attucks. They appear to be blind to their own bias with respect to American politics and so they should not edit that topic, but otherwise I just don't see a justification for such a serious sanction as a site ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, GorillaWarfare, Praxidicae, Primefac, Ima thrown something out there--note the whitewashing in the Crispus Attucks article. I was involved in a series of edits there; a friend alerted me years ago to what appeared to be Wikipedia editors whitewashing this article by removing his heritage, and voila, there it is. You will note that Muirchertach1 starts editing on 29 January 2019 in this article, which is also of interest to scholars of African American culture--only days after Psmith85 (talk · contribs) was blocked by Coffee, for POV edits, whitewashing, etc. related to Crispus Attucks. You'll find that both accounts have edited Attucks making similar edits, and both have edited Harriet Tubman (edits related to ancestry).

I think Muirchertach is a sock of Psmith. They're kind of odd; I don't think they're the usual kind of racist right-wing troll we see all the time; I think Ivanvector has a point with "blind to their own bias". What we should do about my suspicion, that's another matter, and one I cannot delve into right now, since inexplicably Kentucky is in scoring position against Alabama, and I (and Tide rolls) have to focus our attention or all might go wrong. Kelapstick, I assume you're wearing your Alabama shirt today. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through these edits right now but drmies check out this too. Praxidicae (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits by User:Alexbrn

This editor (talk) has recently deleted almost the entire page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucharit_Bhakdi

They then replaced the article with extremely contentious edits calling Bhakdi "a conspricy theorist" and a "fringe" figure. The reasons they gave for their edits included saying: "if you have some actual reason why you want this crap, say so" and "unreliably-sourced material, original research and fringe pov". I contest these views since I wrote a lot of the article and worked hard to get reliable sources such as the World health organisation and medical journals which cited his research. While his views are considered "alternative" and against mainstream opinion, they are credible and notable. edits should be made case by case, explaining why each individual source is good/bad.

The editor has been very heavy-handed with ownership of articles (specifically on Covid-19, at least), and with making what could be taken as thinly veiled threats of blocking editors in the talk page. The editor has been very aggressive and making personal attacks on people such as myself and others in the talk page of the article. This editor also seems to me to be overzealous in categorizing any public figure who departs from a mainstream view as being a "conspiracy theorist". My views arise out of some talkpage interactions as well as from observations of summary expurgations of article sections accompanied by peremptory edit summaries. I don't have a lot of experience with this kind of contentious activity, and would like to administrative advice on what to do.: edit history on Sucharit Bhakdi article,

The edit removed the vast majority of this page in the name of "improving its credibilty". This was wrong because the edit removed sources from many credible scientific journals and elite institutions that Bhakdi has been a member of and published from. All his publications were removed, all his previous scientific work and all explanations of his work on covid. Many of these citations still exist on the German page on him. The page now only has 4 citations with one new one added by the editor which defames Bhakdi. This was very clearly a bad faith edit, because the removal of all citations (including potentially some bad ones) means they took an uncritical approach to deleting/editing. The reference added which defamed him also betrays a very bad motive for the edit. Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is derogatory and also incorrect in this case because he has no theories on conspiracies at all. The article they added does not say this either.

I think this person acted in bad faith because they do not like Bhakdi's views as made clear by the fact they called it "crap, fringe views, conspiracy theories" and added Bhakdi (a highly credited scientist) to a list of covid deniers such as David Icke, rather than having an objective approach of presenting facts in an encyclopaedic way.

This edit must be undone and I believe the editor should have some sort of action taken against them due to numerous violations such as casting aspersions against other editors, NPA (they called my edits "crap etc" in the talk page, editing in bad faith, violation of WP:BLP questionable objectivity of the editor, WP:NPV and other things.

I am still new to Wikipedia so I could do with guidance on this, but I cannot have the accusation stand that I have edited in bad faith or tried to spread conspiracy theories/ false claims about covid. This is a very serious accusation and assumed very bad faith on my behalf. On all my edits on the page you can see a weighed up scientific argument about covid in which I also included criticism of Bhakdi's views. I have tried to present a reasoned, unbiased, factual approach, while the editor assumed bad faith on my behalf and added a poor citation with loads of defamation on Bhakdi and opinion. I would undo the edit but we cannot resolve it in the talk page since they have started to become abusive and have threated discretionary sanctions against me so action needs to be taken.

Talk page dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sucharit_Bhakdi

discussion on separate page: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Sucharit_Bhakdi

The page beforehand with lots of my edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sucharit_Bhakdi&oldid=989621676

edit that removed all publications, previous scientific work, and almost all citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sucharit_Bhakdi&oldid=989680322 ( -26,442‎!) Gd123lbp (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and not appropriate for this board, but if your complaint is that you want the article reverted to this, that won't happen; that version is an absolute mess of undue weight. ‑ Iridescent 17:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Gd123lbp as per the giant notice when you edit this board, you must notify the involved editor. I've done this for you. Praxidicae (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Gd1231bp, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, but please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. In a nutshell: describing a completely whitewashed and perfectly free-of-bias overview of Bhakdi's career does not reflect the reliably-sourced majority view that he is noteworthy as a scientist who promotes demonstrably false theories and misinformation about COVID-19, including his conspiracy videos on Youtube and the book he wrote and actively promotes on the topic. This is already being handled at the fringe noticeboard as it should be; there's nothing (yet) for admins to do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Granted, I got a little bit heated by this. Pages carrying medical misinformation running at > 1,000 views/day can do that to me, and I apologise for my harshness. There's no question of Gd123lbp's good faith but the previous version of the article was a disgrace. What we have now is a basis to proceed in a calmer and more WP:PAG-compliant fashion. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Further "heavy handed" edits have been made by the same user on other covid researcher pages involving deleting huge sections of the pages. The editor has made clear in the discussion on Bhakdi's page that he does not like Bhakdi's view point on the virus calling it "conspiracy theories, crap, pseudo science, fringe views etc" and has since been editing other researchers pages who very much share Bhakdi's views. Most recently he tried to delete a huge chunk of the "‎Santa Clara study: remove coat rack around unreliable medical source - none of this material is focussed on Ioannidis". edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Ioannidis&action=history This was then undone with ensuing edit warring by the user. The work was proven by the sources to not only be about Ioannidis, but the santa clara study was actually co-authored by him. This suggests bad faith editing. The user then edited Jay Bhattacharya's page removing his section on the santa clara study, despite the fact he was also a co-author of it so the same argument applies for keeping it. They then affixed warnings onto the page. This is a systematic approach of removal on pages with a similar viewpoint on the virus, rather than specific edits to those individuals pages after a careful study of the sources. Ioannidis is such a respectable, notable scientist that I suspect that is why there was an immediate push back against the edits by this individual, whereas Bhattacharya is less well known so the users edits have been allowed to stay. Several other editors have criticised this users edits such as the following: "refrain from radical changes to the article before there is consensus. Undid revision 989833161 by Guy Macon (talk)" These "radical changes" are a consistent recurring problem in this users edits. Following guy macons criticism, the user made exactly the same type of "radical changes" on Jay Bhattacharya's page with no talk page discussion on it at all. These are disruptive, vandalising edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya Gd123lbp (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Dbernwies

• Dbernwies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moriah Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dbernwies made a (poorly formatted) conflict of interest disclosure of their association with the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and then submitted Draft:Moriah Films to AFC for review. Neutral reviewers, including myself, reviewed the draft, concluded that the studio is notable and the draft was reasonably neutral, and accepted it. Dbernwies then made some edits that were disagreed with, and were reverted by User:ImTheIP, who posted a thread at the COI noticeboard and stated that COI editing should be disclosed. It appears that Dbernwies is continuing to edit Moriah Films directly, after having been notified, which they should not be doing, and should be making edit requests instead. I recommend a partial block. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon - I can see the malformed COI disclosure on Dbernwies' user talk page (added in this diff); it is indeed not clear which subject they are declaring a conflict with. That seems to have been the only edit they have ever made to a talk page or noticeboard, despite attempts to communicate with them on their talk. I'm going to ask them now to be clear about this matter on their talk. I'm not confident that I'll get a response, since they don't seem to use talk pages; if they continue editing these pages without being clear about the nature of their connection, I would support a block from any potentially affected pages. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Where did they make that disclosure? Are you referring to this? They have not made a proper disclosure per WP:PAYDISCLOSE as far as I can tell, certainly not on their non-existent userpage, and not on the talk pages for Moriah Films nor Draft:Richard Trank, nor Abraham Cooper (rabbi) which they also created quite some time ago. They should be blocked until they agree to make the required proper disclosures. (edit conflict) I see Girth Summit is on it already. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon please see my discussion with them on their user page. They have confirmed that they are connected with these subjects, but have denied being paid. At their request, I have created a userpage for them with a COI template, and given them links to the relevant guidance. I am waiting for confirmation that they are willing to abide by that, but assuming they do would you be satisfied at that point? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit - I am satisfied now. I have asked them if there is a reason why they didn't discuss until now. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

I Just added a caption to an image for Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War and it got reverted for vandalism. I promise that I didn't put anything profane, offensive, or anything of that sort in the caption. You can review it if you'd like. If the change could be reverted, please let me know. Sorry for the inconvenience. Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPaul Getty ptoductions (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi JPaul Getty ptoductions, from an outside perspective, the caption isn't vandalism. However, I think ClueBot took issue with your hidden editnote. It would be better to use the {{citation needed}} tag and place the contents of your editnote on the article's talk page. Try putting the caption in with nothing else in your edit. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@JPaul Getty ptoductions: there is a link on that bot edit summary to report a false positive, please use that. If the bot is continuously triggering false positives on you and there is no response to your report please follow up at WP:BOTN. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive edits by USER:Toltol15 to Sub-Saharan Africa, ignored previous ANI report, still ignoring explanations and warnings

I previously (several days ago) reported USER:Toltol15 here for persistently adding a non-peer-reviewed scientific source to Somalis, ignoring edit my notes (explaining the problems with their edits and why they were not WP:RS), and edit warring. (They were, on that page, most recently, reverted by another user, USER:Rsk6400.) But Toltol15 ignored the report (the original/first report I filed you can see here: [[and_other_things]]). Toltol15 was also warned by an admin (USER:Drmies) and ignored that as well.

Today Toltol15 has again added the same non-peer-reviewed source to another article (Sub-Saharan Africa). I reverted them twice (each time with detailed explanations, hoping they might listen) but they have continued to consistently refused to engage or listen, ignoring my notes, ignoring the point, and have reverted me/reinstating their edit twice. Whether intentionally or not I do not know, they have repeatedly missed the point regarding the importance of peer-review for scientific studies used in articles. To avoid edit warring I have not reverted them again

Here is the edit history of Sub-Saharan Africa for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sub-Saharan_Africa&action=history

Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

IP disrupt

So, this IP 167.176.36.240 has suddenly started adding a lot of religion cats to BLP/BIO articles which are not even mentioned in the article. Can a sysop block him, very disruptive edits which are unlikely to stop considering their editing behavior (also likely a sock of someone else). Also pinging @Fylindfotberserk: please see if you can check the edits of this IP. Gotitbro (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: I came across them IP before. I've reverted the ones that are in my watchlist. I did a few today. Seems tedious since each of the articles need to be checked, as some BIOs I came across do mention religion in the body. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

SPA and IP on James Veitch (comedian)

Some odd behaviour at Talk:James Veitch (comedian). The user Tompg has made 22 edits spanning 22 February 2017 to a few days ago, all on the topic of James Veitch. Never seen anything like it. Claims no COI. After beginning edit warring over a claim reliably sourced to The Hollywood Reporter and The Independent about the numerous sexual assault allegations made against Veitch, the user engaged in conversation with me on the talk page, which including doxxing an accuser (with information not publicly available online). The user stopped replying a couple of days ago and now the IP 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 comes along contesting the same content, with some rather... ahem... alternative reasoning: all allegations are just newspapers scoops and look more like witch-hunt for artists's money, so popular nowadays [...] I believe that if this content is not removed, this might bring to litigation against Wikimedia Foundation and I think this needs urgent attention of other editors and OTRS.

The IP is now forcing an {{Undue weight}} tag on the page, where it clearly does not apply, and a rather off-beat interpretation of both the law and Wikipedia in which we can't mention information not proven in a court of law. Very suspicious behaviour all-round—I wonder if anyone thinks anything is actionable (undisclosed COI, socking/meatpuppet, NLT, NOTHERE or other), or can work out what is going on a bit better than I can. — Bilorv (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Chronic, intractable behavioral problems with 124.169.236.71

This IP editor has a considerable history of edits to celebrity pages and other pages which have resulted in numerous warning messages on his talk page. (See for example the pages of edit history at John de Lancie). The edits vary indiscrimately from minor improvements, to minor violations of the MoS, to gossipy trivia, to more serious WP policy violations. Many other more experienced editors have attempted to communicate with this IP, but the intractable IP never responds. The IP editor also never writes edit summaries. When other editors attempt to clean up his edits (writing edit summaries and talk page messaging for him), he persistently reverts the pages back to his own last version. again with no explanation. This is genuinely disruptive behavior by a clearly incorrigible editor who has amply demonstrated that he has no understanding of the fact that a wiki is a collaborative project. -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Links for convenience: 124.169.236.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

There's another Adelaide-area IP 124.169.229.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that has a nearly identical editing behavior that stopped editing just before 124.169.236.71 started up. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdistan, at war again

Chronic problems on Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I appeal again for administrator intervention in these issues, which are both maddening and intractable. A previous post here was archived without administrator action or comment, but the concerted tendentiousness of multiple editors in favour of a virulently, nationalistic, and denialist fringe interpretation of the Syrian Civil War which wilfully ignores all evidence presented to it and is explicitly POV-pushing while unashamedly using the most contorted hostile sealioning strategy is too much to bear. Authoritative input is sorely needed, nearly all dissent has been banished from the talkpage by the interminable circularity of what passes for discussion, which has caused other to resign editing from exhaustion. Please help! GPinkerton (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I second this appeal. GPinkerton is refusing to discuss. He have a battleground mentality, and a very rude behavior, which dragged me into his level. Please convince everyone to be civil (and everyone was, tbh, before GPinkerton arrived). GPinkerton is also part of the content dispute, so we need a neutral arbitrator.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• I propose the following: topic bans for the all the relevant editors, including the one above, from the following areas: post-1292 history, politics, and geography of the near and middle east. Their relentless campaign of POV pushing has been called out numerous times, but nothing ever done. I haven't looked at their other contributions, but I have a strong feeling all these editors are heavily focused on Syria-related articles such as these that can be adapted as platform for soapboxing, which is getting very tiresome now and is a net negative to the project, not to mention intellectually abhorrent. GPinkerton (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Above is a clear example of what I mean. The style of this editor is: if you dont agree with me, you should be blocked or banned because Im the only one who have a sound argument and there is no other point of view. Thats why we need intervention.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Examination of the facts will prove the comment above at characteristic variance with the nature of reality. Alas, the talk page must be read from the top. GPinkerton (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the article for a month, which should at least stop the edit-warring until more lasting sanctions or similar can be imposed. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• GPinkerton I'd advise you to reform your request for intervention. The article's recent history is very active, and its talk page has multiple lengthy combative threads going on. Please consider being specific about which editors you're talking about, and provide diffs that evidence the accusations you are making. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  ​re-ping, botched first attempt GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Girth Summit All the discussion focuses on one issue, from beginning to end. It's been going on for many months with the same handful of editors. It's clear from reading the talk page who is pushing the peculiar fringe POV along the lines of "Syrian Kurdistan does not exist and Kurdistan has never existed, not ever, and is not used by a preponderance of RS". One only needs to read a bit, it repeats after a while and rapidly becomes clear how the page dynamics have evolved over the past half-year or so. GPinkerton (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  GPinkerton, what I see from a skim of some of the later sections is a rambling, uncivil discussion, all parties being exceedingly snarky, with some of them crossing the line into blatant personal attacks. There is a lot of heat, but very little light for someone like me who knows very little about the subject matter, and who is unfamiliar with any of the sources under discussion - if you are calling for editors to be topic banned, you are more likely to gain traction if you are specific about who, and why.

  I will say this though: Attar-Aram syria, your comments about using Arab nationalists if Mehrdad Izady is used aren't appropriate - that approach leads to false balance. It is important to use the best sources available, and to discuss competing viewpoints where they exist, but we don't attempt to 'balance' articles in the way that you suggest. Per WP:GEVAL, we should be aiming to identify and use the best mainstream sources that cover a topic, not seeking out sources because we know that they favour one position or another. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you Girth Summit. That rhetoric of mine came as a result of knowing whom I am daeling with, after participating in that talk page for a while (note, I have not add a single word to the article itself). So it was just an empty threat, which I will retract. I would like you to note that I presented three academic sources questioning Izady, and the other user responded with the word: none-sense.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria, thank you for withdrawing that suggestion - you might want to go and strike it on the article talk page as well to make that clear. Without wanting to get into the content dispute itself, I'd make the general observation that finding some academic sources that generally question or criticise a scholar's work is not sufficient to demonstrate that the scholar's work is unreliable for our purposes (it would be unusual for a scholar to have received no criticism in their lifetime). What you need are reviews or citations criticising the specific parts of the scholar's work that are being used to support assertions in our articles. Again, this is a general comment - I haven't reviewed that part of the discussion in depth, so I don't know whether or not that is what you have done. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ofcourse, and the sources I brought deals exactly with the book of Izady that is being cited. He is not a normal scholar, but a Kurdish nationalist, so it is inappropriate to use him for Kurdish topics without qualification.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Girth Summit, the main problem at the "Syrian Kurdistan" article are mainly two editors, Konli17 and GPinkerton, the first one is pov pushing a kurdish nationalistic agenda, falsifying history and adding fake maps he has made in MS paint:[105][106], he has edit warred to get these fake maps with unreliable sources into the article: [107], the other problematic editor is GPinkerton, shes strongly pushing a nationalistic kurdish agenda falsifying history and reality. GPinkerton claimed that Syrian "Kurdistan" existed during the French Mandate in Syria, she had added this into the article, I asked GPinkerton on the talkpage to please show me a historical source from the 1920s talking about a Syrian Kurdistan[108] and she dismissed my comment with: "What you imagine to be possible or otherwise is of decreasingly little interest to me and betrays an increasingly wide estrangement from reality on your part. It certainly has no bearing on the content of the article." she refuses to engage in a cooperative discussion, the truth doesn't matter to her. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  Supreme Deliciousness, as I said, I see snarky commentary from just about everyone on that thread. The part you have quoted is far from the worst of it, unfortunately. Why do you say that Konli17 created that map themselves? From what I can see, it was uploaded by a commons editor called Ferhates - are you saying that they are the same person? It would be really helpful if everyone would be willing to tone down the rhetoric about each other here - actual evidence of malfeasance will speaker much louder than assertions about each others motivations. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell whether this is a failure to understand the topic, a failure to control the scope of the article, or nationalist equivocation and sleight-of-hand. A "Climate and agriculture" section? Looks like the opposite of a POV fork, a POV amalgamation of Kurdistan, Kurds in Syria, and Kurdish nationalism. fiveby(zero) 16:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton jumped into this article out of nowhere, and came with a very specific, aggressive POV-pushing agenda. Nobody is saying "Kurdistan has never existed" as they claimed above, don't put words in others' mouths! You have been trying hard to show that Kurds did live in Syria. Well, no one is arguing about that, and Syria has known two Kurdish presidents. However, Kurds have lived in Syria either in big cities (such as in Aleppo, Hama and Damascus), or in small village clusters in three non-contiguous areas along the northern border as a result of intensive migrations from Turkey encouraged by French mandate authorities, as shown by this French comprehensive work (among many others) on Jazira Province (modern day al-Hasakah Governorate). This is another French report also talking about the history of that area and how towns and village were built for the new refugees. This is why serious accounts refer to those areas by the name "kurdish inhabited areas" (see this CIA map). The main kurdish presence is in northeastern Syria, and they have lived there entirely mixed with the population, and have been a minority since they first started to cross into Syria from Turkey. 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). Azmi Bishara and colleagues counted 17 such migrations and talk thoroughly about this issue and its origins (here is an English summary). I had inserted this cropped map from Mark Sykes in 1907, specific to the area Kurds call today Syrian Kurdistan", showing the distribution of Arab and Kurdish tribes in upper Mesopotamia with the train tracks separating Turkey (to the north) from Syria (to the south). Note that there were no Kurdish tribes south of the railway (i.e. in what later became Syria). GPinkerton decided to remove this map and inserted the full map (for an "unknown reason"). GPinkerton removed reference to one of the sources talking about invention of "Syrian kurdistan" while inserting documents talking about a "Syrian kurdistan". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of incompetent comment that this editor has already repeatedly made. Note that the railway shown in the map is entirely conjectural and never existed and moreover note that this editor used a cropped version of the map because the uncropped version shows the words "Kurdish tribes" in all caps in territory now in modern Syria. Make if that what you will. The perverse insistence that everyone pick up the fringe attitude of Damascus and Ankara towards (perhaps also Saddam?) against the continued existence of Kurdish people on the grounds that (like both Syria and Turkey) they did not have a state in the 1920s. This denialism flies in the face of what reliable sources have called the region for a half century or more. Indeed the source quoted above details in depth the long history of the term "Syrian Kurdistan", in stark contradiction of the shrill and either disingenuous or ignorant claims by this editor that it had never been used before 2011, and was cooked up by the west to embarrass the Dear Leader. GPinkerton (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In particular, the claim above that the Syrian part of Kurdistan was Kurdish-minority is a telling admission of yet another refusal to accept reality; all reliable sources attest that the three areas referred to as comprising Syrian Kurdistan were majority Kurdish at the time. The claim that they were all imported there by the French is just a silly lie and not borne out by even the most cursory look at the sources advanced in favour of this POV. Especially cute is the claim were should put "Syrian Kurdistan" in scare quotes, based on that one quote Amr like to strip of context and use as though it supports his position; there has to be some great irony in arguing an encyclopaedia should not be using the English language's 21st century common name and quoting in support of this argument an academic work in which the term appears innumerable times throughout. GPinkerton (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Amr's opposition to WP:COMMONNAME is relentless. Konli17 (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:JustANameInUse and talk page access

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

---

Recently, JustANameInUse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as they were found to not be here to build an encyclopaedia following a discussion on ANI that was recently archived.

Since then, they have made two unblock requests that failed to address their blocks and instead ill-advisedly attacked other editors, doubling down on accusing editors of veganism, continued to double down too on his belief that it is [not] a personal attack to expose bias and a user who vandalizes wikipedia because of his ideology [109], and has indicated that he no longer wants to be unblocked, which is the reason why he has TPA in the first place. If he no longer wishes to be unblocked, then I see no reason why he should have talk page access either, especially if it's only to continue to double down on accusing editors without evidence of bias.

Sorry if this is not the correct venue for this kind of report; move it where needed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

JustANameInUse continues to attack other editors of being "vegans" and "liars". His talk-access should be revoked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. UTRS is available if they wish to contest their block. --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

71.236.44.248

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

---

• 71.236.44.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Non-sense replacement of italics with quotation marks in various articles. Warned. They keep making the same edits after every revert. --Blueberry72 (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Medicine edits from 157.99.249.59 (hexane.chimorg.pasteur.fr, Institut Pasteur) reported at WP:AIV

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• 157.99.249.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Epigallocatechin gallate: vandalism after final warning. Nonsense, repetitive vandalism also on Curcumin after final warning. Zefr (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The IP address is very static, and administrators could choose pretty much any block duration to achieve the desired effect, if this is vandalism. The source and content of the edits makes it unsuitable for a quick decision at WP:AIV, however. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Viewing the IP user's edit history, example here, one can see it was lazy, same-content, unencyclopedic copying to several articles which already had histories and current content indicating the same message (concerning "PAINS" compounds). Bottom line: unconstructive editing and warring against admin, Materialscientist. Zefr (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this off of WP: AIV. I still think this is a bit complex for just one section so we should be prepared to make subsections. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

New user spamming his paper on different talk-pages

Marcus H. Mast has a new fringe paper on inedia in the Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing journal. [110]. I do not have access to the full paper. Unfortunately the user seems to be spamming exactly the same message onto many different talk-pages [111], [112], [113]. It's seems to be promotion of his paper. What should be done here? Should his promotion be reverted? Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The journal has been described as a "sham masquerading as a real scientific journal" which publishes "truly ridiculous studies". It is unreliable for us I feel, but will wait further comment. Not sure why PG has no access to paper, as it is available under a CC by wossname thingy, on the science direct website. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah sorry the link wasn't working for me earlier. It is now [114]. Having read it the paper doesn't really bring anything new to the table. There's also a lot of unreliable paranormal sources that he cites. Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing has not been used on Wikipedia because the journal has a history of publishing pseudoscience. Marcus seems to be using Wikipedia talk-pages to promote his paper. The way he was advertising was like it is ground-breaking but there is really nothing new here which hasn't been said before. He's basically calling for more studies on inedia and tighter controls. I think we would all agree on that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I want to update

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

---

What is the problem sir? This was truth about Rai Sahib . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiindiasurvey (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiindiasurvey: You need to cite a reliable source. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposal to take action against User:GPinkerton

Vandalism: According to admin consensus here and relevant talk page discussion here, User:GPinkerton doesn't understand what vandalism means. An admin thought they should be indefinitely blocked from editing until they show understanding and retract their remarks.

Edit warring

1. In 6 March 2020, they edit warred on Bulgaria during World War II: [115], [116], [117].
   • They were warned by the other party here (among other warnings).
2. In 9 May 2020, they edit warred on Basilica: [118], [119], [120].
   • They were warned by the other party here.
   • It was raised at WP:AN3 and closed as no violation (of 3RR in particular). A warning was issued to respect BRD. See here.
3. In 15-16 May 2020, they edit warred on Catholicity: [121], [122], [123] (manually).
   • They were warned by the other party here.
4. In 28 June 2020, they were blocked for 48h for edit-warring on Vashti: [124], [125], [126] (manual), [127].
   • See the relevant report at WP:AN3 here.
   • They appealed the block twice, being declined once and accepted the other.
5. In 24 July 2020, they edit warred on Hagia Sophia: [128], [129].
   • They were warned by the other party here and later by an admin here.
   • It was raised at WP:AN3 and closed as content dispute. The closing admin thought it qualifies for a block, if not confounded by other parties involved.
6. In 28 July 2020, they edit warred on Mehmed the Conqueror: [130], [131].
   • They were informally warned by a third party here.
7. In 26 September 2020, they edit warred on Constantine the Great and Christianity over which English spelling variety should be used: [132], [133].
   • They were informally warned by an admin here.
8. In 19 November 2020, they were blocked again, this time for 24h, for edit warring on Murder of Samuel Paty: [134], [135], [136], [137].
   • The blocking admin sought consensus for the block in light of an appeal by GPinkerton. Consensus was granted unanimously.
9. In 21 November 2020, they edit warred again on Murder of Samuel Paty: [138] and [139] (manual).

Ad hominem and harassment

1. In The Holocaust in Bulgaria, they said: Can you read?
2. At 17:40, 12 May 2020, they were warned of harassment and WP:OUTING for disclosing another user's real name.
3. In Talk:Hagia Sophia, they said: a clear mark of someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
4. During a discussion with me in Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty, they said: Is English your first language?
   • See my reply.
5. In their own talk page, they addressed me and other editors who disagreed with them as a lobby and then as vandals who are involved in groupthink and me in particular as an anti-blasphemy ringleader who is weaseling [scattered, among other insults, throughout their prolonged comment] (just because I discussed on Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty that Charlie Hebdo Cartoons were [sic] controversial and that their publication can be attributed as a motive for the terrorist, for which I filed 2 RfC).
   • I tried to point out their uncivility here. They deleted my remarks, in opposition to WP:DELTALK.

Nonadherence to BRD: GPinkerton has a log-lasting habit of not stopping editing to start discussion, in opposition to WP:BRD. Here are some example disputes:

1. In Bulgaria during World War II, as shown above. The other party started discussion here.
2. In The Holocaust in Bulgaria, a voluminous dispute as shown here. The other party started discussion here.
3. In Basilica, as shown above. The other party started discussion here.
4. In Catholicity, as shown above. A third party started discussion here.
5. In Vashti, which led to the block shown above. The other party started discussion here.
6. In Hagia Sophia, as shown above. The other party started discussion here and here an external admin did here.
7. In Murder of Samuel Paty, which led to the block shown above. The other party first started discussion here and then yours truly did here.
   • Having been unblocked, despite the 2 RfC already ongoing, GPinkerton maintained editing, in some cases contestably (see these automatic and manual reverts). Only some strange-sounding OR was given in edit summaries (clarification is a type of amendment?). Discussions were never started on the page by GPinkerton.

Canvassing

1. At 19:02 12 May 2020, they were warned of canvassing.
   • While admitting the canvassing they did, it turned out they didn't know what that is: thought the policy of not rephrasing RfC content while notifying of them is a bizzare stricture.
2. At 09:32, 19 November 2020, they accused me of canvassing another editor for a discussion.
   • The discussion about which they expressed their concerns was started more than a day after the diff they used as evidence.
   • The diff used as evidence was an RfC template used as-is to notify a contributor previously involved in discussion of a whole other section different than what they expressed concerns about, which wasn't even an RfC.
   • The purportedly canvassed contributor first edited the article at 21:35, 19 October 2020, while my first edit was at 20:13, 23 October 2020.
   • all of which meaning that either GPinkerton probably still doesn't understand what canvassing is or is using such arbitrary charge disruptively.

Proposal and final comment: Although I admittedly lack the necessary experience to argue for what the most appropriate action is, it'd still be plausible for me to propose either a serious warning or a (topic) ban for GPinkerton. For the time being, I'd specifically stress on a one-page ban for Murder of Samuel Paty. They have been blocked for edit warring there two days ago, but still went back to disruptive editing today. As of now, GPinkerton has heavily engaged in 4 discussions on the page, yet zero of which was started by them. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No, this editor is just cultivating an ideologically motivated battleground mentality in the hope of foisting their anti blasphemy campaign to censor Wikipedia in general and the Murder of Samuel Paty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in particular, where an ill-concieved RfC is not reinforcing Khidr's agenda of equivocation. This vendetta against me is just bad tempered sour grapes. GPinkerton (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It is also telling to note that in all the misdemeanours alleged so vindictively the topics all involved editors who consider themselves Wikilawyers repressing the Almighty gratis (or on one instance the National Honour in the Second World War). So it's peculiar to affirm that because neutrality and historical reality often angers those with a crusading bent or a persecution complex, that the whole project should cave into the religious special interest group and proud Balkans republics who consider it a article of the national faith that their (Axis-allied) country never laid a finger on its Jewish people. This desire to express sympathy for the killer of Samuel Paty is and apportion blame to the victim is, I submit, yet another example of exactly this style of vindictive POV pushing which I have oftentimes resisted. GPinkerton (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Editors should also be aware that despite the claim above, I was blocked for little over 3 hours, not 48. The editor is clearly trying to intrude their self-declared belief into the article, and is upset that other editors do not agree, and is apparently also upset that opposition to his views was not removed permanently. This report consists of nothing but evidence of grievance on his part. GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, you just came off a block and have been blocked twice now in recent months for edit warring, and quite a few experienced editors at WP:AN (including me) have expressed concern about your misunderstanding of how vandalism is defined on Wikipedia. Can you please address these concerns and make a firm commitment to abandon edit warring and false accusations of vandalism? Opposing nationalist POV pushing is well and good, but you must use the proper tools when doing so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Gladly. Still, it should be fairly obvious that this report is motivated by the OP's desire to be rid of dissenting voices and his dissatisfaction with the progress of his RfC, and not by anything I have done that has not already been discussed aplenty long ago. I have also only taken up contributing much to editing this March or so. I've seen users that have been blocked annually or more for fifteen years running (or thereabouts) ... GPinkerton (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

If you don't understand what was wrong with what you just said, I'm afraid you're too inexperienced to be editing here (WP:CIR). --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, please expand on "gladly". I am very concerned that you chose to point out that other editors have been blocked more than you. If the implication is that it is acceptable for an editor to be blocked once a year, then let me disabuse you of that notion. It is unacceptable. Most productive editors have never been blocked, and I need you to explain your current understanding of edit warring and vandalism, in light of your recent blocks and the feedback on vandalism you received at AN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I only mention that particular editor because I thought he might turn up to add his uninvited remarks. Below, you can see he did. I was blocked for engaging in an edit war begun by Debresser, who was himself blocked (nth time). Ever since, he has stalked and harassed my every turn, dragging his contrived grievances like a ball and chain and rattling it whenever he thinks someone will be inclined to listen to his hypocrisy. I urge action. The OP here appears to be pursuing the same warpath, likewise driven on by the flame of pious wrath having been crossed in a content dispute. To answer your question, yes I do get it, and yes I recognize that that my edits before were not reverting vandalism, only ill-sourced NPOV violations to be deleted by someone else. And no, I was no suggesting I thought it was a acceptable, though I think the idea pursued below is a rich seam of hypocrisy whose merits and motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves 🤣. GPinkerton (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, please be aware that any editor can comment on this noticeboard and nobody needs an invitation. Nobody can possibly force you to edit war. Comments like this do not help your cause, and neither do emojis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Permanent block

Gpinkerton has been involved in conflicts almost every month of the last year:

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#March_2020
2. User_talk:GPinkerton#April_2020
3. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020
4. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020_2
5. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020_3
6. User_talk:GPinkerton#June_2020
7. User_talk:GPinkerton#July_2020
8. User_talk:GPinkerton#ANI-notice (August)
9. User_talk:GPinkerton#ANI_2 (September)

He has been on WP:AN3 a lot too:

1. AN3 Archive 408
2. AN3 Archive 411
3. AN3 Archive 413

And another 4 reports he openend (1,2,3,4), which also clearly shows how bad he gets along with people.

He has been on WP:ANI too:

1. ANI Archive 1047
2. ANI Archive 1044

And another 3 reports he opened (1, 2, 3).

And now this report. And all of that for the last year of a little over 2 years of editing on Wikipedia. Please do the right thing and indefinitely block this user. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Speak of the devil and he shall appear, as they say. Funny, I just had you in mind when I was thinking of the longest block log from the most committed edit warrior I'd ever seen, and your previous relentless attempts to take vengeance against me for slandering you favourite biblical characters with neutral scholarship. Do you think this will be your lucky day? Your unwanted contributions has been noted as such on occasions before this one. Honestly, I think there are excellent grounds to permanently block Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GPinkerton (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Debresser is a problem editor who should have been banned years ago. Doesn't change the fact that he's correct in this case. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are correct GPinkerton, then Debresser should be blocked as well, not instead of you. So all you did was give another example of incivility. El Millo (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Random passerby comment - X: "Y should be banned!" followed by Y: "No, X should be banned!" to begin a discussion is likely not going to lead to a good end. Interaction-ban and topic-ban them both, IMO. Zaathras (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I ran into this editor a while ago by chance, since we do not usually edit the same topics. The experience was highly unpleasant and left me with the clear impression that this person is not ready for community editing. Have not ran into them since, but their talkpage was still on my watchlist because of that incident. Debresser (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

90.255.128.0/17

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

---

The below is transfered from WP:AIV * 90.255.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) – Block evasion by a tropical cyclone LTA (possibly User:Wyatt2049). See 90.253.64.0/18 and 2600:8807:8280:0:0:0:0:0/48. Please block for at least 1-4 weeks, given the recent vandalism spree. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Widr, Drmies, Favonian, and Acroterion: Can someone please block this nut? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with a block, but it's too complex for AIV. Transfering over to ANI for more thoughts on this. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked the /19 for a month. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, what are your opinion on blocking the whole /17? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The subrange 90.255.160.0/19 (one quarter of the proposed range) has already been blocked by GeneralNotability. It seems to cover at least some of the recent vandalism. Favonian (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, it appears 90.255.128.0/18 has been blocked in that case with those two rangeblocks combined. Which is half. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• 90.255.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is blocked for a month.
• 90.255.160.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is blocked for a week.
• 90.255.192.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) was last used 2020-11-16.
• 90.255.224.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) was not yet used.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The last two of the /19 ranges listed above are now covered by a single month-long block of 90.255.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) that was issued today by User:Drmies. So it seems this thread can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Reblock Polish date-changing vandal

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

---

This vandal got a three-month block in August, which expired today. Right on cue, we have new activity. Can we get new rangeblock, or whatever will work?

See the earlier report from August 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Suggestions please – rangeblock the Poland IP date-changing vandal.

• "31.0.0.0/17" was blocked
• "37.248.160.0/21" was blocked
• "37.248.208.0/21" was blocked

New activity from Special:Contributions/31.0.80.230. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, EdJohnston. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I have reblocked 31.0.0.17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for a year. The block log can be seen here. The prior block (which just expired) was by User:Berean Hunter for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Australian IP range with troublesome notions of birthplace, race and ethnicity

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

---

The IP6 range Special:Contributions/2001:8003:7C22:600:0:0:0:0/64 has been making some useful and lots of disruptive changes to biographies. A few of the edit summaries give me pause:

• "That's the problem with African-Americans; they are so hard to impress and make the lives of people of others races a total misery."[140]
• "He's Jewish because his surname is of Jewish origin."[141]
• "The degree of Austin's Aboriginal ancestry has to be mentioned since he can be mistaken as white at first glance."[142]
• "The amount of Wighton's Aboriginal and European ancestry has to be mentioned since he can be mistaken for white at first glance."[143]

Other disruptive behaviors include changing the musical origin of a musician to their place of birth without any reference for place of birth,[144][145] and conflating surname origin with national heritage (Brazeau surname gets "Franco" heritage, and the Jewish surname example above.)

What do we do about this person? Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

We block them. 3 months for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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