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

Personal attacks

I've been trying to reach consensus on the Talk:Gina Carano page under "Jewish bankers tweet", but one editor user:Sangdeboeuf keeps posting personal attacks against me. I left a polite note on his page when he started being rude/confrontational, then a warning when he made the first personal attack, then a final warning when he made another personal attack. He has now made a third. He deleted the note/warnings; a cursory examination of edit summaries on his talk page indicates he has deleted other warnings on other issues from other editors in the past, and may be a habitual offender trying to skirt warning guidelines. Other editors on the page are being helpful, so I'm going to keep trying to work with them. Gershonmk (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please provide DIFFs of these personal attacks. No one is going to go wading through those talks to pick them out,. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, I did so on 2/16, as did others, but no admins have engaged here. Gershonmk (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

1. "I would suggest you read my last response once more, carefully this time, because you apparently did not understand (or did not wish to understand)"
2. "Some people really need to read WP:BLPSPS once, or dare I say, twice more."
3. "If you don't understand . . . then you may not be competent to edit this article."

On the same page, he's accused other users of "weasel words," and posted "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like."

Gershonmk (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I already addressed #1 (see below). #2 and #3 are not personal attacks. Nor is saying that someone is "adding weasel words". The final diff was a response to Crossroads saying, "I am not debating you" (their first comment in the discussion!) and accusing me of WP:FILIBUSTERing. If I am to be sanctioned, then I don't think Crossroads' combative bahavior should be left out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You were already WP:FILIBUSTERING by demanding other editors WP:SATISFY you and by edit warring your "disputed" tag in [5][6] despite four editors disagreeing with you. [7] Your whataboutism doesn't help your case at all. I cautioned you against engaging in that because you already were being disruptive and you continued to do it anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

At the time I reverted your undiscussed removal of the tag, I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Your combative stance and insisting on treating disussion as a poll, despite policy stating otherwise, is what's disruptive here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your tendentious addition of the tag (no tag is the default/status quo), and Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion (and their later comment also suggests that). I am very familiar with your strategy of 'it's not a vote, I'm still right', and I have addressed it below. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a response to my comment on the talk page saying, "If you don't understand that [X, Y, and Z] are claims about Carano, then you may not be competent to edit this article", which is not a personal attack. Note that I struck an earlier comment that suggested Gershonmk was editing disruptively; looking at the discussion as a whole I don't think that idea was off-base. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Following this report, Gershonmk went to the article talk page to accuse me of gaming the system. More evidence that they don't actually care about so-called "personal attacks" and are simply trying to exhaust their opponents by repeating the same rejected arguments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Not going to defend this -- I thought better of it -- except to note that it was up for less than a minute. Gershonmk (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has a long-term habit of disruptive uncooperative editing, especially via extreme WP:BLUDGEONING, WP:IDHT by claiming no one else presented policy-compliant points, constant demands that other editors WP:SATISFY them, continuing to WP:FILIBUSTER when not satisfied, misusing policy to suit their ends, and even attacks.

This is very evident at the this Talk:Gina Carano discussion. BLUDGEON, IDHT, and SATISFY are all in strong evidence. Here is an especially blatant out-of-context quote of MOS:QUOTE and obvious misuse of WP:V and WP:NOR to contradict MOS:QUOTE allowing for encyclopedic quotes: [8] You'll also see their typical WP:IDHT strategy when outnumbered: Point to "not a headcount", claim no policy-based argument has been presented, demand to be SATISFIED: [9] Also, this was still a serious personal attack on me.

At a Talk:Transsexual discussion, the same behaviors manifest. They misrepresent their opponent's arguments ([10], [11], & [12]), have passive-aggressively moved her comments around, [13][14] and have been uncivil. [15]

Relatively brief discussion at Talk:Latinx where all these behaviors, as well as their obvious tendentiousness to keep out a source they don't like, are on full display. And the same IDHT, misuse of policy, tendentiousness, and FILIBUSTER are equally visible lower on the same page, where CorbieVreccan also told them to stop edit warring and WP:DROPTHESTICK early on.

Another discussion where they POV push and purge a source and other text against consensus: [16] They, as usual, trot out "not a headcount" as justification for ignoring everyone else. I pressed further, and their response is literally, no joke, to justify themselves with the "anyone can edit" pillar - obvious and blatant misuse of WP:5P3 - and to dare me to take them to ANI (link to exact diff).

An uninvolved editor notes they lead a different thread on a "pointless tangent": [17]

See their attempt to change policy in line with their peculiar philosophy and how they were rebutted here. Also see where yet another user, Mathglot, notes their wrong approach: [18]

I'm aware I've linked to discussions, not just diffs, but the misconduct is such that a single diff often doesn't really explain it. I trust that if admins look at those discussions, they will clearly see the behaviors I've described. This user cannot be allowed to think these are acceptable behaviors and need to be clearly told what the consequences are for such editors. They are driving other editors away from their pet topics, which I suspect is the point (WP:OWN). Crossroads ^-talk- 22:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC) added a bit Crossroads ^-talk- 22:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has also been informed of the following discretionary sanctions:

• 9 November 2020, American politics: [19]
• 29 October 2020, Gender/Gamergate: [20]
• 2 December 2018, American politics: [21]
• 5 August 2018, BLP: [22]
• 1 May 2018, Gender/Gamergate: [23]

Crossroads ^-talk- 22:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has been validly reported for 3RR violations twice but somehow escaped without sanction each time. [24][25] This one was very nearly a violation: [26]

At ANI previously, was warned about edit warring and disruptive tagging. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads' complaints about my "misusing" policy are debatable to say the least. I suspected they have had a WP:GRUDGE against me for some time, but the speed with which they were able to collect all the above "evidence" suggests they have a bona fide obsession. Not healthy IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This comes off as a personal attack as well, Sangdeboeuf. As for your questioning Gershonmk's competence, from WP:CIR "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack" [emph. mine] It definitely comes off like you're not arguing your points in good faith. Many of the policies you cite in that discussion either don't say what you say they do, or don't apply at all. For instance, you cite WP:BLPSPS, insisting that self-published sources are not allowed, but they are not automatically rejected by policy, merely to be avoided. For another instance, you never did explain to me how my proposed edit were weasel words, simply linked to them and asserted that they were. They aren't, but it would be great if you made a case for it. Is it possible to move the discussion forward over there without acrimony? Rendall (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant part of BLPSPS was quoted at Talk:Gina Carano#Jewish bankers tweet. If you are saying the phrase "Never use" means "sometimes use", then you should seek clarification at the policy talk page or noticeboard. To me "never" means "never". The part about "weasel words" is moot since we can attribute the statement to a published source. This is mainly a content dispute anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

While true on its face, this is an ambiguous case, so indeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding. Substack is a new phenomena, but you have decided it is a "personal blog". The article in question is by a professional journalist and the subject willingly participated in the interview, but you have decided it is "self-published". The list of acceptable versus unacceptable does not include this situation (WP:USINGSPS notes only as Unacceptable Someone's personal blog about his neighbor, business partner, or friend.), but you have decided that there should be no discussion. You could ultimately be right, but your language around disagreement is tendentious. This can be discussed amiably without the language described above. Rendall (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, there is nothing ambiguous about it - Substack does not exercise meaningful editorial or content control and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is akin to a content management system, not a newspaper or magazine. Anything published in a Substack newsletter is the self-published opinion of the author, so far as Wikipedia is concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, there is nothing ambiguous about it The topic at hand is personal attacks. Regardless of what you and I and Sangdeboeuf think, personally about Substack, consensus is blocked by such language. Rendall (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I already responded on the talk page to show that Rendall is wrong about USINGSPS. I'll just say that ignoring the clear wording of a policy because an explanatory supplement doesn't mention the exact scenario in question strikes me as the epitome of bad Wikilawyering. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

[I]ndeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding – Don't know what to say to this blatant attempt at gaslighting except maybe "Do you even English bro?" —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Would an admin kindly close this thread, which has devolved into forum-shopping for content disputes that should be addressed on the article talk page? Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not at all; this is about your misbehavior and the fact that it is a long-term pattern. Admins need to address this somehow. Why do we even have pages like IDHT and FILIBUSTER if the editors who engage in that are freely allowed to do so even when reported at ANI? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I direct admins to my original complaint, at the top of this section. Gershonmk (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Gershonmk, I'm not seeing personal attacks. Crossroads, your evidence doesn't seem strong. DS alerts are not a sign of wrongdoing and those are stale disagreements with no clear infringement. If admins decided to resolve edit warring using page protection and discussion rather than sanctions, then I defer to their judgement. Fences&Windows 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Really? Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like [27] is not a personal attack? This [28] much like this [29] is not blatant twisting of policy? To name but a tiny bit of the evidence presented. And DS alerts, seriously? I clearly presented those to show the user is aware of the discretionary sanctions, not as evidence. 'It's stale' is refusal to recognize a pattern, and that and the DS comment makes me think you didn't even look at most of the evidence. By that logic, no one can ever be warned or sanctioned for behavior patterns since it takes time to accumulate evidence of a pattern. Why do we even have pages like WP:TE and WP:IDHT if certain users can violate them with impunity? How else can one present evidence of ongoing behavior of that sort? And 3RR violations almost always result in a block on what WP:UNBLOCKABLES calls a 'less experienced user'. This user needs to learn to WP:LISTEN and accept that they are not the sole guardian and interpreter of policy. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's no more a personal attack than Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this either on this talk page or with their tag they keep edit warring in. [30] I note that Crossroads' concerns about edit warring at Gina Carano don't seem to extend to their own behavior: [31][32] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

More whataboutism and false equivalence. Anyone can see what happened there. And reverting one person blanking a paragraph built by multiple people is quite different than filibustering a quote with a tag and claiming someone never gave a reason to include the quote when they did. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, "my reasons are obviously justified, so it's not edit warring when I do it". Now why didn't I think of that earlier? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• WP:CLEANHANDS is relevant when bringing something to ANI, and is particularly important when you're trying to argue that something is part of a pattern or when raising issues related to civility, personalizing disputes, and AGF. In this, for instance, which you linked yourself above, you opened the discussion with Cherry-picking bits and pieces from a guideline to expunge whatever one personally doesn't like is not how NPOV is achieved, which is hardly WP:AGF. Is it such a surprise that Sangdeboeuf would be a bit short with someone who approaches them like that? --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. The attempts of you both to push a 'both sides' whataboutist narrative are quite transparent. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• But the fact is that that is an essay, while AGF is policy. By my reckoning I did barely more than disagree with your position across a few pages, and that was all it took for you to permanently drop the presumption of good faith and categorize me as a bad-faith actor forever (see the utterly innocuous diff you presented below, which I assume was one of the catalyzing events.) Please correct me on that point if you disagree and are willing to state that I broadly act in good faith, and I'll apologize for that summerization; I know that comments can sometimes come across as more hostile than intended. But by my reckoning both my record and Sangdeboeuf's are essentially clean and (in disputes with both us and several others) you have consistently failed to convince people that they should be otherwise. If you constantly find yourself categorizing longstanding editors in good standing as bad-faith actors, and few others seem to agree, the issue may be that your sensors are miscalibrated and that you are too willing to assume the worst of editors you come into dispute with, rather than large swaths of Wikipedia being part of a sinister cabal arrayed against you. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• You are overgeneralizing. I do assume good faith for you and others; however, having good intentions or doing good editing some or most of the time is not an excuse for misbehavior at other times. Such misbehavior needs to be warned against, not tolerated and hence encouraged. And what my point about AGF is in nonetheless in agreement with WP:AGF: Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not really seeing how this is a blatant twisting of policy - it's a debatable point, but that's pretty much the standard argument that comes up over quotes. And the 3RR violations you cited are from literally years apart; part of the reason stale evidence isn't accepted is because otherwise any longtime editor would accumulate violations - that is, less than one 3RR violation a year obviously isn't a really meaningful pattern, even before you dig into the context of each report (did you read the discussion here, which explains in detail what happened and why the page was protected? Page protection is a common outcome for a 3RR report when the underlying issue is extensive disruption or a broad dispute.) Most of the other diffs you list are similar - arguments from years apart with no clear violations in them. --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• That is not the standard argument; nobody in good faith thinks that V and NOR are saying that quotes shouldn't be included even though MOS:QUOTE as a whole clearly says they can. Such time-wasting twisting and dishonesty should not be waved away. And I gave many more examples. I knew that if you showed up here, you would definitely take Sangdeboeuf's side. In fact, your editing strategy is quite similar: [33] WP:CLEANHANDS indeed. Almost all of what I presented including the edit warring was from since 2019, and the 3RR violations were less than a year apart. As Wikipedia does far too often, though, POV pushing is enabled depending on what POV is being pushed. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• That isn't what Sangdeboeuf said. They plainly read your statement as saying that a quote is better than an interpretation as a general rule; policy does specifically say otherwise (though obviously that doesn't resolve the dispute itself, because then you have to argue whether a quote is justified in this specific case.) That's the most basic exchange on policy related to quotes there is. Interpreting it as a debate over whether quotes are allowed at all (something that any editor would know) requires a disconcertingly hostile reading. You are correct that the 2019 and 2020 RR3 reports overlapped by a few days less than a year (I got the dates for the 2019 and 2020 ones reversed in my head, since the first diff's dates are so close a year apart), but that doesn't change the broad gap between them or the entirely valid reasons Swarm gave to Netoholic for refusing to block in 2019 - again, all those outcomes are extremely standard for reports of that nature. Similarly, I don't particularly understand what your intention is with presenting this diff, beyond the commonality that I've made an argument you disagree with; I decided not to keep going and get into an extended dispute there or go through the drudgery of breaking down individual problems and holding RFCs, since the amount of work the article requires is staggering, but I 100% hold by my argument that the article, as a whole, has serious POV issues, especially when it comes to giving undue weight to a few highly-opinionated sources of comparatively low quality. But you don't have to agree with that to recognize that it is a valid position to take - ultimately you just need to recognize that editors can have a sharply divergent perspective on an article, its sources, and the related policy while still editing in good faith. (And as much as I hate to contemplate how fast time is passing, 2019 was roughly two years ago - things from back then are absolutely stale, absent an much more convincing pattern than you're alleging here.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the quote matter, the context disagrees with this narrative. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• And this is actually a perfect example of the problem here. An editor not involved in that dispute makes a report and the admin pretty blatantly takes Sangdeboeuf's side in the dispute by denying that Sangdeboeuf did anything wrong in violating 3RR and accepting their lame excuses. And this same admin lets Sangdeboeuf off the hook again when Sangdeboeuf violates 3RR at the same article a year later: [34] This is a perfect example of how on Wikipedia some misbehavior is more tolerated than others depending on who did it or for what POV. And I say this as someone who thinks that many of their edits there were "correct"; but that is not an excuse for edit warring. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sangdeboeuf generally seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:WINNING / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:GREATWRONGS problem that runs along "cancel-culture behavior in furtherance of a social-justice activism PoV" lines. I've seen many examples of this, but the WP:BLUDGEON behavior at this RM is a good case in point. Sangdeboeuf needs a lengthy time-out from the relevant topic area (narrowly or broadly); or, rather, other editors need a break from Sangdeboeuf. I favor topic-bans over blocks, since it allows a topically problematic editor to continue to participate, away from the locus of their disruption. The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence do appear to constitute personal attacks, but probably not the second (which was kind of snide, so more of a general WP:CIVIL thing). While it is true that competence is required, WP means something quite specific about that, namely a general ability to get along with people at a collaborative project, a habit of thinking and writing that is more or less logical, and the ability to write/read English well enough to meaningfully participate. These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint and your expression of it or don't agree with your stance-taking. Just, no. If anything, trying to abuse WP:CIR in this manner is itself a CIR failure on Sangdeboeuf's part, of the first kind (lack of collaborative temperament). Same goes for some other diffs, like the one from Crossroads showing "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like." This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. This is also an element in the first diff from Gersonmk. And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects, not subjective assumptions of intent.

  This sort of stuff is also pretty obviously the nature of Sangdeboeuf's problems here generally: if you do not agree with Sandeboeuf on a view that this editor feel socio-politically very strongly about, then you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy, so Sangdeboeuf will harangue, insult, and browbeat you in hopes that you run away or at least that you might seem discredited to other editors in the discussion (to the extent they can wade through all of Sangdeboeuf's repetitive ranting). The fact that this technique generally does not actually work is immaterial; it's still anti-collaborative battlegrounding that is corrosive to the project and stressful to Sangdeboeuf's victims.

  If this ANI fails to conclude with any action: Given that Sangdeboeuf's disruptive patterns have a strong tendency to cross the lines of two WP:AC/DS topics at once (modern American politics, and gender/sexuality), we should probably just ensure that the editor has {{Ds/alert}} for each of these topics, within the last year (I see from above that this is so, notified of both in October 2020 or later), and take any further such incidents to WP:AE for quicker action. (Just put the evidence up front without making people ask for it, and put it in newer-to-older order.) ANI tends not to be very useful for this sort of thing, because it turns into back-and-forth blathering (AE won't tolerate much of that), and because of the "I agree with your viewpoint so will excuse all your behavior" attitude on the part of too many in the ANI peanut gallery. The AE admins are generally better able to see that a majority of editors liking a viewpoint has nothing to do whether particular behavior in furtherance of that viewpoint is permissible.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  These expectations are by no means license to accuse other editors of having competency or rationality faults just because they you don't think they understand your personal viewpoint – if you could provide a WP:DIFF of where I did any such thing, that would be helpful. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Repeat: "The first and third diffs presented by Gersonmk as evidence". The very fact that you were attacking another editor for alleged reading-comprehension competency problems is staggeringly ironic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  I already pointed out where I struck the first comment after Gershonmk complained about it. The third comment has nothing to do with anyone's personal point of view, unless there's a legitimate point of view in which the various iterations of Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers/financiers ... she did not know the men pictured were Jews ... many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism (e.g. [35][36][37][38][39]) can be considered anything other than claim[s] about Carano. I think I showed considerable patience with an editor repeatedly [40][41][42][43] denying the obvious reality that their proposed text was directly about the subject of the BLP, and therefore subject to stricter sourcing requirements. Such behavior is also a form of disruption. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is precisely the sort of thing ArbCom wrote WP:ASPERSIONS about: pretending you're a mind-reader and coming to WP:AGF-failing negative assumptions about other people's mentality and motivations. Does that mean you'll be striking your above comment re: my thinking that you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy? Thanks again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  No, and these ridiculous WP:SANCTIONGAMING attempts are going to get you nowhere. Describing your pattern of battleground behavior in which you treat other editors as if they are enemies, stupid, or crazy, and go out of your way to paint them as mentally deficient or up to no good, requires no allegations on my part that I'm reading your mind or sussing out your motives. It requires nothing but observing what you're clearly doing in the diffs presented as evidence. If you continue to play this game of "I can be a WP:JERK all I want as long as I can imply anyone criticizing me is doing it too, even if it's not actually true", then I guarantee you are going to receive sanctions, probably sooner than later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Describing your pattern of battleground behavior ... requires no allegations on my part that I'm reading your mind or sussing out your motives. That's exactly what you just did: if you do not agree with San[g]deboeuf on a view that this editor feel[s] socio-politically very strongly about, then you must be stupid or crazy or an enemy. Unfalsifiable claims sure do come in handy when you want to accuse someone of acting in bad faith. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Again: Observing your behavior and that it is anti-collaborative, uncivil, and disruptive requires no assumptions about your faith, only observation that is what it is. I in fact believe your are acting entirely in good faith, of the WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:ADVOCACY / WP:TRUTH sort. An apparent belief that you are fighting the good fight doesn't magically make your behavior civil, collaborative, and constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  And, no, it is not at all comparable to "Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this ... or ... edit war...", which is entirely about observable actions and effects – where is the observable evidence of me WP:FILIBUSTERING anything at the talk page where Crossroads made that accusation? Note that WP:FILIBUSTERING specifically means repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, not one you or Crossroads happen to disagree with. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  In other words, as long as the editor filibustering denies the obvious fact that the consensus of multiple editors is against them, then it isn't filibustering, apparently. Don't forget to remind us that consensus is not a headcount, so you are free to dismiss everyone else. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  The consensus of multiple editors was not clear in this case, with opinions being evenly split, as I mentioned above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not at all evenly split, as I outlined above, to say nothing of all the other discussions that have been linked. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  At the time ... I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Seems fairly evenly split to me. Despite your claim that Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion, I don't see anything in their 12 February comment that suggests that. More to the point, you don't get to declare "consensus" in a dispute where you're personally involved, and then use that as a basis for accusing others of misconduct. That's a blatant abuse of the process. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is just more WP:WIKILAWYER hand-waving. You cannot evade the community finding you disruptive by trying to nitpick over exact wording in guidelines and essays and policies. If you are being disruptive, you will be made to stop being disruptive. If you don't think FILIBUSTER applies, then try BLUDGEON, TE, etc. There is no question that you are disruptive when it comes to this topic area. I'll be "happy" to pore over details of a large number of diffs of your behavior if this ends up at AE or ArbCom, where that level of analysis is actually useful. At ANI, it's a waste of time. PS: In case you think you can start the BLUDGEON behavior again, you should recall that the last time we were discussing that I warned against it and pointed to someone blocked or T-banned for it, right on the same page the same day. The same is true this time around; see #Bludgeoning (Bus stop) just below, in which someone got outright site-banned for it. I encourage you to learn from this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC); PS added 08:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  At ANI, it's a waste of time. How very convenient for you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  To the contrary, it's a stressy ass-pain, in which we'll have one energy-sucking pile of drama only to have it do nothing useful, and then we'll get to do it all over again later at a more practical venue later. ANI has turned into pretty much a useless waste of time (and worse, just a noise factory), except for dealing with obvious nuts, socks, trolls, and spammers. It is no longer capable of handling issues relating to behavior of long-term editors. But be careful what you ask for. Since your recalcitrance and game-playing indicate a high probability you'll end up at AE or RfArb soon enough, I've already started this diff research.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Everybody needs a hobby. Have fun. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  You can't have it both ways; either you want to be diffed in detail or you don't. More to the point, see first law of holes. The very fact that WP is our hobby but your behavior (and your own demands in regard to concerns about your behavior) necessitates putting that constructive hobby on hold to deal with your disruption, and you think this is funny, is in and of itself reason enough for remedies against you. WP thrives on collaborative and neutral-minded editing, and is harmed by "just try to stop me" gadfly behavior, which becomes more and more difficult to distinguish from everyday trolling the longer it continues.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  ...and you think this is funny... More not-mind reading, I see. In fact I welcome any opportunity to improve my behavior. But that requires actual evidence of poor behavior. My comment about it being "convenient" was in regard to your feeling that presenting diffs here is not worth your time, which conveniently frees you from having to back up your vague WP:ASPERSIONS. There comes a point where you have to put up or shut up, lest you become disruptive yourself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We could add this to the list. I don't think language like this is necessary: [[44]] "Do you even English Bro?" Rendall (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• These are not examples of personal attacks, and Sangdeboeuf is disputing the reliability of sources used in the article about Gina Carano. There should probably be more discussion on the sources used, and less fingerpointing. Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Just wanted to note this WP:UNCIVIL and accusatory comment from Crossroads towards Sangdeboeuf a while back: [45] WanderingWanda (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Extended confirmed protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Logged AE action. WanderingWanda, notwithstanding that, I would strongly recommend you refrain from publishing any and all Crossroads-related sleuthing in matters where you are otherwise uninvolved (unless egregious). Thanks in advance. P.S. noting that I have not reviewed this thread closely, for whatever that's worth (basically, am just here to announce the aforementioned ECP action). El_C 19:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• The diffs raised in the initial complaint, while terse, do not quite rise to the level of personal attacks. I don't think anything useful is going to come out of the additional feuding between Sangdeboeuf and Crossroads here at ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am failing to see anything that would result in a block. I would however propose a (voluntary) interaction ban between Crossroads and Sangdeboeuf. Other editors can weigh in for content disputes. That said, even in the ANI report here, while Crossroads has brought up legitimate conduct violations, their evident grudge and omission of past interactions with Sangdeboeuf makes it harder for me to form an opinion. Shushugah (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see a need for that on either of us. Such things make editing more difficult for those who have them and isn't warranted - reporting what one believes to be problematic behavior isn't a grudge. I am not sure what "omission of past interactions" means. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

David Gerard and Scott Siskind

On Talk:Slate Star Codex#Potential new COI between David Gerard and Slate Star Codex?, Gbear605 noted that David Gerard had been a source for a New York Times story on the blog Slate Star Codex. Gbear605 asked if this constituted a conflict of interest, since David Gerard is an active editor of that article. In the ensuing discussion, Distelfinck linked to a tweet of David Gerard's which said "why say in a million words what you can say in 14". This is clear reference to Fourteen words. Rather than contest that he had called Scott Siskind (the blog's author) a Neo-Nazi, David Gerard tried to justify his comment and even repeated the "14 words" allusion. There seem to be clear pro and anti editors involved in the talk page discussions so some friction is expected, but I find this David Gerard's comments about a living person unacceptable. Mo Billings (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I urge all to read the linked discussion, and the following section.

A group of editors, including Mo Billings, who appear to be fans of the subject, are claiming a COI that doesn't fit any requirement of WP:COI, and keep not putting together any complaint in a proper form, preferring to cast aspersions.

One has raised an off-wiki tweet. In the course of the existing discussion, I have linked an email from 2014 from the author of the blog, in which he literally says he is an advocate of "human biodiversity" and wishes to use the blog to propagate this going forward - not yet in an RS so not usable on the article, but arguably supporting my off-wiki tweeted summary of the author's views with the author's own words.

Not that an off-wiki tweet is a WP:COI at Wikipedia, and Mo Billings should understand this. We have a group of Slate Star Codex fans who seem to think not being a fan constitutes a COI, and editors of opposing views should be voted off the article.

There is also an effort to get non-RSes into the article.

Various editors casting aspersions, including Mo Billings, have been asked to properly substantiate their claims of COI in the accepted manner, or stop casting aspersions. Instead, they have continued casting aspersions - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a fan of Slate Star Codex. I have no particular interest in it. I am not a contributor there. I am not even a reader of the blog (although I did read some pieces of Siskind's earlier work because of a dispute about including his name in the article here). My two edits to the COI discussion are this and this. I have already stated that David Gerard's involvement did not constitute a COI based on our guidelines. This ANI discussion is about his specific comments about Scott Siskind in that discussion. Mo Billings (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You're claiming a COI, but not a COI per policy? That is literally WP:ASPERSIONS, surely? - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I am reporting that you called Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi. Please stop trying to deflect from the issue. Mo Billings (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It turns out I'm allowed to have off-wiki opinions about article subjects, including that the scientific racism advocate who sought out scientific racists for his blog and was famous for his prolixity could be summarised as "why say in a million words what you can say in 14" - and that this has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and does not constitute any sort of COI, either in Wikipedia terms or in colloquial terms, and that you're making a bizarre claim saying it does - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The allegation by Mo Billings notes that you have defended these allegations on Wikipedia, so this is not about your off-wiki behavior Aapjes (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

David, it seems clear that you have a COI, per WP:COI and WP:BLPCOI. You've acted as a source for a newspaper about this person, and tweeted about him. Now you're writing about him on WP, using that newspaper article as a source and removing criticism of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I was one of many sources, and not even one that rated naming. I was asked to comment as an expert on the LessWrong subculture, and you can read WP:COI on subject-matter experts as well as I can: Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. And no, I have no financial interest in the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not what's meant by subject-matter expert. You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 (that's based on a five-second Google search, so maybe longer). See WP:BLPCOI, which is policy: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki— ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest". SarahSV ^(talk) 00:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

See above. None of this is a Wikipedia COI, or even a colloquial COI. Your argument comes down to a claim that non-fans of a subject should not be allowed to edit an article about the subject, and you know that's never been the case at Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 - I'm concerned about the precedent you're proposing to set here. I don't think "has tweeted negatively about someone" constitutes a significant controversy or dispute in the context of BLPCOI, and I'm fairly certain that that's not how the policy was understood when it was drafted and approved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I mostly get that argument from the cryptocurrency spammers, who seem to sincerely think that if you're not an advocate you shouldn't be allowed to talk about their favourite thing 'cos that's a conflict of interest - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

And the obvious extension of this concept would be that anyone who tweeted positively about this person must also now have a conflict of interest and be prohibited from editing the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to note here, I'm the editor who most recently brought up an apparent COI on the article talk page, and I realized now that I handled it incorrectly and acted in a way more like casting aspersion than I intended (I thought I was handling it correctly but realize now that I misread the guidelines on handling COIs). Gbear605 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is now one of those discussions that are going across the wiki. Here's the RSN section: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reason_and_WaPo_on_NYT_on_Slate_Star_Codex - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking to the New York Times as a source on a subject, you should probably find something else to edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

NYT is rated Generally Reliable at WP:RSP, and has consistently been found to be a top-tier source. It's not perfect, but your claim is almost entirely incorrect in the context of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You missed my point completely. There are 6 million articles on this project, and you appear to have a conflict of interest on one of them. This one. Why not avoid it? It's fine for Wikipedia editors to be part of the news -- but they should edit other topics. Whether or not the Times is "Generally Reliable" isn't at all relevant here; and I can comment on RSP elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Last I checked, Wikipedia wanted topic experts to stick around, and nowhere have I seen any indication that David Gerard has used Wikipedia to continue any dispute. It's weird how often Wikipedia editors confuse NPOV with being conflict-averse, and that seems like the only plausible reason to invoke WP:BLPCOI. There is not "interest" here. We all have opinions. Being open about those opinions is not some unforgivable sin. Responding to people about those opinions on some other website is not an inherently bad thing. Having people point-out that someone has an opinion is not a valid way to disqualify that person. Good lord, what kind of precedent would that set? Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking forward to the diffs - David Gerard (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Per your wider online activities. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Do you have diffs from Wikipedia? If you don't have those, then your findings are unlikely to be, for example, WP:COIN material. Being a critic of an article subject is not a COI - David Gerard (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

        You regularly make your personal dislike of Scott Siskind known throughout the internet. This is beyond having a run-of-the-mill personal opinion -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

On both the RS noticeboard and the Star Codex talk page, David Gerard has accused Scott Siskind of being a support of scientific racism, while saying on the talk page that there is no WP:RS to support this allegation. I think that this is another instance where David Gerard made an unacceptable personal attack on a living person, who is not here to defend himself. Aapjes (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article is, of course, support for this claim, as I noted on the talk page at length, also citing the SSC article the NYT linked as their evidence for the claim - David Gerard (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article doesn't claim that Siskind is a Neo-Nazi or a supporter of "scientific racism" (which is not the same thing, anyway). You argued that the part on Murray proves this, but the NYT article only makes the vague assertion that Siskind aligned himself with Charles Murray, but doesn't say how. Surely this cannot be interpreted as a claim that Murray and Siskind have identical beliefs on all topics, which would be an absurd claim to make about two different people. If you follow the link they provide, he only did so on class differences, not racial differences. The page on Murray also merely claims that one of his works, The Bell Curve, has been accused of supporting "scientific racism", not that it is an established fact, or that any of his many other publications have been accused of such. The blog post by Siskind that the NYT article uses as evidence also makes no mention of The Bell Curve.

On the topic of Siskind, you seem to believe that we should treat highly contentious claims as fact, without any need for proper WP:RS to support those claims. In general, you seem to have far, far lower standards of proof for allegations against Siskind than for other claims. Aapjes (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Not for nothin' or nothin', but I still haven't seen any diffs of on wiki edits that would require sanctions. Last I checked, tweets shouldn't be used for evidence for on wiki sanctions unless it's coupled with poor wiki editing. See above where NedFausa got banned because of poor BLS editing AND tweets that showed they were on a mission to disparage the person they're editing here. I don't see that in this case. Nor do I agree there's a COI just because someone has made known on a non wiki website their opinion of someone. IF David Gerard never tweeted would anyone notice through their wiki editing that they would have those opinions? Valeince (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The talk page section linked at the top of this section has me and Grayfell asking for proper cites for these claims of COI, including me asking one claimant directly for diffs. They reply that they don't like noticeboards, but they saw the edits going past. I suggest that this would not pass muster at WP:COIN.

This is an effort by fans of the article subject to vote non-fans off the article - David Gerard (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I started this discussion and I started it for one reason alone - your "14 words" comments. You can try to to frame this as something else if you like, but I have no particular interest in that blog, its supporters, or its enemies. This is about your actions. Mo Billings (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Valeince: I linked it above, but I will quote here: Siskind has literally admitted 14 words in one million was his strategy for SSC. David Gerard called Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi, here, on Wikipedia. How is that not sanctionable? Mo Billings (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mo Billings:The phrase “Neo-Nazi” does not appear in that diff so I think you need to retract that statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I believe uninvolved editors will have no difficulty understanding what David Gerard was saying with his "14 words" reference. He was calling Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi. Feel free to ask David Gerard what he meant if you have trouble seeing that. Mo Billings (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor, I had no edits anywhere related to this subject before stumbling across this discussion. He may certainly have been implying that but he does not actually appear to have said the exact words you said he said... Implying may still be an issue, but you not sticking to reality when describing the actions of another editor is also an issue. Again I suggest you re-write the claims you’re making to more accuracy reflect reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You should also note that I agree on your larger point, it might swim in a pond, have feathers, quack like a duck look like a duck smell like a duck have 100% duck DNA, shit duck shit, lay duck eggs, but unless multiple WP:RS call it a duck we need to avoid doing so in any wikispace (all assuming that BLP applies to this duck of course). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO, no criteria or cautions laid out at WP:BLPCOI have been met. Neither the "avowed rival bit or what a "reasonable person" would consider a conflict-of-interest, per footnote "E". Editors are allowed to have opinions, even strong ones about a subject. Unless an actual edit on-Wiki can be presented as problematic, this filing is devoid of merit. Zaathras (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• After reading what DG has written about the subject over the last year or so on his blog and twitter, there is no doubt in my mind there's a WP:BLPCOI here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Where, exactly, is the evidence that he is continuing a dispute on Wikipedia? He can say whatever he wants on his blog and twitter, but for this to apply here, there has to be a direct connection to on-Wikipedia behavior. No more vagueness. Explain it with diffs. If you cannot, or cannot be bothered, don't throw this out as if it were a vote. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCOI says Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. DG has been involved in a significant controversy or dispute with the blogger who writes the Slate Star Codex blog, and thus should not edit material about that person such as the article Slate Star Codex (where he is #1 editor by edits). This is a no-brainer. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's more of a no-evidencer. Supply on-wiki diffs that you consider show this, and how - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It says whether on or off wiki. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am curious, can you use a source that's looped to a wikipedia editor from a wikipedia article? Sounds like some kind of loop back. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no, and it depends on the subject. A subject matter expert who happens to be a wikipedia editor being quoted/interviewed/published in a reliable source is useable. Albeit its frowned upon if they do it themselves. It comes up a lot with academics who want to use themselves as sources, and then get annoyed when we come back "Come and talk to us when you get published." On the wider issue, I am also of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI regarding Siskind here. If you are acting as a source for off-wiki newspapers on a topic, tweeting negatively (and frankly, I would also apply it even if it was positively) about that subject, you shouldnt necessarily be prevented from editing the article but you should certainly not be throwing around accusations of a living person being a neo-nazi. If they are a neo-nazi and reliable sources back that up, plenty of other editors are available to do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This implies I have stated that in the article, which I absolutely have not. However, this is about me expressing an opinion in a tweet, rather than in article space - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I really dont care if you express it by fucking carrier pigeon. That you use off-wiki methods of denigrating people because you are prohibited from doing so on-wiki is not a plus point in your favour. If you want to off-wiki indulge in your freedom to express your opinions, you dont also get to on-wiki pretend that they dont matter. Freedom of expression is not freedom of consequences when on-wiki policies clearly state off-wiki actions will be considered. Why dont you tell everyone how you lost your CU rights after posts on your blog? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with those who've said that David Gerard's extensive sometimes highly negative commentary on the subject means they have a COI. And that they also clearly have a COI about the NYT article and strongly suggest they may have a COI about the subject in general. If this was Donald Trump say, I think we can let it slide because with such highly notable people it can be hard to find editors who don't have a strong opinion about the person. But this is very far from that, likely one reason why the NYT actually used David Gerard as a source. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  P.S. I find the requests for diffs or the claims it must be on-wiki to demonstrate a COI bizarre. Most COIs are off-wiki. I don't need to supply diffs to demonstrate Ivanka Trump has a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. I don't need to supply diffs to demonstrate Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton have a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. No I don't need diffs to demonstrate Barack Obama and George Conway have a COI when it comes to Donald Trump. The only issue is whether we are able to discuss it, or it needs to go to arbcom lest we run foul of WP:Outing which is separate from whether it's a COI. Since no suggested redacting parts of the opening comment, and indeed David Gerard has effectively confirmed they made those comments, I'm assuming that they've previously confirmed a connection to said Twitter account. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  One more comment. I'm not suggesting any action against David Gerard at this time. I'm strongly opposed to blocking people just because they continue to edit articles directly when they have a COI if their edits aren't actually harmful in and of themselves. And to be clear, this includes any edits even ones which aren't simple corrections. If no one can find a reason to revert the edit which isn't some variant of 'COI editor' or find some problem with the edit, then don't revert and don't block. I don't believe doing so is justified by our policy. Paid editors are a little different. However, as with all editors with a COI, I'd strongly urge David Gerard to stop editing the article directly, and they should consider they may be subject to a harsher sanction than they normally would if they continue to do so and their editing is found to be problematic. Demonstrating a problem with David Gerard's edits would require diffs, maybe that part of the source of confusion, I'm not sure. Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• David Gerard, will you agree not to edit about this topic going forward? Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Is it just me or do others find that this particular situation have similarities to this particular case? spryde | talk 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This proceeding feels like nonsense on stilts.

Countervailing strong opinions on an article topic are standard on Wikipedia. It has never been the case at Wikipedia that strong opinions on an article subject preclude editing on the subject. As NorthBySouthBaranof notes, this would presumably preclude fans from editing also.

Such a precedent would launch off-wiki stalking of editors, giving their opponents incentive to comb through their social media in an attempt to impeach them by any means possible.

The claim is that a tweeted off-wiki opinion on the author of the blog that's the article subject is overwhelming evidence of a WP:BLPCOI.

The tweeted opinion is not backed to Wikipedia RS standards of independent third-party coverage, but it's entirely unclear why an off-wiki opinion needs to be - because it is indeed backed by primary sources by the subject, including his own direct admissions as to his views (which I pointed out, though I did not link them), and I'd think that's enough for someone to tweet an opinion that has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

This is being leveraged into a claim that I should not be allowed to edit an article on the subject - even though all my edits on the matter have been in accordance with WP:RS, including defending the article from inclusion of unreliable sources.

(In fact, it is being claimed that explaining my tweet on the talk page when directly asked to explain it is a violation of BLP.)

I don't believe my opinions and knowledge of the article subject constitute a WP:BLPCOI, and I don't believe that the evidence has been offered to claim one.

I think my editing record on the article shows that I can separate opinions from what constitutes good Wikipedia sourcing. Despite repeated requests, no-one has offered evidence that I have not edited in such a way. No drastic actions, considerable talk page discussion.

I'm open to a substantiated case otherwise, but it's repeatedly not being substantiated - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• You know what you wrote and that it wasn't just one tweet or even just limited to Twitter. Anyone can post a collection of quotes of things you've said about the blogger and other living people like the blog's readers, but really won't you just agree to avoid this topic? There are six million other articles as has been pointed out. It would be better if this ended with you taking the feedback on board and making a voluntary commitment. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That isn't addressing what I said, I don't think it 's too much to ask that you do so in making such a request - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not here to play rhetorical games with you. You know what you wrote about this person. You know what BLPCOI says. Either you comply with BLPCOI or you don't. If I have to take the time to gather quotes and post them here, it's coming with a TBAN proposal. I don't need to spend time proving to you what you wrote on your own social media or blog, nor do I need to quote BLPCOI to you again. So you decide whether you want to have the community continue to investigate this matter or if you want to take the feedback you've received here on board (you have a COI) and act accordingly (don't edit the article). Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm involved in a small content dispute with David Gerard, so take that into account. But it seems to me that if you're a source on a story about a subject, you're not independent of that particular story, and should not be involved in editorial decisions involving how that story is used at WP. Since David Gerard has stated that he is a source for a recent NYT story about Slate Star Codex, I think he therefore should not be involved in making decisions about that particular story, such as removing criticism of it from the article, as he did here. And he probably shouldn't be involved in discussion of whether the published criticisms of that story are reliable, as he has been here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That's fair enough not to edit directly re: the NYT article, actually - so sure. Though discussion of it is another matter - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• ArbCom very clearly stated in the 2018 Philip Cross/George Galloway case that "An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest." (spryde also noted the relevance of that case) David Gerard, you are likewise involved in a controversy/dispute with Siskind/Slate Star Codex, so you should refrain from editing about this subject. Please re-read that ArbCom case because it is a closely analagous situation. Fences&Windows 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• On due contemplation, and with my respect for Levivich, he's right. I shan't edit Slate Star Codex going forward - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we discuss your on-wiki comments about Scott Siskind now? Mo Billings (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

    What do you mean? David has agreed to not edit that page going forward. His problematic behaviour is hopefully over, move on now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see an acknowledgement that the "14 words" comment (and his suggestions here about Siskind supporting scientific racism) were violations of WP:BLP and will not be repeated. I note that David Gerard has made no agreement not to edit the talk page so the question of his comments on Siskind is far from a dead issue. Mo Billings (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's important to stress again that David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person given the potential conflict of interest" (bold added). SarahSV ^(talk) 17:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are "prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind"? Mo Billings (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in my comment below, under topic ban, I do not believe that David's pledge not to edit the article or any article is sufficeint even if expanded as suggested. He is active on the talk page discussion and should not weigh in there to influence selection of sources or other substantive issues. Editors involved in off-wiki controversies should steer clear of articles on that controversy, full stop, and that should apply doubly for administrators, who are supposed to be role models for other editors and held to a higher standard. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is false to say that he is "active" in the talk page discussion. He hasn't edited the talk page in a week. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• David Gerard edited the talk page on 21 February and ceased editing shortly after, although he did make a single edit on 22 February. I assume he is dealing with real life concerns. This discussion should stay open until David Gerard has the chance to reply here. Mo Billings (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• He is by far the most active editor on the talk page, one week absence notwithstanding. Coretheapple (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• He is also by far the top editor of the article itself. Coretheapple (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• (I have a major COI with respect to this dispute due to my employment by LessWrong) Reviewing David Gerard's edits on a closely related page, LessWrong, *I found another, more extreme instance of the same behavior*. In this diff, David takes a section he wrote and inserts a cite to this book review of the book Neoreaction: A Basilisk, marking the edit "add more RSes on neoreaction claim". David Gerard was a major contributor to that book. He then edit-warred over that section and defended specific language quoted from it in the Talk page, without ever disclosing that the "RS" is a review of a book he himself researched and edited. At no point did David Gerard ever disclose a conflict of interest of interest of any kind. A review of his other edits on that page shows lots of other tendentious editing as well. The proposed topic ban is too narrow, as written. Jimrandomh (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• The author of the piece in question, Phil Sandifer, was previously banned from Wikipedia. 135.180.133.204 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC) (Oops, this is me, didn't mean to sign as an IP - Jimrandomh (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC))

• A comment thread from 2017 on David Gerard’s editing of the LessWrong article is highly relevant to this discussion, as well as another more recent thread. — Mark Otaris (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of tools?

• Out of curiousity, is this a matter for ARBCOM to consider perhaps removing David Gerard's tools? Admins have been desysoped for less in the past, and loss of the community's confidence is definitely a problem for any admin. I can't imagine anything less conducive to cultivating trust in the project than a long-term violation of the BLP policy. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• @BrxBrx: I was wondering the same thing, and tend to agree that arbcom consideration is amply warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• ​​Thirding that Arbcom seems warranted here. I have no bloodlust to get someone who's been admin for seventeen years desysopped, but quite a few things came up late in the conversation (David Gerard's potentially tendentious editing on other topics that are just outside of "Scott Siskind broadly construed", potential COI issues elsewhere) that may require further consideration in that sphere. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to agree with this comment. jp×g 06:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• An Arb case is unneeded IMO. DG already recognised he'd overstepped the mark. As per XOR, Loki etc is arguably wasn't an especially blatant violation. Even admins are allowed to make the occasional mistake. Suggest this can be closed, the Scott Alexander situation is resolved. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  As someone who's had problems with David Gerard's admin actions several times before (eg this, which was quite egregious tbh), I'm finding it difficult to see how the below rises to a desysop. (however, looking now while trying to find the Susie Boniface discussion, the history of this debate seems problematic, see BLPN, talk, AN; Gerard pushing for inclusion over near-unanimous objections in mid-2020). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

With regards to @ProcrastinatingReader's comments, any arbcom case would have a much broader scope than this single incident. I agree that the single incident ending in a tban has been resolved; the reason there's speculation about an arbcom case is the discussion over whether it's isolated or not, or if David Gerard has a longstanding pattern of conduct inconsistent with the bit (or even just needing much closer scrutiny). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that David Gerard be subjected to banning or blocking. What is being suggested is that his special privileges, the tools that give him power over other users, be revoked. This is totally reasonable from the Siskind issues, which dragged on as long as it did here largely because David withdrew and refused to communicate after a certain point. That wasn't just one slip, but rather took place over months and months, and was not isolated. He was happy to exert his COI in a range of articles. As I look at WP:ADMIN, I observe that his conduct flies in the face of what we supposedly expect from administrators in a number of ways, including communication. As I noted above, after a certain point in this discussion, he just walked away, leaving people to guess and speculate as if he was some kind of mystic oracle. The fact that he is a longtime user makes his behavior worse, not more excusable. I'm taking the liberty of adding a header to break out this discussion separately. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts are as follows: The long term nature of policy violation is definitely not appropriate conduct for someone who holds an elevated position of trust within the project. For the sake of continued confidence in the project, the public should be able to believe that those who hold these tools are not going to violate core policies that could have legal ramifications like the BLP policy. The fact that this has occurred since october of last year, and ended in an apparent failure to communicate, leaving us guessing (along with a refusal to admit that the edits were indeed in contravention of the BLP policy, instead demanding "diffs" for their conduct on twitter/NYT has left me with very little confidence in this user's continued suitability as an admin. It pains me to have to see this go down, but fundamentally, the public expects that articles written about living persons are not going to become a battleground for alledged smearing, let alone by a contributor in an elevated position of trust. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 00:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I also find myself noting that the case @ProcrastinatingReader brought up resulted in multiple people (including @Levivich) suggesting an arbcom case. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose topic ban

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

---

It appears that the consensus of the community is that David Gerard should not write anything anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind. It also appears that David Gerard does not agree and will not stop voluntarily. I propose a community-imposed topic ban on the topic of Scott Siskind, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe you missed it but he agreed to stop voluntarily in his comment above at 16:49, 21 February 2021? Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Diff:[46] David Gerard only agreed to stop editing that one page. I would be a lot more confidant if David Gerard would respond to the question "Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are 'prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind'?" asked by Mo Billings on 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC), Diff:[47] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  

  It seems overly hasty to go down the "topic ban, broadly construed" path. First, in ractice, what articles would not actually be covered by the voluntary stop he already agreed to? Second, I'd suggest that assuming good faith in this case means not leaping to the conclusion that he won't immediately try to worm through a loophole. Third, WP:BLP cuts both ways: if David Gerard is forbidden from editing a topic because he is an external participant, then by the same token, he might well be discussed at Talk:Slate Star Codex as a figure in that kerfuffle, in which case he ought to be able to make non-self-serving statements there, just as we allow anyone to do on the Talk page of the article about them. For example, if the article Slate Star Codex mentioned him and made some biographical statement that became outdated, he ought to be able to suggest an update and provide an appropriate source. I'm concerned that "broadly construed" would impede that. (Non-admin comment; found my way here from RSN.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  I can see significant value to a tban in the sense of actual enforcement; in terms of people actually staying away from aspects of the project they've sworn they'll quit, if wishes were horses we'd all own stables. The talk page considerations are reasonable, and I think 'broadly constructed' here can be interpreted or explicitly stated to permit the self-referential talk page editing traditionally offered to COI subjects unless he becomes tendentious on it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose even article subjects can generally edit the talk page. Now that DG has agreed not to edit Slate Star Codex directly, I can't support this without some diff of inappropriate behavior. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as an enforcement method, not a punishment -- to use the traditional line, "preventative not punitive", or the actual reason we impose these at all. David Gerard's choice to step away is laudable, but as a heavy contributor to the topic it's completely understandable that detachment might be neither immediate nor easy; the project has a long, long history of people having difficulty staying away from topics that trouble them. David Gerard is a valuable contributor to other areas of the project, and I think a tban is the soft option here -- it ensures he can continue editing in those areas without being dogged by the desire to return to an issue where he has COI problems, possibly raising more serious sanctions against him. I reiterate my point earlier about trial-permitting talk page access if he desires it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment a few weeks later, now that support !votes aren't being badgered: as David Gerard would say, read this as the strongest version of its statements. (And I'm not sure I'd mind an Arbcom case.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, for now. Given the editor's agreement to step away, this seems premature, and maybe a bit punitive (or at least overly harsh, even if meant to preempt further disruption). Since they've agreed not to repeat their behaviour, and have agreed to what essentially amounts to a voluntary and self-imposed topic ban (of sorts), the issue seems to be dealt with. I'd support a formal (and logged) final warning with the agreement that any further disruption will be met with this particular sanction, which can be imposed by any administrator as a normal admin action, without community consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose If we can not trust the word of one that's been given the admin bit then we have already lost. Also, any formal warning is just punitive at this point as I think David realizes this thread and his promise will be diff'ed should he stray from his self-imposed topic ban. Slywriter (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the amount of trust and confidence wrapped up in adminship has varied significantly throughout the project's history. When DG got the bit, Jimbo had only recently stopped hand-appointing admins. That's not a statement that either DG or other 2004-cohort admins are untrustworthy, but seventeen years is a long time and the project is unrecognizable to how it was, including in terms of admin expectations. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: I didn't comment above but I'm doubtful that David Gerard even has a COI in the first place. Obviously he strongly dislikes Scott Siskind, but that's not the same as a COI, otherwise there are very few people who could edit Osama bin Laden, Richard Spencer, or David Icke. The only thing that even seems a little like he has a COI is that he was a source for an article on Siskind. But that still doesn't quite sound to me like a controversy or dispute with Siskind, nor does it make him Siskind's rival, which are the actual standards at WP:BLPCOI. I think any situation which would make him covered by WP:BLPCOI would have to be two-sided: that is to say, either Siskind would have to come out and say he doesn't like Gerard either ("dispute"/"rival"), or else we would have to have some third-party source cover Gerard's grudge against Scott ("controversy"). It's near the line and so I think Gerard voluntarily declining to edit articles about Siskind is a good idea, but I don't think he's required to do so. Loki (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'd support this sanction, except DG has seemed to accept Levivich's BLPCOI argument. I'll say a bit more in the hopes of encouraging DG not to make any more Scott Alexander related edits at all. (He might already intend that, but strictly he only seems to have committed not to edit the Star Codex mainspace page.) I know DG means well and thinks he's helping the anti racist cause. But it was rather disconcerting to see someone try to associate a progressive Jew who lost relatives in the holocaust with neo nazi propaganda like 14 words. Various studies have consistently found that on average the Star Codex audience leans well to the left. Scott Alexander is well respected by the tech elite across the planet. Many of the founders and senior execs from the large platforms read his blog. Even UK Christians, while rejecting his atheist worldview, see SA as a person of exceptional compassion, courage and honesty. If DG thinks he can square up to someone like Scott Alexander that's up to him. But the place to push his heterodox views would be his own social media or via his mates in legacy newspapers like NYT & FT. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No call for this as user has voluntarily agreed to step away. Revisit iff (not a typo) an issue arises in the future. ValarianB (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, for now My main worry is that the editor will keep making veiled or explicit personal attacks on the talk pages, like accusing Scott Alexander of racism and insinuating that he's a Nazi. Or insinuating that I'm canvassing people on one side of the issue on Twitter, without providing any evidence. An actual topic ban also prevents the editor from editing the talk pages, unlike the choice of the editor to not edit the article itself. However, perhaps abstaining from editing the page will stop this kind of behavior. If so, a topic ban is unnecessary. Aapjes (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as overkill. Loki makes a reasonable point above that a voluntary recusal wouldn't have been obligatory, even if it is preferred. (Non-admin comment; found my way here from RSN.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • To elaborate: disliking the subject of an article isn't a conflict of interest, and if a newspaper interviewing someone about a topic is enough to create a COI, then we'd be painting with a very broad brush, catching a lot of benign examples in addition to genuinely problematic ones. For instance, I'm a physicist, and as such I'm occasionally approached for comment by science magazines who want an outside expert's opinion about a story. Does that give me a Conflict of Interest about the subject of that story? It's not my research, I don't have a financial or reputational stake in it — I just have the background knowledge to be able to talk about it. That's the same background knowledge which I would bring to a Wikipedia article. Would my doing so be illegitimate? XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • If you can remain neutral, disliking a BLP subject is not an issue. That is not that case here. David Gerard called a BLP subject a Neo-Nazi. Mo Billings (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Sometimes, the neutral description of a living person is "neo-Nazi" (one example has already been mentioned in this thread). Neutral does not mean kind. So, in principle, I can't honestly say that describing someone as a neo-Nazi, or implying they are fascist-sympathetic more generally, ought itself to be a disqualification. Looking at the edit where the implication was made, I'd say that it improperly cites a claim in a self-published source about a third party, which is a bad thing to do on a BLP talk page. Consequently, yes, stepping back was a good move, but I'm not seeing a case for a formal ban. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think, when an editor tries to remove reliably sourced content from an article criticizing and article they themselves contributed to (e.g. removing reference that the Reason article says The New York Times wrote a "hit piece"), that clearly violates the WP:COI guidelines. SkylabField (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There's as yet no consensus over at RSN whether the Reason piece is suitable, with both WP:RSOPINION and WP:UNDUE concerns having been raised. And David Gerard didn't write the New York Times story that the Reason piece took issue with; he was interviewed for it, and the end result is whatever made it through the NYT editorial process. If he had, for example, removed a negative review of a book that he himself wrote, that would be qualitatively different. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Update to that: the RSN discussion fizzled out and was archived without a formal close. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as not necessary to prevent disruption in light of the voluntary commitment. Voluntary solutions > involuntary solutions. When an editor makes a voluntary commitment, we shouldn't assume that it'll be violated (in letter or spirit); that would be the opposite of WP:AGF. And, we don't TBAN people just for having a COI. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: actually, I've seen a few TBANs for BLP COIs (remember the Kamala Harris "whitewashing", for example?). Not necessarily saying current me likes or doesn't like the practice, but rather that it does happen. As for this particular case, I've only skimmed but, as usual, I agree voluntary solutions are better than involuntary sanctions, and so would oppose this myself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Levivich, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles (2018), which examined an editor making negative edits to BLPs (and to biographical material in other articles) and being in a dispute on Twitter with one of the subjects. In particular, see Principles 4.1.10 and 4.1.11. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Change to Support. Everybody go read Wug's comment below. What particularly swayed me is that it's been almost two weeks without answers to the simplest questions, even when the answers were spoon-fed. No editor, admin or otherwise, is above addressing the community's concerns about their editing, especially about BLPs. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support David Gerard has stated I shan't edit Slate Star Codex going forward. He has not addressed his "14 words" comment, made on the page page of Slate Star Codex, which clearly implied that Scott Siskind is a Neo-Nazi. He has not agreed to stop commenting on Siskind. SlimVirgin has stated David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex per WP:BLPCOI. I asked David Gerard to comment on his understanding of that statement, but he has not. I am concerned that without some formal topic ban, we will be here again discussing the same issue in a few weeks or months. Mo Billings (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: For those claiming that "David Gerard agreed to stop:, in this diff:[48] David Gerard only agreed to stop editing that one page. I would be a lot more confidant if David Gerard would respond to the question "Per Slimvirgin's comment above, do you agree that you are 'prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind? asked by Mo Billings on 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[49] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Guy. - Scarpy (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose He recused himself, and this ends the matter. Pursuing this further serves no purpose other than sating the blood thirst of adamant fans, which I think on principle we shouldn't do. Mvolz (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban applicable to mainspace and talk pages in the subject area, and a review of the article by uninvolved editors for POV one way or the other. The user is an administrator and should have known better, and should be held to a higher standard, and subject to more stringent steps, than otherwise might occur. It's amazing that this ANI thread is necessary in the first place. This kind of COI editing brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC) I just wanted to add that I made this comment on the basis of the comments above, and was not aware that page logs indicate that, by number of edits, David Gerard is far and away the top editor of both the article itself and the talk page. He made 26% of article edits[50] and 39% of talk page edits [51], by far the most active of any editor. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - sanctions are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. Merely having a COI has never been grounds for preventing someone from engaging in talk page discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Note: David Gerard has not edited at all since the 22nd of February. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm alive and well! I've just been trying a week off. It's been nice - David Gerard (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Tentative Strong support I'm afraid that once an editor has connected their off-wiki views publicly in such a prominent fashion in this conversation no less, it becomes very difficult to control the trust and confidence of the community that they will be acting fully within the provisions of the COI policy, a la wp:NONAZIS (though I do acknowledge that it's an essay without consensus support). I do note however that the editor in question has recused themselves, and hence I've moderated my support to being tentative only, and would not oppose no tban at all, as tbans are meant to be protective of the project, as opposed to sanctions against an editor. Per Wugapode's analysis, the fact that this has been going on for over a year (and which I was unaware of), apparently in concert with the NYT's coverage of the subject leads me to believe this has been an extremely egregious, long-term violation of BLPCOI. At this point, I'm actually leaning towards opening an arbcom case, if Wugapodes thinks it is appropriate. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 05:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: due to voluntary commitment. Sanctions need to be preventative, not punitive. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - (I have a major COI with respect to this dispute due to my employment by LessWrong, so skip this bullet if you'd rather not be influenced by my opinion here.) David Gerard's commitment not to edit the [Slate_Star_Codex] article is substantially narrower than the proposed topic-ban would be, which is in turn narrower than the topic-ban I (in my COI'ed opinion) think would be appropriate. If you follow links from the Slate_Star_Codex article under discussion to the causes and organizations listed as associated - futurism, LessWrong, Effective_Altruism, and AI_safety - you will find that David Gerard has edited all of them. While those edits have been within the rules as far as I know, they've all been in the direction of making those pages more negative, and off-wiki evidence shows he has a broad grudge. (Specifically, his comments in Reddit's SneerClub, his tweets, and his edits on the corresponding pages on RationalWiki. You don't need to dig; just find his account on one of these platforms, and about half of his total comments will be criticism of SlateStarCodex, LessWrong, or something affiliated with one of these.) Jimrandomh (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Jimrandomh: I think you're raising a valid point. The topic ban proposal is indeed too narrow, and should be expanded. David should not edit on those subjects and of course neither should you, if you do. Topic bans should be applied to all editors with any real life connection to the subject matter of those articles, with the exception of the exemptions allowed by BLP for subjects of articles. For the benefit of those of us unfamiliar with the subject , can you please suggest how such a topic ban should be defined? Coretheapple (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Coretheapple: I agree that my COI applies to all of the pages named as well as others, and will not edit them (and have not edited them since before the COI existed). I would suggest defining the scope of a topic-ban by reference to David Gerard's comment on this reddit.com/r/SneerClub post, which defines the scope of his grudge in his own words: "the many tendrils that branched from LessWrong.com, the site for the wisdom of Eliezer Yudkowsky ... This includes SSC and themotte, and increasingly the IDW as they take up LW/SSC nonsense. Being on-topic basically means tracing back to LessWrong via some path." I would interpret this as meaning he should not edit the pages for LessWrong, Slate_Star_Codex, Center_for_Applied_Rationality (the parent organization of LessWrong), Machine_Intelligence_Research_Institute (split from the same parent organization as CFAR), employees of any of these, and topics/organizations that an RS defines to be strongly associated with these, such as Effective_Altruism and AI_safety. (struck to avoid risk of undue weight on COI-ed opinion, see below) Jimrandomh (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jimrandomh: OK. I just thought there might be a more succinct way of describing the topic ban. I see that David is with us and chooses not to respond further on this. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: How about "Pages linked from the templates at the bottom of the LessWrong article as of 2021/03/02"? That's pretty succinct, and I think matches his "tendrils that branched from LessWrong.com" description pretty well (and does include Slate_Star_Codex). (struck to avoid risk of undue weight on COI-ed opinion, see below) Jimrandomh (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• While David's behavior has been unprofessional, this is at least as much of a COI as he had; it is a little disconcerting for an employee of an organization to opine on proposals (however justified) for people to be banned from editing articles about the organization, and I would recommend @Jimrandomh: strike his comment. jp×g 21:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• @JPxG: I agree that I have a major COI here. My read of WP:PSCOI seems to imply that participating in noticeboard discussions with a COI is okay, provided it's disclosed up front, whereas editing articles directly would not be. In particular WP:PSCOI links to the admin noticeboard in the "steps for engagement" section. That said, I'm not a Wikipedia-rules expert, and I wouldn't want undue weight placed on my phrasing, so I've struck both of the comments I wrote which had specific proposals (while leaving the top-level comment with observations and the original COI disclosure, but no proposals, as-is.) Jimrandomh (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jimrandomh: You have an admitted COI, which you state upfront, and were providing information which of course people are free to contest. I can understand why you struck out your comment, but it was useful and I don't think obscuring its visibility was necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• From the looks of it, the /r/SneerClub subreddit is devoted to mocking/joshing LessWrong, the "Intellectual Dark Web" and topics in between. If you look up someone's comments there, of course most of their total comments will be criticism of SlateStarCodex, LessWrong, or something affiliated with one of these. That's what the subreddit is for. If you look up what a person posts to /r/philately, you'll find them talking about stamps. This seems a weirdly self-affirming way to conclude that a person has a "grudge" — and, in turn, a grudge would not be the same thing as a COI. XOR'easter (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  Participation in the subreddit was presumably a choice. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Sure. But it's only one of several subreddits which a quick perusal shows he actively participates in, just like his Twitter feed is full of various topics and he's edited a variety of topics over at RationalWiki. I'm hardly seeing the kind of unhealthy obsession that was being implied above, where his description of a subreddit's general and vaguely-delimited area of interest was somehow transmuted into the scope of his grudge. For me, this is all coming uncomfortably close to banning an editor from a half-dozen articles because that editor was knowledgable enough that the New York Times sought them out for comment. There's a leap being made from "having expressed opinions" to "being involved in a controversy" and thus to "having a COI" which I'm finding increasingly difficult to follow, and even if I go that far, the sanction proposed seems way out of proportion. XOR'easter (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. On Twitter, he said: i sent Metz SO MUCH material for that NYT SlateStarCodex article, i can see the ghosts of what i sent". This is the very article that he was arguing that criticism of should be removed. Disliking a guy is one thing (I have certainly said off-wiki that I think Smedley Butler was cool and Adolf Hitler was cringe); he was not simply calling Scott a bozo for years on some forum. He was doing that, and then editing tendentiously about a news story he was a source for (and, if David is to be believed, ghostwrote part of). Simply pinky-swearing to not edit one specific article about the guy's blog does not seem like an adequate solution to the problem. jp×g 21:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • How is being one of many sources for a story the same as ghostwriting it? Ghostwriting means writing for hire and having your words appear under the client's name, not sending background material to a newspaper and watching it die. The New York Times story didn't mention David Gerard. Nor did the Reason item. Reason was complaining about the work of Cade Metz (and the NYT editorial system), not the writing of David Gerard, which they had not seen. (From the rest of the tweet linked above, we can plausibly conclude that a David Gerard story would have come out differently.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I guess it depends on what "see the ghosts" means. On one hand, the complaint about the article was that David's material was "run through the NYT mealymouthed centrist filter", which I took to mean that he had significant input (i.e. the stuff he wrote is still there, but "run through a filter"). On the other hand, in a post in an anti-SSC group(?), he says "it isn't the article we wanted, and I suspect Cade wanted it stronger too. But it's good enough" – so I think it might be the case that the New York Times edited the story to be substantially less negative than they had intended when submitting material for it. This introduces enough ambiguity that I'll strike that part of my comment rather than get bogged down in discussion of it. jp×g 23:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the meaning of that tweet is plain. David Gerard, wearing his "source" hat, worked with the writer of the Times article. His collaboration was amply reflected in the article. Then he puts on his "Wikipedia editor" hat and has a major voice in determining how that Times article will be treated here. Whew. Here we are arguing how severe a COI that is. I think it's off the charts. Coretheapple (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Being a source for an article isn't a collaboration. Collaborators get bylines, or at least a note about "so-and-so contributed reporting". XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
          • He worked with the writer and his efforts bore fruit. He admitted it. He bragged about it. Are we really going to split hairs about whether it was or wasn't a collaboration because he didn't get a byline? Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

            his efforts bore fruit – I mean, that's really boring. It's kind of like "ugly enough to stop a clock". EEng 22:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

            • It's not splitting hairs; it's recognizing how journalism works. When you're a source, you're not a coauthor. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
              • If anything, it's a deeper involvement than a collaborator because the source shapes the article, and that same source is shaping Wikipedia. So maybe it isn't hair splitting. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                • I've been interviewed, on background and by name, and to say that I "shaped" the articles that eventually happened would be to misrepresent the process completely. Reporters and their editors do the shaping. We sources don't control what they choose to emphasize or to downplay. In this case, we already have quotes from David Gerard in this thread that indicate the New York Times story is not the story he would have written. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                  • David Gerard said on Twitter "it isn't the article we wanted, and I suspect Cade wanted it stronger too. But it's good enough." "We wanted." Yes, a collaboration. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                    • "We" sounds like it's referring to the /r/SneerClub community, who had been expecting the article to come out eventually. 20:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                      • Let's see if I can sum up what happened. 1. David is part of a community of people who wanted a more negative article. 2. David worked closely (I'll avoid the word "collaborated") with the reporter to make it more negative, and 3) he was dissatisfied with the outcome, felt it should have been more negative, and "suspects" that the reporter feels the same way. While making these statements he was editing Wikipedia in the subject area, including but not limited to the aspects of the article pertaining to the Times piece for which he provided material intended to make the Times article negative. I think that sums things up. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                        • I don't know whether "worked closely" is accurate (it sounds synonymous with "collaborate" anyway); would an interview and/or providing information over a few email exchanges be "working closely"? And what exactly is the problem with having sufficient interest in a topic area that one is both willing to edit Wikipedia and approached by a newspaper as a source? It's true that David said that a source (Reason) that was critical of the NYT story shouldn't be included, but at the end of the day, the work Reason complained about was that of Metz and the NYT, and a whole RSN discussion petered out without a consensus to include the Reason item after all, with WP:UNDUE and WP:RSOPINION concerns having been raised. I've been growing more puzzled about the reactions to this every time I revisit it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
                          • • "....would an interview and/or providing information over a few email exchanges be 'working closely'?" Call it what you will, call it "working far away," but when you then put on a "Wikipedia editor" hat you have a COI that is a big as the rising sun,. Coretheapple (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Every admin gets one free defamation scandal Support Seriously? Seriously, everyone, what the fuck is wrong with us? We have secured what appears to be a single concession: no direct edits to the article. Reading through this discussion it seems that David has called the subject a neo-nazi, has significantly contributed to a NYT article described by other sources as a "hit piece", disingenuously used Wikipedia to push his POV despite a COI obvious to anyone with eyes, and we as a community are incapable of doing anything other than a warning? What the fuck is wrong with us? We engage in a massive work stoppage when the WMF steps in because we want to self govern, but when faced with the simplest case of harassment we balk. We are proving that the community is weak willed. We play self governance when it is fun, but when it is time to put on our grown-up pants and make the obviously correct decision we look for a way to pass the responsibility to someone else (then we kvetch about power being taken from the community, lol).
  If anyone, literally any editor who is not an administrator had done this they would have been indeffed on sight. If an editor clearly in the wrong disappeared for a week, would we call that evidence of change or would we call it laying low hoping that it blows over and impose a sanction regardless? When was the last time any of you put this much effort into hand-holding a new editor through WP:BLP? Not only is that a fundamental policy we expect admins to have glanced at once in their life, it is a policy with legal implications. We made a whole fucking speedy deletion criterion once in order to respond to an admin making bad redirects. Redirects! We are shaping up to be more strict with fucking REDIRECTS than with plain-as-day harassment.
  To everyone citing WP:PREVENTATIVE, you know what prevents BLP violations? Placing strict and explicit limits on the person and empowering admins to act quickly should the behavior occur again. You know what doesn't prevent BLP violations? Letting them continue their crusade on the talk page and giving them a voluntary TBAN that they can revoke whenever they feel like it. I personally have closed discussions on this very noticeboard where the community imposed a TBAN after the editor said they would stop voluntarily; if memory serves me right, some names here were fine with it then, but of course, it was someone without a get-out-of-jail-free card the sysop bit. How things change when the old boys club a long term sysop is facing consequences. Sorry our hands are tied ;)
  Are we really satisfied that behavioral problems have been resolved? He hasn't answered the simplest question despite editors spoon-feeding him the answer: "do you agree that you are 'prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind'?". We require the lowly rabble non-sysops to recite an entire act of contrition and grovel at our feet before we consider lifting sanctions for something like this, and David can't (or won't) answer a simple question about a basic policy that everyone and their brother has told him the answer to? Instead, he said he won't edit a single page and then ditched us. I'm supposed to see that and think "yeah, this definitely won't be a problem again in a month".
  On top of that, David seems to have spent the last year (curiously, the NYT controversy also started a year ago...weird coincidence I guess) editing tendentiously in order to push their POV. For personal context, last year I was learning edit filters to help with the workload caused by people trying to use the wiki to doxx the subject, and I'm supposed to calmly learn that another admin was not only a key figure in that saga, but has been using the Wiki to further that agenda, and that we plan to do nothing? When someone using the wiki to harrass a subject gets an oversight block, where are the editors coming out of the woodwork to say "ah but they promised not to harass the subject directly in the article so you should unblock". Absolute bullshit. How many editors has David scared away? How many edit filters will we need to make the next time David has a personal grudge against an article subject? This is embarrassing. Look at yourselves. If this closes as anything other than imposing a topic ban, I will throw a fit. And nothing will happen to me, because I'm an admin. Am I getting this thread right? I can't deal with this flaming pile of crap right now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 10:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Also to be completely above board here, I was made aware of David Gerard's conduct at Talk:Slate Star Codex a couple of months ago when my partner, a new Wikipedia editor (they have not commented in this thread, and I am not tagging them out of respect for their privacy) and reader of the blog, raised concerns with me over dinner about how an (then unnamed) admin was acting on the talk page. Knowing Wikipedia drama (anti-)patterns, I asked "when did they become an admin", and when my partner told me I said "yeah, a lot of old school admins are problematic but get away with a lot of stuff, if it gets really bad report it to AN, but unless they start misusing admin tools, nothing is going to happen" before sighing and taking a bite of my spaghetti. That was the end of it for me. Despite my partner's concerns, I didn't look into it because I wanted to avoid any potential COI or fruit from a poisonous tree. Most of all, the idea of starting an on-wiki dispute based on my personal life felt gross. I just wanted to enjoy my dinner. I don't really care about the subject and if it was bad, it would get brought up by someone else. Imagine my surprise that we're here now (I am not surprised). — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I have to admit I do find the logical disconnect between this case and something like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_of_User:Geo_Swan somewhat baffling. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reading through this discussion it seems that David has called the subject a neo-nazi [according to the most hyperbolic reading possible of one or two comments] has significantly contributed to a NYT article [where "contributed" means "was interviewed on background for"] described by other sources as a "hit piece" [those other sources being polemical themselves and not found reliable when debated at RSN] disingenuously used Wikipedia to push his POV despite a COI obvious to anyone with eyes [multiple editors in this thread have not found it obvious]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah okay, sorry, let me rephrase strongly implied a couple times that the subject---who he knows personally and dislikes (David's own characterization!)---is advocating neo-nazi views based on a twitter post and then went to the NYT to get them to publish that perspective so that he can insert it into the article without disclosing that COI to us, all while ignoring the concerns of editors who raised a different COI concern with him in August Thanks, that puts all my BLP concerns to bed. You did it, you convinced me this is benign and unlikely to be a problem in the future /s — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The edit where David Gerard said that Scott Siskind advocated scientific racism and encourag[ed] reactionaries [52] came after the NYT story, not before. The discussion from last August seems to have been motivated by the same concerns as this one; it's part 1, to which this is the sequel, rather than a different COI concern per se. Like many Talk page spats, it seems to have been more heat than light and fizzled with no formal action taken. (This line from Grayfell there seems apt: Having first-hand knowledge of a person or topic is not a conflict of interest by most reasonable definitions, and neither is having a strong opinion.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • discussion from last August seems to have been motivated by the same concerns as this one So you admit this is a long running problem that has not resolved and in fact gotten worse? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Brush with (potential) impropriety

-EEng

• No, I'm saying that the same tenuous assertions were made then that are being made now. Something that was at worst a brush with impropriety — perhaps a reason to make suggestions on a Talk page rather than editing directly, but not a reason to be expelled from Talk pages — continues to be at worst a brush with impropriety. XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's a brush with impropriety the first time that it's brought to your attention. When you continue to "brush" against impropriety after that we just call it impropriety; and on Wikipedia we tend to call it Wikipedia:Tendentious editing​ and we block people for it. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)​

• • What do you mean, "will throw a fit"? :-D Anyway, you're 100% right, and I've changed my !vote above. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd be a lot more convinced of this if we had diffs which showed exactly how the POV was being pushed. The Geo Swan matter seems entirely different to me. There was a clear "bad action" in that case. I've reviewed some of the diffs from the topic and while I easily could have missed something (I didn't look at every diff, and I have no familiarity with the topic), I don't see any edits that stand out as what I would consider to be "bad actions," unless it's "being quoted in a secondary source about a controversial topic." SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Having now looked over the Geo Swan business, this does seem different. An off-wiki conflict is not the same as an off-wiki expression of dislike. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • (ec) Editors at the article brought up COI and POV concerns regarding David on the talk page 6 months ago. Multiple editors in the above discussion bring up Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. You know when this was first brought up to David? October Am I supposed to understand this is a good faith misunderstanding or a momentary lapse of judgement and not a blatant violation of norms editors told him about months ago? Aside from the big smoking gun that brought us all here, what evidence do we have that the gun was manufactured, acquired, and brought to the scene by the person we caught red handed? — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • My reading of that discussion is that most editors generally thought continued editing wasn't a problem. You're going to sanction someone based on that conclusion? Please. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Yes, because the problem only escalated. He became more deceptive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
            • How, exactly? SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Scroll up. You'll see such wonderful gems as:

  • • • • • • • • David Gerard's extensive sometimes highly negative commentary on the subject means they have a COI. And that they also clearly have a COI about the NYT article and strongly suggest they may have a COI about the subject in general. If this was Donald Trump say, I think we can let it slide because with such highly notable people it can be hard to find editors who don't have a strong opinion about the person. But this is very far from that, likely one reason why the NYT actually used David Gerard as a source. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                • David, it seems clear that you have a COI, per WP:COI and WP:BLPCOI. You've acted as a source for a newspaper about this person, and tweeted about him. Now you're writing about him on WP, using that newspaper article as a source and removing criticism of it. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                • It's important to stress again that David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual ... [sic] should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person given the potential conflict of interest" (bold added). SarahSV (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                • If you're talking to the New York Times as a source on a subject, you should probably find something else to edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                • I am of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                • DG has been "involved in a significant controversy or dispute with" the blogger who writes the Slate Star Codex blog, and thus should not edit "material about that person" such as the article Slate Star Codex (where he is #1 editor by edits). This is a no-brainer. Levivich harass/hound 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Usually, when things improve, we don't get commentary like that at ANI. Usually, when things improve, we don't have people pointing out the same issues raised 6 months ago. Let's say I agree with you; 6 months ago editors were concerned about a COI but concluded that (at the moment) editing the article was not a serious problem, given the above discussion (that you seem to have somehow immediately forgotten exists) how is this not worse? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  You said that he became "more" deceptive, but your diffs are of the opinions of other community members. I agree that we're at the right result, which is that they shouldn't be editing that page anymore, but I still don't see any sanctionable conduct. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not completely convinced of the distinction between interest and conflict of interest here, especially without clear diffs apart from being the "most active editor on the talk page." The user has said they won't touch the page anymore, which should be the end of the issue. SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per Wugapodes' comment. If this exact same situation happened with an account with a good hundred edits, everyone would support a TBAN (but only if an admin didn’t indef them first). I’m surprised that a lot of the !votes are Opposes and the justification is "he promised to stop so we should listen". I’m sorry, but David has the rights to literally blow up the website. The fact that anyone thought to make an ANI thread about an admin and everyone is saying "oh but he prrrromisssed" is a giant red flag. David can "promise" to not delete the main page and then delete it the next day anyways. I can "promise" to follow a 1RR and revert twice the next day anyways. To me, promises don’t mean anything unless I know I can trust you. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As a fellow member of "the old boys club" I think there's a good deal of truth in Wugapodes' tirade. We do cut long-term users a lot of slack, perhaps more than we should. There's so obviously a COI problem here it shouldn't have required this much discussion. Black Kite's point on the disconnect between the handling of this situation, and that of Geo Swan, is apposite. Regarding voluntary restrictions, I don't like them in these cases. It concedes the issue to the user's judgment, even while acknowledging that said user's judgment is flawed. If we agree with the latter, then we shouldn't endorse the former. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Wugapodes writes quite emotionally but also quite persuasively. David Gerard does excellent work in many areas and that should continue. But no editor, especially not an administrator, should edit about a living person that they have a prolonged, active public grudge against. And if that behavior continues for months, a topic ban is the logical and fair result. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Wugapodes' argument is spot on. If anyone but a long-term sysop had edited with such a clear COI they would have been blocked by now. We need to meet the moment and send a clear signal that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Wugapodes incredibly potent and poignant rant. The stuff of legends, truly. Much respect. El_C 22:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I want to expand a bit by adding that, for myself, I try to avoid editing BLPs whom I dislike in any way that would negatively impact them, at least as much as is humanly possible — just for my own personal COI-like peace of mind and conscience. Excepting perhaps BLPs who are, say, heads of state, but even then I try to keep it in check; though, in fairness, there aren't that many heads of state that I do like, but I digress. The point is that contemptible BLP or not, is totally irrelevant to standing firmly against having them become potential victims. El_C 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. DG appears to have a personal conflict with the subject of the article. For example, the subject has called DG an "unofficial president of my enemies' club" [53]. Being the most active editor of the article, removing sources critical of NYT publication to which he claims to have contributed so much that he can see the "ghosts" of his writing indicates lack of judgement on DG's part. I support extending the ban to all topics related to Less Wrong as per discussion above. Eliokim (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • So, now the subject of an article gets to declare in a self-published source who their "enemies" are, and those enemies are forbidden from having any involvement whatsoever in that article or any article that happens to be listed in its sidebar or footer? I've been thinking for weeks that I should take a break from this place, but if that's the kind of precedent we are willing to set, my wiki-break is going to be a long one. XOR'easter (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @LokiTheLiar: In your oppose rationale above (which XOReaster cited in their original rationale) you said I think any situation which would make him covered by WP:BLPCOI would have to be two-sided: that is to say, either Siskind would have to come out and say he doesn't like Gerard either ("dispute"/"rival") Does the subject's statement from 17 days ago (from before your !vote but only just mentioned by Eliokim above) calling David Gerard the sort of unofficial president of my enemies' club and saying it seems more like the kind of thing that might happen if someone had it out for you make this seem like a two-sided "dispute"/"rival"? — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    • It does make it seem more like a dispute in the conventional sense, but it doesn't really make it seem more like the sort of significant controversy or dispute that WP:BLPCOI is talking about, in context. I was thinking out loud there, and outlined some obvious minimum qualities based on WP:BLPCOI, but I think any reasonable definition of a conflict of interest needs to go further than just "you can't have a COI that nobody else knows about".

  A conflict of interest is what it sounds like: it's when your personal best interest is in conflict with the goals of Wikipedia. So, stuff like a politician editing the article of a rival politician, parties to a court case editing each others' articles, editing the article of a close relative, directors editing the articles of movie critics, and so on; the stuff that is covered by WP:COI but applied specifically to BLP. I don't think that what's going on here qualifies because I can't see any way that Gerard's strong negative opinion of Siskind is actually furthering any personal interest of his. Having a strong personal opinion about a notable person is a very good reason to step back from their article, and obviously it's a violation of WP:NPOV to insert negative information into any article because you have a negative personal opinion of the subject, but it's not a conflict of interest.

  I also share XOReaster's concern that omitting the "significant" from significant controversy or dispute opens the door to notable people being able to effectively topic ban their critics from editing their Wikipedia article simply by publicly noting that they are critics. That's not, I think, what's intended by being involved in a significant controversy or dispute. WP:BLPCOI mentions as establishing context that articles concerning living persons may include material [...] about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. This seems to me like it's only these sorts of controversies or disputes that WP:BLPCOI is about. Loki (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  How do you get that from the text of the policy? Your interpretation of the spirit of WP:BLPCOI seems disconnected from the actual text of the policy: Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. So no, the policy doesn't seem as limited as you construe it. In my eyes (and the eyes of multiple administrators above) the text seems written to avoid this exact kind of situation where an editor---who is mutually antagonistic with the subject off-wiki---threatens the neutrality of an article to smear the subject (which has potential legal consequences for us). In fact, if you look beyond the shortcut, the section title at WP:BLPCOI is "Using BLPs to continue disputes" which you admit this likely was and which David did; even the previous title (used at the redirect WP:BLPCOI is "Importation of off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia". Even if we want to limit the scope to "significant" disputes, I think contributing to a national news story about the subject (described as a "hit piece") which early on drew attention for its plans to out the subject is "significant". Speaking personally, none of my personal disputes have involved the New York Times, have yours? I'm not particularly worried about a slippery slope here, especially since we already have a policy on this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. It's a common-sense, long-overdue solution. →StaniStani 06:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed topic ban. This discussion makes me uncomfortable. I believe strongly that productive editors, especially admins, should be encouraged. But I also care about Wikipedia's reputation. Sometimes our community must act to preserve editors and their ability to contribute. Better to act now than further down the road. David Gerard's judgement in this case, over a period of months, calls for a firm corrective. Words from his own keyboard show that his interaction with the subject of an article in Wikipedia space, in a NYT article, and other fora preclude involvement with any connected Wikipedia articles. This T-ban is for the protection of Wikipedia and Gerard. This corrective can help restore confidence in Gerard's judgement. We should place a guardrail to save an editor from spreading a public grudge across the internet. — Neonorange (Phil) 10:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Wugapodes. The lack of self awareness by David Gerard to see a potential issue with this behavior is also troubling. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support a tban based on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles linked by SlimVirgin. An admin has to be held at high standards. Vikram Vincent 14:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed topic ban per Mo Billings, Wugapodes (especially), and Levivich. If this had been the behavior of a regular user, they would be topic-banned (if not outright indeffed) in ten seconds. - DoubleCross (‡) 15:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Wug. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Benjamin (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious COI is obvious and Gerard's grudging concession to not directly edit the article itself is inadequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Coretheapple, Levivich, Cullen, Mr Ernie, Neonorange and Wugapodes. Breathtaking admin abuse, in my view, and calls for this topic ban at the very least. Jusdafax (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Levivich and others. I note that Gerard's activism has not been restricted to the topic of Scott Siskind, but has also extended to seeking to portray the rationality and effective altruism communities in the least favourable light possible, for example, edit warring on the Effective_altruism page. RyanCarey1 (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Osomite violations of WP:NPA

In this edit, during an editoria dispute of Talk:Operation Sea Lion Osomite called me an "apologist". From the context, I infer that he meant a "Nazi apologist", since he also referred to my "prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland."

At first I waved this off, but it then began to bother me, so I requested that he retract both defamatory statements. [54]

Osomite's response was to first tag me with an unwarranted edit-warring warning related to the dispute, and then to post a non-apology apology, in which he apologized for my feelings, and not for his statements. [55] In any case, I did not ask for, and do not want an apology, I asked for him to retract his statements. When I told him that [56], he blew me off and told me to report him, which I am doing.

I put prodigious effort into protecting Wikipedia from neo-Nazis et al. who try to alter facts or whitewash articles, and I do not appreciate being called an "apologist" for the Nazi invasion of Poland, simply because I stand by the historical record that the invasion was successful. "Successful" is not a measure of approval, it's simply a matter of which side won the battle in question. About this there can be no doubt: the Nazi invasion of Poland was successful.

I would like an admin to take a look at the situation and issue a warning -- at least -- to Osomite not to violate WP:NPA and to ask them to retract their defamatory statements about me by striking them through, as I requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken! To be fair, I took Osomite's statement, "I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize." as a sufficient apology, but I understand if you wish for the user to strike those personal attacks. Osomite, can you please do that so that the discussion can move on and be constructive and on-topic regarding the article? :-) Also, please don't make personal attacks at other users like that. A founding principle of Wikipedia is that we treat others with respect, and making personal attacks directly conflicts with that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Except that I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize is NOT an apology at all, since it's all about what the target is alleged to feel and not what the supposed apologizer has done. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I was also involved and the entire incident was a bizarre attempt to claim Poland was not defeated, which is odd, to say the least. The attack on Ken are unacceptable and (at the very least) Osomite should strike them and apologize. I tried to accommodate them. I get the feeling this may not be over. Their (belated, they replied after I had assumed it was over as Ken had added sources to the claim they were contesting) talk page comments smack of wp:nothere and wp:Ididnothearthat. I now feel like I did Ken a disservice by trying to get a civil discourse and trying to address Osomite's concerns. It seems to me this was all just A POV pusher trying to force their version of nationalist history onto the article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've found several of User:Osomite's comments as attempting to personalise the dispute and / or downright insulting, such as:

1. I am a little behind on your prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland.
2. better late than not to put my thoughts about your activity on record.
3. You are disingenuous.
4. Your argument is largely that of an apologist. Claiming that "That it did not last in perpetuity is irrelevant." is nonsense, and you probably realize that.
5. In re: sources that BMK added: Conveniently they are in books that will be difficult to view and verify that you have been honest in these assertions., implying that BMK is a potential lier to boot.

Permalink: [57]. The implication of 1 & 4 combined is clearly pointing towards Nazi apologist, so BMK was right to take offense. A non-apology 'apology' generally does not resolve anything. Here's what was offered by User:Osomite: I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize.. It's odd that this comment was given an edit summary of "apology to Beyond My Ken".

I would recommend a strong word of caution, if not a warning against personalising disputes and attacking other editors on article Talk pages. Given that no actual apology has been offered so far, a short block may be in order as an alternate outcome. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, they are not apologizing for saying ken is an apologist, just that he is sorry for saying he is a Nazi one. Moreover I note "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial", so he still thinks he is in the right and Ken is on the wrong over the "controversy" (he is yet to show there is one, outside of his opinions) over whether or not Germans was successful. With an added "It seemed to me that Germany's successful invasion of Poland was a Nazi victory." I agree this is not a genuine apology by an ANI complaint one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Its pretty clear from the context that Osomite isn't remotely sorry about his blatant personal attacks. Despite Osomites denial, its very difficult to consider than he called BMK anything but a Nazi apologist. Its pretty clear by any reasonable standard that the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland was a victory in the early stages of the war, and describing people as "apologists" for supporting that is massively uncalled for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• My thanks to those who have posted here to support my position: I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
  I want to point out that in the 12 hours since Oshwah made the comment above, urging Osomite to retract their statements, Osomite has yet to do so. They have, however, made six trivial edits to one of their user pages, deleting old sections, which I take as being a rather ostentatious display of ignoring this complaint and the advice from an admin. I would like to suggest that such studied disregard of the call for a simple retraction of what are -- the consensus here agrees -- personal attacks is not the sign of someone who is prepared to behave in a civil manner -- in fact, quite the opposite. I ask that further administrative action be considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• My ping above didn't work, so... Oshwah, please see my previous comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Osomite - Why won't you strike the comments as requested so that we can move on? I really don't want to be the "admin bad guy" here, but a block is going to be considered if you don't do this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah: Thanks, but I don't believe that Osomite is going to do anything. They continue to edit their sub-page User:Osomite/Stuff while ignoring this discussion and my requests. Slatersteven posted a comment on their talk page saying they really should come to this discussion, [58] and Osomite's responses was to add links to that sub-page so that they could "check out" Slatersteven. [59]

Because of the lack of response or action from Osomite, I have myself redacted their personal attacks from their comments on Talk:Operation Sealion [60], and have e-mailed Oversight asking that they be rev-del'd or oversighted, whichever is appropriate. Assuming that this request is accepted, I guess that the incident is over, except, of course, that Osomite will have escaped without being sanctioned for their continuing uncollegial behavior. Thanks for your assistance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow that's... weird. And almost stalkerish. — Czello 20:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I read it as an indication that Osomite is rather unwilling to work and play well with others. I would note that there was some more explicitly "opposition research" information on that sub-page about me, which I deleted per WP:POLEMIC. [61]. The stuff about Slatersteven was more innocuous, so I didn't think it qualified for deletion, but I suspect they had the same purpose in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Response from Osomite

@Slatersteven: I appreciate your concern. Thank you. I find this issue very distressing. Sadly it was the last thing I thought about while trying to fall asleep last night (actually at 3 AM) as this dilemma has been weighing on my mind. I do not call people Nazi apologists. I have not called people Nazi apologists. Beyond My Ken through inference (BMK's word) says I did.

Slatersteven, after you made your proposal to me to remove my comments, I thought it was appropriate and was figuring out how to do what you suggested and best seek resolution. Yes, I was silent, the reason was that I wanted to give time to let things cool down. I was upset by the proceedings and want to be able to respond calmly. I was silent, but I was listening. I am distressed that my silence was construed as nefarious. Sometimes a silence is just a silence. I was just listening and thinking. What was the apparent need for urgency? You mentioned that I was "a POV pusher trying to force their version of nationalist history onto the article". Where did that come from? I have no alternate version of history to force. It is very interesting what some people consider the meaning of silence is.

This issue initiated around my "edit" (I apologize for the "scare quotes", but I can't get the dif rename done without them) of the following sentence in the Operation_Sea_Lion article in the section "Invasion of Poland":

In September 1939, the German invasion of Poland was a success, but this infringed on both a French and a British alliance with Poland and both countries declared war on Germany.

My purpose was to edit a poorly constructed sentence and clarify. With the result of:

In September 1939, German invaded Poland. This aggression infringed on a French alliance with Poland and a British alliance with Poland. Subsequently, France and Britain declared war on Germany.

(Oops, I see that I created a typo "German" instead of "Germany".) So I reconstructed a sentence that had a comma splice and unusual conjunction "but". I edited it to make it three sentences. Making the entry more informative and clear was my object. And then I was left with the first sentence where using the word "successful" felt awkward. I have never considered the invasion of Poland "unsuccessful" (as some here have somehow construed). An invasion is either an invasion or a "failed invasion". And I have never seen the use of "successful" relative to "invasion" anywhere. Seeing that accolade in an encyclopedia article did not seem to have a neutral point of view NPOV. So I did not think that using the "successful" necessary. Removing the word "success" or "successful" does not change the meaning of the sentence. I had no hidden agenda with doing this. I had no agenda. I was trying to write the best encyclopedia article I could by removing a word that was unnecessary. After all, was an invasion and the invasion did what an invasion does. And in the edit summary, I indicated, "There is no support for the claim that the invasion of Poland was "successful". And from there BMK disagreed and reverted the entire edit. BMK ignored my edit of the second sentence which was a marked improvement over the original.

Here is an observation. In the Invasion of Poland Wikipedia article, the word "success", relative to the overall invasion, was used once, stating "The success of the invasion marked the end of the Second Polish Republic, though Poland never formally surrendered." Here as with the Operation Sea Lion article, the word "success" is an unnecessary adjective. If the word "success" is removed, the meaning of the sentence is not altered.

The encyclopedia Britannica, when discussing what caused WWII, it simply states, "World War II began in Europe on September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland." Here is a creditable encyclopedia that does not feel the need for touting the invasion as "successful".

Through all of this, I have pondered about "what was Hitler's goal in invading Poland?" What would have been Hitler's criteria to consider the invasion successful? Clearly, Hitler desired to expand eastward to gain “lebensraum” (living space) for Germans. Did the invasion accomplish this goal? Another thought was that Hitler needed to possess Poland in order to launch his offensive against Russia. Yes, the invasion was successful in Germany "possessing" Poland for this purpose. If it is this apparent, why couldn't BMK simply qualify the condition of success? Maybe BMK could have added another sentence or two?

Recently, I read somewhere that with Germany's invasion of Poland and when the Allied Forces entered into WWII against Germany, at that point Germany had already realized that they had lost the war. With that view, it seems a stretch to say the invasion spawned a "success". I guess I need to find that again because there will undoubtedly be contention about this assertion. In any case, this line of inquiry is interesting and needs to be examined.

For some reason, Beyond My Ken has called me "the editor" throughout this entire episode. This is a personal slight, I consider BMK to be rude. There is some psychology involved with not acknowledging a person with their name. To not acknowledge someone is a snub. It can mean to ignore or not take notice of.

For some reason, from BMK's first revert of my initial edit, BMK made no effort to collaborate with me. He has only been brusk, offensive, and threatening. I made a single revert and BMK put the edit war Ambox warning on my talk page accusing "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Operation Sea Lion;" And then in an additional entry on my talk page threatened, "Your next revert to this article triggers a report to the edit warring notice board". OMG! I made a single revert at 10:35 and a second edit (retaining the word "successful" and BMK's response was to threaten me. Although in the edit war notice it counseled "Users are expected to collaborate with others", BMK never sought to collaborate with me. I highly doubt that BMK's behavior reflected an appropriate protocol.

Throughout many edit exchanges with editors, BMK has been determined to retain the exact original badly constructed sentence with simply the addition of four references supporting specifically for the single word "successful" in the context of "In September 1939, the successful German invasion of Poland". The placement of the references is unusual; they are placed immediately after the word " ". BMK's "edit" (Again, apologies for the "scare quotes") establishes that the references are specifically for just the word "successful", remarking in the edit summary "This is the way it must be done."

I appreciate that BMK has provided references specifically for the word "successful". I plan to track down the books to see whether there is actually a clear statement or analysis stating that the invasion was "successful". After I have been able to do find the books (they are at my libraries) and do the research, I was will report my results. If I am wrong, I will admit that I am wrong with appropriate apologies to BMK. I value truth and I value an honest presentation of history.

I see from the discussions, things have not cooled off. Beyond My Ken has been quite busy prosecuting his case. Is that appropriate? Today, BMK has "redacted what he considers to be personal attacks" in my post on the Operation Sea Lion Talk page. Was that appropriate? It seems that BMK is doing his best to add heat and stir the pot. From this situation, am I going to received fair consideration?

My posts concerned were in reply to "BLM post" (apologies for the "scare quotes") which was initiated immediately after I made "my first and only revert" (apologies for the "scare quotes").

BMK considers the following phrases to be personal attacks. Just to provide a perspective they were not grouped but spread in my post to BMK

• "to maintain Nazi victory in Poland"

• 4 lines of text follows

• "You are disingenuous."

• 10 lines of text follows

• "Your argument is largely that of an apologist."

I am truly sorry that BMK inferred (BMK's word) that a word in the first phrase and a word in the third phrase was a personal attack of being called a "Nazi apologist". I am sorry he saw it that way. It was in no way intended to be a personal attack that I had "cleverly hidden". I did make an apology which was heartfelt ("I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize."). However, somehow I did not say whatever magical words BMK thought appropriate and called it a "nonapology apology". Some here have the view that I did not make a "not a genuine apology". Is there some guidance on how to make a genuine apology?

About "apologist". Some who are judging here, consider that because I rebuffed BMK's "success" argument by saying it was "largely that of an apologist" is a personal attack. An apologist is "one who speaks or writes in defense of something". What is wrong with that? That is what BMK did. I did not find BMK's argument convincing.

And about personal attacks. "BMK's reply to me" (apologies for the "scare quotes") contains some significant personal attacks on me:

"I won't take it seriously, because you're so far off the mark that you're entirely around the bend. Ignoring your ignorant personal jibes, the issue here is simple: reliable sources, and every historian worth their salt, says that the German invasion of Poland was a successful one."

BMK tells me, "I am entirely around the bend", calls me "ignorant", and then just claims the authority of historians "worth their salt". That wasn't much of an argument, it was, to me, what you would expect from an apologist who has few facts at hand. It was an insult to me. BMK claims I made a personal attack, which is ironic when BMK freely makes personal attacks; they were personal attacks that were so clear there was no inference needed to understand what they were. I would appreciate BMK's apology for his personal attack on me.

BMK's posts contain quite a bit of disparagement directed towards me; a lot of anger. The tone was arrogant and overbearing. BMK was presenting what BMK considered to be superior knowledge and was quite annoyed at being challenged. BMK took some particularly umbrage with my challenge requesting a reference for the adjective "successful". It seemed to me that BMK was looking for reasons to have controversy and conflict.

About "disingenuous". Here is "my post" and here is the comment in context which was concerned his aspersion that I was edit warring although I only made a single revert:

"You are disingenuous. You were in an edit war earlier this month from which you received a edit block of one month. You contested the block and received mercy. You ended the episode by claiming, "I'll try my best to improve". You need to work on that claim, walk the talk."

It is apparent, and BMK's editing history involving his past edit wars demonstrates it, that BMK is not candid or sincere and is in fact quite disingenuous. He claimed an edit war after I made a single revert, which is disingenuous. BMK would prefer to distract and misdirect and call it a personal attack; however, it is not, it is simply an observation of fact. This is not BMK's first rodeo.

Many words have been written here with many analyses of my words. In a lot of ways, I see this as much in the way of John Godfrey Saxe's poem [The Blind Men and the Elephant] which ends:

"So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween, tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean, and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!"

I hope for an honest opinion of the elephant.

Clearly the judges are self-selecting themselves. Can the judges act without bias and fairness?

I feel that the judges have been looking at this episode cherry-picking words, touching only the parts of the elephant that are easily at hand, and making assumptions based upon, probably, a predetermined result. You assume you know all about me and have already passed judgment. You layer assumption upon assumption. You suppose. You guess. You infer.

I feel that I will not find fair judgment here. I wonder that when making your judgments, has all of the record in the posts been reviewed and given equal weight? With BMK making on-going "comments" (again apologies for the "scare quotes") and whipping up the prosecution I feel an unfair finger on the scale.

I have a suspicion that what I have written here is just going to provide more "grist for the mill" with more criticism of what you think I really said and more condemnation.

As you judge me, do you consider Beyond My Ken blameless? Shouldn't his involvement be considered?

I have not challenged anyone's specific already stated determinations. Doing that would probably not change any opinion. I have not addressed every detail. If anyone has a specific question they would like me to address, please let me know.

Osomite ^hablemos 04:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have not thoroughly read the wall-of-text above, but I have skimmed it, and on the surface it appears to be a venture in WP:Wikilawyering. However, Osomite is correct that my posting "around the bend" was inappropriate, and I have now retracted that by striking it through. I will not withdraw "ignorant", because their comment was indeed completely oblivious to the thrust of my editing career in regard to Nazism, Fascism, neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism etc., just as their synopsis above is ignorant of what I do and have done in general, and, I believe, of my character. - they clearly have drawn their conclusions from a quick scan of my current talk page. I also note that Osomite has chosen to double-down on my being "disingenuous", which, of course, is simply polite-speak for "liar". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

BMK, you should read it carefully, and in general just stop making ANI your playground. Be nicer and be here less often, in all respects, please. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think if you read the comments above and on Talk:Operation Sealion, you'd find that a number of independent editors -- in fact, all of them who have commented -- have agreed that Osomite's remarks contained personal attacks, which they have refused to retract. That would seem to justify a remark to Osomite to be nicer, not to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say neither user displayed conspicuous politeness here. But I think the problem was Osomite's refusal to retract and attempts to justify why they were right, not the PA's themselves. Osomite you need to wholly accept you are wrong about what you said about BMK, that is was unacceptable. Not with a wall of text but just "I get what I said was wrong and I unreservedly apologize", one line is all it needs. BMK, your decision to remove the offending posts now means that Osomite cannot now choose to remove them, thus is unable to show they get it. I think we need to draw a line under this. Osomite, Wikipedia works by referencing wp:rs (you were technically correct, as I said at the time). But it also operates on a wp:or principle, as well as wp:bluesky. As many users told you Poland lost (thus the Germans invasion was a success) by any meaningful criteria. You failed to provide any RS backing your contention it was not a success, and thus waste time on a matter that should have been dropped. Even after sources were provided you still argued the toss it was not so. For me therefore there are issues here that go beyond the PA's (which may have been a language issue). You need to show that you will not try to push OR again, against consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"BMK, your decision to remove the offending posts now means that Osomite cannot now choose to remove them, thus is unable to show they get it." That is not the case, at least at the moment. All they would have to do is revert my redacting edit and strikeout the offending remarks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

A Briefer Response From Osomite

Slatersteven advised me that it would be more helpful to have condensed my responses into one or two paragraphs.

@Slatersteven: Yes less is more. Good thought. I have never been involved in a personal attack accusation and I had no guidance to follow so I did what I thought appropriate. Ironic, there was much ado about my prolonged silence, and now you want brevity. I was told to reply and that it was serious. I figured if it was serious, I would take it seriously and reply appropriately. I figured I had one opportunity to respond, so I made an effort to put it into perspective. What could I have explained in a paragraph or two? What is the critical issue? The critical defense?

You make a good point, so here is a try at brevity. A focused defense. (Hmm, and after writing the "brief", it is more than a paragraph or two. I did it with as few words as I could)

I have been accused by "inference" that I called Beyond My Ken (BMK) a Nazi Apologist. I did not. "Inference" is "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning." What is the evidence?

In my first post to the conversation, having spent some time carefully crafting it, I discovered when I tried to post I got an edit conflict as Slatersteven and BMK had posted several times while I composed, and I was behind. So I revised the post I was working on to place my somewhat belated comments in context. I "prefaced" with the comment, "I am a little behind on your prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland." I used the words "Nazi" and "victory" as they were prominently used in the back and forth posts between Slaterstevenu and BMK. I picked up on the theme. The words "Nazi attack" in my post were simply an "echoing" of the ideas being discussed. An echo nothing more.

The words "Nazi attack" would not be the ones I would use concerning the issue of "successful invasion". "Nazi attack" was not my original thought about the situation. BMK created the discussion section on the Operation Sea Lion talk page and titled it, "Was the Nazi invasion of Poland a success?" The original use of the word "Nazi" in the discussion done BMK.

Further down in the post, the part that I had tried to post but could not due to an edit conflict situation, I rebutted BMK's argument as being that of an apologist. An apologist, and nothing more. (See my previous post about "apologist", it is just a word to characterize a type of argument).

BMK, who clearly by the talk page discussion, at this point was very annoyed because I challenge the word "successful" and wanted a reference for that conclusion. So BMK, while annoyed (perhaps to the point of anger), read my post and wanted to reply. BMK created out of hole-cloth an imagined insult, a personal attack, because I used the word "Nazi" and "apologist" in the same post. Post hoc ergo propter hocer inferring, BMK decided that I said BMK was a "Nazi apologist". That is not true. I did not infer that, BMK inferred that.

To say that I made a personal attack is not true, I had no intent. I did not call BMK a "Nazi apologist". When I saw BMK's post back to me, I thought, "Oh Dear, where did that come from?" I immediately replied with an apology. Sadly BMK did not think it was not sufficient calling it a "nonapology apology". I am sorry that my apology did not satisfy BMK. At this point, I indicated I was no longer willing to engage (considering BMK's emotional state and imaginings). So I "went silent", which many here thought was a very suspicious thing to do. Note in my post, I said that was what I was intended to do. I invoked Godwin's law. And, I was condemned because I was not replying immediately. My speed of thought and action, unfortunately, does not match others in the Wikipedia world.

BMK made a personal attack incident report. And here we are, with me defending myself from an "inferred" personal attack. I have been accused of doing something I did not do by "inference". Is inference adequate proof to make it fact? About this inference, I believe that I should be allowed the "benefit of the doubt".

Osomite ^hablemos 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Osomite, what you wrote is not brief. I will be brief. The Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 was a miltary success. Period. End of story. The way you spoke to BMK was offensive and out of line. Period. You should make an unambiguous apology and behave better in the future. That's it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

And can you explain this [[62]], which seems to be using your user page for promotion of a company that makes paid contributions to Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Osomite's reply was given here. Fences&Windows 01:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the fact that Osomite feels it's appropriate to respond to such a serious question by burying the reply in a sub-page of his userspace speaks volumes. Beyond the fact Osomite is using the page as some sort of random WP:WEBHOST for whatever catches their interest, they seems to think that because Slatersteven found this company mention on the subpage that, somehow, it means Slatersteven must be watching the page for a reply there... rather than sensibly posting a reply here or on a Talk page. I'm not sure if WP:CIR or WP:TEND applies more. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair they also posted it to my talk page [[63]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And we have this [[64]], so it's clear they still do not get it. So much for their applogy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Followed by this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

State of play

So, it's been 10 days since Osomite posted this on Talk:Operation Sealion, which a number of editors here and there have agreed contained personal attacks. I asked for a retraction, and received what I -- and several other editors -- think is a "non-apology apology", but no retraction. Osomite posted two responses here, one of which doubled down by calling me "disingenuous", which means a liar. Several admins have, in this thread, counseled Osomite to retract, but Osomite has refused to do so, though they continue to be active, editing their user pages. I eventually redacted the PAs myself, but would still prefer Osomite to retract them. I don't care about or want an apology, I want the person who insulted and attacked me to take back their attacking words. The two edits cited just above by Slatersteven and myself indicate that Osomite is not interested in doing this.

Is there a sanction of some sort in Osomite's future, for attacking another editor and refusing to retract the attack, or should I file a request for closure, on the assumption that no admin is interested in sanctioning Osomite? Oshwah, Cullen328, you've both commented here, do either of you have any interest in further action? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I am very concerned about Osomite's behavior but am not inclined to take any action at this moment. However, if Osomite engages in further misbehavior along these lines, I will act swiftly. Feel free to ping me at any time, Beyond My Ken. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User Störm

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

---

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

Also raised above at WP:ANI#AfD nominator closing own discussions

I don't like bringing editors to ANI, but in this case I feel it necessary. Last night, I was checking CAT:AFD/U when I noticed that a number of articles about cricketers were being nominated. An example of this is the Waheed Iqbal article. This article is fully referenced, and there are no BLP issues. Other nominated articles that I looked at were in a similar condition. The article was nominated for deletion with the rationale "Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found" despite it having four references. All were being nominated by Störm.

Initially, I warned Störm to stop nominating cricketers at AfD. He agreed not to nominate any more and I suggested that we see how those AfDs already running panned out so that we could assess whether or not my concerns re the nominations were valid. I also raised the issue at WT:CRICKET. Störm then started closing AfD discussions that he had started, such as this one, which Rugbyfan22 raised at Störm's talk page. Discussion at WT:CRICKET#AfD nominations of cricketers revealed that Lugnuts had raised the issue previously with Störm. A look at Störm's talk page history confirms this. Bobo192 raised the issue of these AfDs having the effect of driving away editors at WT:CRICKET, a sentiment I agree with.

To prevent further disruption to the project, I therefore propose that Störm is banned from nominating any article about a cricketer for deletion for a period of six months, and is also permanently formally banned from closing any AfD discussion that he has started. Störm may participate in AfD discussions not started by him. During the ban period, Störm is encouraged to study AfDs in the subject area he is interested in and learns from nominations that fail or succeed, leading to an improvement when he returns to nominating articles at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Storm has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, this was quick considering our agreement that we will wait and see. Your WP:ANI shows your shallow view of the issue at hand (Waheed Iqbal, the prime example you quoted above of my incompetence is sourced entirely with cricket statistic and database websites Cricinfo and CricketArchive which we can use for WP:V but they are not WP:RS and you should take note here. Also, go and read RfC on NCRIC and other related discussions). For your information (Mjroots), I am an active member of WP:CRIC since I joined in 2015 and have created and improved hundreds of articles for the project. I am also nominating cricket-related articles for deletion since long (because I believe in quality rather than quantity and in my view sportspeople bios have overwhelmed the WPs categories because of too-inclusive subjects-specific guidelines) and most of them result in delete or redirect (an admin here may check my last six months AfD record). Störm (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Störm: - Had you not started improperly closing AfDs you created, we probably wouldn't have been here. It is extremely rare for me to start a discussion here, as regulars will confirm. I'm not here to get you blocked or anything like that, but I do feel that this issue does need to be looked at properly. If consensus is that you do not need to be stopped from nominating articles at AfD, then I will accept that. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reply and Question: Mjroots, above you state: If consensus is that you do not need to be stopped from nominating articles at AfD, then I will accept that.. There does not have to be a consensus to not sanction an editor, there needs to be a consensus to sanction an editor and the consensus needs to be supported by a valid reason, which is preventive, not punitive.

Question: what exactly are you trying to prevent Störm from doing at this point?  // Timothy :: talk  18:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• @TimothyBlue: Yes, I could have phrased that better. I wasn't looking to "punish" Störm, as I have made clear on his talk page. Situation turns out not to have been as serious as it first seemed. Nominations are mostly good, it was just the volume of them that was causing an issue. As Störm has voluntarily decided to stop nominating for now, and appreciates the concerns raised re number of nominations at a time, I don't think there's anything more to do here. I'm sure that if Störm does start nominating again, he will be mindful of this and keep the number of articles nominated at a time down to a more managable quantity. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, Thank you, I'm very glad this is working out without any sanction; I know you clearly didn't want to come here for this.  // Timothy :: talk  19:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, I agree with what people have said here regarding my mass nominations. I commit that I will not mass nominate articles in the future and try to limit myself to a reasonable number, say five. Störm (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I know you did this in good faith, but I feel you should have waited and looked at the issue of WP:NCRIC. I accept that some of my nominations were bad and I have made a spate of nominations that I feel I should have avoided. Feedback and outcome here will help me decide my future (if most of admins feel I should be banned then I will leave this place voluntarily). Störm (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• While the articles give the impression of sourcing, they are generally nothing more than statistics and scorecards in a wide-ranging database, so they certainly don't meet the level of SIGCOV or SPORTCRIT. It is also clear that the wider community regards the low bar criteria of many NSPORT guidelines, and specifically NCRIC, as overly permissive, and GNG should be the bar. As such, I have no technical issues with the nominations, however the volume is a huge problem. A 2017 RFC specifically stated it was not an invitation to flood AFD, and that sentiment shouldn't be any different now. There is consensus for alternatives to deletion (e.g. merge/redirect), but it seems (especially from the early closes) that Störm hasn't looked into these before nominating despite have been asked directly. On the odd occasion, it also seems questionable that a reasonably thorough WP:BEFORE has been done. Cricket project members have tried hard to participate in these discussions but this is something like the fourth or fifth wave of nominations now and as Bobo said, it simply becomes too much for some. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  To add to my earlier comment: While the volume of nominations presents an issue and a would support limiting the number of concurrent nominations listed at Delsort/Cricket, the outright disregard for significant or substantial coverage in factory producing these stubs is probably a bigger problem, with any reasonable level of AFD nominations unable to keep pace with creations – it should be noted that the vast majority of Störm's nominations have resulted in delete/merge/redirect. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have no problems with the rationale for the majority of the AfD's that Störm has done. A large majority of them don't have coverage that qualifies them for WP:GNG although common sense on some of them when players have played multiple games should be used. Like Wjemather though I am concerned about the large number of articles that are AfD. I similarly put through a number of rugby union articles at once and was told that it wasn't the correct process and haven't done it again, yet it's almost a daily splurge of AfD's that are difficult to keep up with, especially for members of WP:CRIC, who I am sure have grown tired of not having to comment on every one that comes through, especially with the effort that users like Bobo and Lugnuts have gone to in creating articles in the past. With no consensus on updating WP:NCRIC in a recent discussion also, the timing of all these AfD's is concerning also. If there had been consensus and NCRIC updated so that FC/List-A/T20 matches in top competitions aren't enough to qualify, then AfDing 'some' articles may have been appropriate. Me bring Störm to the noticeboard was only about him closing his own AfD's though, especially with some of them having time to run on their discussions or consensus that was still to be divided. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mjroots for the ping. This issue is not new and has not popped up overnight. But then it went without popping up for 14 years and everyone seemed fine with that. Whatever the issue of conduct relating to AfD discussions, I believe there are two separate arguments being made here and they are at cross-purposes to each other. While trying not to change the subject, the fact that "sportspeople bios have overwhelmed the WPs categories because of too-inclusive subjects-specific guidelines" [sic] shows simply how efficient we have been at creating them over the last 16 years or more. The continued claim that the project is biased towards cricket coverage bears no weight. It might surprise some WP:CRIC project members to know that other sports are covered on Wikipedia too - and, ironically, in much greater and more thorough detail.

For the sake of statistics, Storm's article creation history of 2550 articles, contains 1356 pages with the auto-summary "moved page... to", 672 with "Redirected page to", and six with the words "may refer to". I cannot say anything else regarding the issue. (That is not to say I could not). To be blunt, I would be de-sysopped. Bobo. 09:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the "low bar" of notability criteria for cricket articles, it is identical to that of football, ice hockey, American football, basketball, and baseball. Bobo. 09:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

On that specific last point, they're not equivalent and I don't think anyone seriously claims they are; because of the nature of how global cricket is structured with multiple different variants of the game, a calendar based around international touring, and a culture of top-level clubs giving chances to newcomers, it's far easier for a cricketer to make an appearance "at the highest international or domestic level" than it is in (for example) baseball. That's not to say the notability guidelines are wrong—particularly for international level it's usually reasonable to assume that at minimum "local boy makes good" stories will have appeared in the newspapers—but the structure of cricket isn't equivalent to that of the NFL or the Bundesliga. ‑ Iridescent 10:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Numerically speaking, they are. My query has never been whether they were equivalent to each other. Bobo. 10:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose- firstly, this should have been combined with the other thread. Secondly, oppose a ban on cricketer AfDs because this user does good work in clearing out permastubs about non-notable people. Thirdly, oppose a ban on closing own AfDs because Störm has already agreed to stop doing that- so that a ban at this point would only be a punitive black mark that actually accomplishes nothing behaviour-wise. Reyk _YO! 10:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

If only to make this point in a wider setting, away from the cricket Wikiproject talk page, to consider certain individuals as "non-notable people", whether right or wrong, is a considerable value judgement. and stands square against both subject-specific (CRIN) and overarching (N) guidelines. Reyk, I have no issue with you making this claim, in fact, I'm being surprisingly considerate in the fact that WP: and WT:CRIC may be considered (by some) to be a "walled garden". Bobo. 10:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support AfD ban of some kind for any type of articles. Flooding AfD with dozens of noms can be seen as vexatious, and has driven away at least two very active editors from the project sicne the start of the year. As I've said on Storm's talkpage, I have no issue with them taking any article to AfD, and some of them might well be deleted, but excessive nominating is not the way to do it. A previous RfC closed with the text "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". I see that Storm has been willing to listen to comments, so we're not in WP:IDHT terrority, so if editors think a six-month ban from AfD is too harsh, then prehaps a limit of one AfD per day instead, which I know has been enforced with other editors in the past. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Those of us who have been busy creating articles for all this time have been driven away from doing so and/or completely driven away from the project. Article creation is no longer happening and there is no longer any incentive to do so. Bobo. 11:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Support limit to One AfD per day as per Lugnuts, while I have no problem with there being cricket AfD articles, they have become excessive in number. It's difficult to get a good consensus on these articles when there are upwards of 20 put up a day. Limiting to one a day would allow Storm to continue AfDing but would also allow WP:CRIC members the time to vote on them, whereas trying to find time to vote on 20 AfD's can be difficult for some members. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A limit of one AfD/day is acceptable to me. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable solution to me and will hopefully help improve the level of discussion on cricket articles at AFD, which has dropped of significantly recently. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to accept the limit, if User:Lugnuts also limit their article creation (especially related to cricket) to some reasonable number because they create lookalike permastubs (WP:KITTENS) and are the source of the mess we are in. One article limit is a good deal to User:Lugnuts as it will take much longer to clear their mess. I am willing to limit myself to five articles per day (I did spate of nominations in past only because I usually find limited time as I do all WP:BEFORE work at once and then nominate them at once. I willing to avoid that in future). Störm (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope. If you think there's an issue with my article creations, then feel free to start an ANI thread about it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no issues with the cricket articles Lugnuts creates, they are for current players who are likely to go onto multiple games and gain significant coverage from that. There is no problem with creating stubs, it just needs others with the time/expertise to expand them (users from certain areas will be able to find sources from players from their area or language for example). Over time these stubs can be evaluated if they no longer play and can then be put up for deletion of they've only played one or a few matches and have no coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have closed a number of AfDs filed by Störm that start something like "fails GNG not notable"; however in almost all cases other editors give more substantial arguments for keeping or deleting the article (or in the rare case nobody does, I will typically close as soft delete). I think I'll put him in the same category as John Pack Lambert - "mildly annoying, but that's it". Unless there is a mass exodus of editors upset at seeing all these cricketer bios at AfD - and I don't think there is - any sanctions are more a solution looking for a problem, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support AfD close sanction only Came here after a DRV request. I have more of a problem with the "passes WP:CRIN so GNG is irrelevant" votes at the AfDs than the actual AfDs themselves, especially considering the "when are cricketers notable"/WP:CRIN reform discussion was so all over the place it led me to take a wikibreak. The problem here in my opinion is the AfD closes (I consider the bulk creation of cricket stubs an issue as well, but this is not the right forum for that.) I'd support a light sanction that Störm not be closing any AfD, much less self-closing, which should be obvious. They do not appear to be an administrator, so this should not be a controversial restriction. I don't think there should be a formal sanction about cricket AfDs, but so many of them are open at the moment and they're all Störm-initiated that it is a minor problem, but not necessarily a long-term sanctionable one. I'd strongly recommend letting all of the ones at AfD play out before continuing. SportingFlyer T·C 19:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support AfD close sanction only as outlined above by SportingFlyer. Admins should only be doing uncontroversial closures of AFD, and quite a number of Störm's seem to be controversial. In particular, closing AFDs that you've started or participated in seems to break WP:NACINV. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A sub-point to this is that of the AFDs that Störm has started, a large proportion have been closed with a delete outcome (either delete or redirect). So on that basis, I'm hesitant to support a ban on them creating AFDs, although maybe speed should be slower (as 50 in one day is a lot). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions against Storm; support thanking them instead, per data. There's no need for a don't-close-own-AFDs sanction where Storm has already voluntarily agreed not to do that (as I understand it). W/r/t bulk nominations, I think if we allow bulk creation of stubs based solely on statistics websites, then we should allow bulk AFD nomination as well.
  W/r/t Storm's nominations overall: of the last 116 of Storm's noms that closed (excluding no consensus and open noms), which go back a month or so to Jan 24, 2021, per AFD stats the match was 91.4% [65]. And that's counting merges as non-matching; if we count merges as matching, it goes up to 113/116 or 97.4%! Of the previous 200 noms, which range from March 25, 2020 to Jan 24, 2021, the match percent is 72.1% [66], and counting merges as matching, that goes up to 160/190 or 84.2%. The previous set of 200 runs from Nov 30, 2019 to March 25, 2020, and is 88.5% match [67]. So the data shows Storm's noms are overwhelmingly good, and that Storm's noms over the last month, though more voluminous, are still matching at >90%, which means Storm is actually getting better at choosing which articles to nominate.
  So, I oppose sanctioning Storm for correctly nominating articles; instead, I thank Storm for doing so. Though I will add that it would be better to reduce the number of concurrently-open AFDs in any one topic area: just because you have time to nominate 100 at a time doesn't mean anyone else has time to review that many. I would suggest limiting the number of concurrent open noms by any one editor to some reasonable number per WP:DELSORT list. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I've not checked, but I'd wager a small fortune that a lot of those AfDs had Lambert as the only participant, with his usual deletion !vote. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Like a few has said, I understand what Storm is trying to do but the fact of the matter is, he has been flooding the Afd with all of these which isn't what should you do. For me I also support the limit to One afd per day so the people at WP:CRIC will be able to do these reviews. HawkAussie (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support AfD close sanction - clearly, people shouldn't be closing their own AfDs unless it is to withdraw them as 'speedy keep' so I have no objection to that. I would also support some sort of limit to the number of AfDs that Störm can start in one day. There is no rush whatsoever to get these articles deleted and the risk of flooding AfD with multiple cricketers in a given day is that people will simply not have the time to actually look at the cricketers in question. Recent AfDs show this in that a lot of the responses are simply 'keep because he meets CRICN' or 'delete - fails GNG' but with little useful analysis, which was seen on the earlier ones a lot more. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support one AfD per day sanction - the issue with the AfDs is their sheer volume, which creates essentially no scope for an actual debate on the article, or indeed time to improve the quality of the article, which in many cases is possible and indeed simple with a little bit of sensible online and offline reviewing of sources; this is what leads to one line responses rather than detailed debate on the merits. Essentially the problem stems from a disagreement about what constitutes notability in the case of sportspeople, as none of the AfDs are for players who have not played a List A or first class match. However, this isn't a discussion which should really be played out through individual AfDs, but across Wikipedia as a whole, as the criteria for cricket are actually more restrictive than for many other sports (see WP:NGRIDIRON, where a single Arena Football (not NFL) match is sufficient; or WP:NFOOTY, where a single match in the Moldovan National Division or the Myanmar National League would be sufficient. One AfD per day would allow this debate to happen. DevaCat1 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Even more absurdly, in football, you can pass the SNG with just a few seconds of professional football. There have been many deleted recently that had less than a minute of football and almost zero apparent coverage. At least in cricket you usually need to at least see out the one match to claim that status of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have decided to leave the WP:CRIC and will never AfD any cricket article in future nor I will participate in their discussion or close any AfD. If it is acceptable to community then I will continue with WP else I will leave as it will be shame if I get any type of block as I never mean it. Will appreciate the feedback. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Störm, you don’t mean that, that’s just hasty, & unnecessary tbh. I’m not sure how I feel about you closing AFD’s you started, which is a default no no, except you are withdrawing & speedy keeping it. However, I oppose any sanctions on you seeing as a simple warning would suffice and generally, you do very decent work. It’s a good thing the perfection threshold is impossible to meet. So just take a deep breath before commenting any further. Celestina007 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's completely fine for you to edit Wikipedia, and would hate to see you split over this; my only "beef", so to speak, is huge waves of AfD nominations. jp×g 05:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions, as I believe a detailed warning should be adequate here. A sanction would punitive as the “problem” isn’t ongoing. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Propose limit of 3 AfD closes per day, for his next dozen AfD closes. There is no great crime, just a reminder to close carefully needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support limit to one AfD per day - I can say from experience and observation that a single person flooding a topic area with a mass amount of AfD nominations in a short amount of time is almost never a good thing (regardless of percieved or assumed cruft), except maybe in certain cases of obvious violations of recent mass consensus or something to that effect (And even then, it shouldn't be just one or two editors doing the nominating). In this case, the user seems to be mass-using copy/paste cookie cutter rationales like "Fails GNG, no coverage found" (volume of nominations + lack of variation in rationales = it's dubious that the nom is actually adhering to GNG and WP:NEXIST, or that anyone had time to properly assess the articles). Then there's the more blatant conflict of interest of closing your own AfDs, which is red flag #3. Darkknight2149 08:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support limiting the rate of nominations: looking through their AfD nominations, we see that between 2021-02-25T12:05:42 and 2021-02-25T12:14:14 there are a whopping 13 noms in less than ten minutes, some of them as little as 18 seconds apart. This would perhaps be understandable if they were obvious garbage, but looking at the actual outcome of that string, only eight (57%) of them closed as Delete. And it might seem like a "had them queued up" situation, but it is part of a recurring pattern (on February 1, they nominated a whopping 30 articles in a span of less than 20 minutes). AfD is clogged up enough as it is; it doesn't need to be deluged by a firehose of slapdash nominations. jp×g 05:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  Across 200 nominations made between Jan 24, 2021 and February 26, 2021, Storm's match rate was 84.4% [68]. During that same period of time, according to PetScan, 66 new articles with {{infobox cricketer}} were created [69], including stat-box stubs copied from ESPN Cricinfo like [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. Rate limiting deletion nominations without rate limiting creations seems unwise. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Between January 1, 2021, and January 24, 2021, there were 102 new articles with {{Infobox cricketer}} created [75], including [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  In the last two weeks, between February 26, 2021 and today, March 9, 2021, 73 new articles with {{infobox cricketer}} were created [81], including [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich: When someone is filing a copious amount of AfDs with cookie-cutter rationales within a short period of time, deletion match rates are both irrelevant and misleading. At the rate that Störm is filing AfDs, it is highly unlikely that deletion procedure is being followed correctly or that deletion criteria (such as WP:GNG) is actually being adhered to. There's no reason for any single editor to be filing AfDs at that rate by themselves, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone had time to properly assess all of these articles (and the quality of sourcing and writing in an article ain't a reason to delete). Similarly, a barrage of poorly conceived noms can lead to fast closures and bandwagon voting. Coupled with Störm closing his own nominations, some sort of cap is clearly needed. Darkknight2149 02:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'd rather cap the WP:KITTENS. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  I actually wouldn't mind that. Darkknight2149 02:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction, per Levivich data above. Storm is clearly doing good work and Levich has clearly demonstrated this. Oppose a ban on closing own AfDs because Störm has already agreed to stop so a sanction would be not be prevenative. Why a good faith editor with a successful AfD rate is being put through this is very objectionable. This should be closed as nothing has been shown to justify any sanction (other than successful AfDs).  // Timothy :: talk  18:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction for Störm, per Levivich's analysis. Also Oppose Störm being restricted—or feeling forced to self-restrict for placatory purposes—from nominating non-notable articles for deletion: rather, we should be getting a nice tall ladder, propping it up against WP:NCRIC, and letting ANYBIO climb all over that walled garden. ——Serial 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

PailSimon

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

---

PailSimon
@TucanHolmes, Citobun, Mikehawk10, Jancarcu, NoonIcarus, My very best wishes, Horse Eye's Back, Czello, and Oranjelo100:
Uyghur genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a discussion on the talk page of Talk:Uyghur genocide#PailSimon, POV editing, misleading edit summaries, and removal of sourced content regarding POV editing, misleading edit summaries, removal of sourced content by PailSimon. Several editor expressed that this should be brought to ANI, so I am bringing it here. PailSimon has been bludgeoning on the talk page and generally is creating a battleground on the article to push their POV.

Examples: [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107]

Misleading or False edit summaries: [108], [109], [110], [111].

Citobun and myself (and I believe Horse Eye's Back) have expressed concerns that this problem is not limited to this article, but is occuring on other pages as well. I had hopes after the talk page discussion this might stop before ANI, but they have continued this morning, dispite multipe editor expressing strong concerns in the talk page discussion.

This was the edit and edit summary that originally peaked me attention, [112] (claiming NPR was a deprecated source as an excuse to remove content), followed up with [113].

Since several editors requested this to be brought here [114], [115], [116], [117], [118] (which I support) I have done so. PailSimon has also had multiple editors leave warnings regarding this problem on their talk page User talk:PailSimon#February 2021. I have pinged the editors that seem most involved but there are others as well.  // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PailSimon

This is just a preliminary note to say I will go through each of those edits one by one and do my best to clearly explain my rationale behind them while also addressing some of the more bizarre accusations (misleading edit summaries).PailSimon (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No.1 As you can see from the edit summary I thought it WP:UNDUE to emphasis the opinion of one single nation to the extent that it was being emphasized.

No.2 The first part removed was collateral damage and I did not object to it's inclusion (Horse Eye's Back later readded the first part with no objection from myself). The issue was the second paragraph added which was later unilaterally agreed on the talk page to be removed due to sourcing issues etc.

No.3 As I have said on the talk page I mistakenly believed the user to be citing The Sun. This was a mistake on my part and it is worth pointing out (as I have pointed out above) that I did not object to its re-addition when Horse Eye's Back re-added it.

No.4 As pointed out in the edit summary the section in question was statements from countries and the organization in question is not a country.

No.5 I don't see how this is an objectionable edit from an standpoint given my explanation in the edit summary. Is it bad to restore the consensus version?

No.6 ibid

No.7 ibid

No.8 I do not really understand what could possibly be the issue with this edit.

No.9 The content was unrelated to the subject of the article given that it was referring to the 2009 Urumqi riots and not the present Chinese attitude to the Uyghurs which is what the article is about.

No.10 No clue what's so horrible about this edit either.

No.11 ibid

No.12 I don't see how avoiding WP:OVERCAT is a bad thing.

No.13 I think the edit summary speaks for itself here.

No.14 ibid

No.15 WP:ATTRIBUTION was being followed here

No.16 I was encouraging the user to stop edit warring and seek consensus on talk page per BRD.

No.17 The Sun is a deprecated source.

No.18 Edit summary speaks for itself. I am not sure how the addition of sourced content is objectionable in this case.

No.19 See No.5

No.20 I fixed a redundant statement as per the edit sumamry.

No.21 See No.5

I really dont understand what's so awful about any of these edits that warrants this being brought to ANI.PailSimon (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Misleading or False edit summaries" - No.1 See No.3 answer in post above. No.2 I have zero idea how this is misleading. I even asked TimothyBlue to explain to me what was misleading about it but he refused to do so for whatever reason. No.3 ibid No.4 ibid PailSimon (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TimothyBlue

I think PailSimon has the potential to be a good editor; I did not want to see this come to this point. But I believe the above shows a clear pattern of POV pushing and DE related to this article and as a whole I think the problem extends to China in general. As I said in the OP, I had hoped the talk page discussion would be enough to stop this problem, but I don't believe there is any indication from PailSimon that they are WP:LISTENing to other editors concerns about their editing. I believe if some help is provided at this point, possibly with a mentor, a productive editor will emerge. But if the above pattern is not addressed, it will only affirm the behavior, it will get worse and a potentially good editor will be lost.

I would like to see PailSimon voluntarily agree to abstain from working on articles related to China/Central Asia, get an experienced (uninvolved) mentor, and focus on making positive contributions to articles in other areas. This would avoid having to place a negative mark on their record and it could be reviewed at 6m with input from their mentor if the problem does not repeat in other areas. I almost always think editors should be given the opportunity to voluntarily work on a problem, rather than receive a bad mark; PailSimon should be afforded this opportunity.

PailSimon, I know there are some subject areas I am interested in, but it would only result in problems if I go there. It wouldn't be productive to edit in these areas and it certainly wouldn't be enjoyable. An example: I'm gay and I'd be banned in less than a week if I decided to edit articles related to LGBT issues (I become positively unglued over anti-lgbt userboxes, I don't even both reporting them). So these areas I've decided to stay away from, not because I have to, but because I know its the best for me. I don't read these articles, I don't engage in discussions, I just stay away and avoid the pain and problems (I know this example is different from the current issue, but you see my point). I think your responses show you have a blind spot in the CHina area (again as we all do in some areas). One of the best lessons I've learned is to know what articles I need to leave alone for others to work on.

Also please don't see the idea of having a mentor as in anyway negative (I have adopted two, CaptainEek and El C); its very helpful and even admins like CaptainEek have more experienced editors they look to as mentors.

I offer this advice with nothing but goodwill; please consider it, no need to directly respond. The items I've bolded above are directly specifically to you, again with goodwill.  // Timothy :: talk  22:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In light of recent developments and this thread I strike my comments. See my proposal below.  // Timothy :: talk  21:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see have me applying WP:ATTRIBUTION, WP:COATRACK, WP:CONSENSUS, removing deprecated sources etc justifies this whole overblown song and dance. It seems to me like you're just making a mountain over a molehill. Perhaps if you explained what was so awful about the above?PailSimon (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The speedy reply shows you didn't even bother to take time to WP:LISTEN and consider my post; this is in the hands of the community at this point, they can consider your editing and responses.  // Timothy :: talk  22:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Consider what exactly? You haven't said anything substantial beyond "take a step away for some vague reason". Step away because why exactly? Because I have removed deprecated sources and enforced WP:CONSENSUS? The fact that you're taking me to ANI over removing deprecated sources among other things means it's hard to assume good faith. I would also note that you didn't answer my question PailSimon (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Mikehawk10

To give a bit of background as to my involvement on the Uyghur genocide article, I was the one who initially created it as a new editor as a part of a class assignment in 2019. That class has since terminated, and I have gained a bunch more experience on Wikipedia since then. The class generally sparked an interest of mine in the topic area, and I've kept following it in the news, as the facts on the ground have changed into what we have access to now. After a decent amount of time away from Wikipedia, I returned and then began to edit articles, including ones related to the topic area.

From the beginning of PailSimon's disruptive edits on the page, it is clear that the user has engaged in prohibited POVPUSHing. PailSimon appears to have become involved in the Uyghur genocide article around December of 2020, when the user made an edit that removed a use of the term "Uyghur genocide" and instead substituted "Chinese policies towards the Uyghurs" as a descriptor of the same actions in its place. PailSimon appears to have first edited the corresponding talk page on December 9, 2020. The first day on the talk page, PailSimon declared that, "Wikipedia has no standards when it comes to China or any other geopolitical competitor of the West unfortunately."

The editor has continued to edit with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset in mind ever since this point. The editor has subsequently affirmed that they do not believe that a genocide is occurring in Xinjiang, writing that the Uyghur genocide is "just accusations." This is certainly their right as an individual. However, editors are required to make edits to Wikipedia that improve articles in line with information provided by reliable sources, not simply their opinions, and PailSimon has crossed several lines and repeatedly violated policies against disruptive editing in pushing their own viewpoint, as described in the initial report and as I recapitulate below.

The editor has removed information cited from perennial reliable sources that contradict the editor's preferred narrative that no genocide is occurring, including edits (1, 2, 3) that repeatedly removed information sourced from National Public Radio and provided misleading edit summaries in doing so. The lattermost of those edits also removed content sourced from The Independent that document medical experimentation performed on Uyghurs by the Chinese Government. In another series of edits, the user changed language in the article to cast doubt upon reporting, replacing the word "mentioned" with "claimed," which goes against advice listed in MOS:CLAIM. After these edits were reverted by Horse Eye's Back, PailSimon reverted HEB's reversion.

The user has also added palpably false information to the article, even when sources already present state the opposite. One example is this edit, in which PailSimon inserted that "the ruling Liberal Party [did] not [cast] a vote either way" on Canada's non-binding recognition statement. This was an addition of false information contradicted by sources already present in the article, and this addition may have served to cast doubt upon Canada's actions as a result of this false information being included. I don't see a reason why this could have been added if the editor had done their due diligence. Later, after the Dutch Parliament issued a similar resolution, PailSimon attempted to remove information from the lead relating both to the Dutch and Canadian Parliament votes.

The editor has casted aspersions in edit summaries, including here, where PailSimon bizarrely accused NoonIcarus of disruptive editing.

Overall, it has become clear to me that PailSimon has been engaging in a WP:POVPUSH that has risen to the level of disruptive editing. I believe that administrative intervention is justified given the current situation and that a topic ban may be appropriate given the history of POV pushing. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There isn't very much different in this statement to Timothy Blues statement so see my own statement above for a response. To respond to the "adding false information" charge, I misread the source admitantly and thought it said that the Liberal Party MPs abstained when in fact it was only the Liberal Party Cabinet that abstained. This was a legitimate mistake on my part and doesn't really deserve all the hoo-ha that Mike is churning up. PailSimon (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And also you have cited one of my edits as violating MOS:CLAIM when in reality it supports my edits - "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." PailSimon (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NoonIcarus

Before commenting, I'll point out that PailSimon currently has an open sockpuppet investigation request (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician) that I believe should be taken into account in the discussion.

That being said, and seeking not to repeat much of what has been said, in brief PailSimon has demonstrated disruptive editing and edit warring that needs administrative intervention to stop. They have blanked warnings issued against them in their talk page and accussed other editors of disruptive editing, but has decried WP:WIKIHOUNDING and "harassment" when their behaviour has been scrutinized.

For these reasons I think that a ban is an appropriate measure to address the issue and fully support it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jancarcu

Due to time constraints and a lack of personal involvement on my part in this issue, I will be abstaining from detailed comment on this issue. Some of PailSimon's edits and behaviours are concerning, while others may be justified. Jancarcu (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Citobun

I was not involved in any of the many disputes at Uyghur genocide. I commented on the talk page discussion that I had also observed a consistent pattern of POV editing by PailSimon on other China-related topics (e.g. Hong Kong and Taiwan), coupled with the use of misleading/disingenuous edit summaries, and provided diffs to support those claims. PailSimon responded in part with a baseless personal attack, accusing me of being a "a Hong Kong localist" with "a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible". A serious accusation, absent any evidence, which is patently untrue. That pretty much sums up his POV-driven battleground mentality toward Wikipedia. He similarly cast aspersions against User:TimothyBlue ([119]) and does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, but to shift the narrative on content he views as "demonising China" via edit warring/page-policing (as at Uyghur genocide), and by casting aspersions against those who question such POV editing. So I agree with OP's concerns and also object strongly to PailSimon's baseless personal attacks against myself and others. Citobun (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Its ironic to me that your evidencless post above accuses me of casting aspersions when you've done exactly that. PailSimon (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The evidence is in my original comment, to which I provided a link. Citobun (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

In which case see my own response to it.PailSimon (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

To which I replied thusly. BTW, to get back on topic – I'd like to note that you've still not retracted your baseless personal attacks despite being alerted to Wikipedia policy on the matter. Citobun (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

SeePailSimon (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you really just re-link to the personal attack rather than retract it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing there that's a personal attack.PailSimon (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

How is that not a personal attack? The difference has already been explained to you. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Calling somebody a "Hong Kong localist" is an objective description, its not intended to be a value-laden judgment or an insult or any sort of inditement.PailSimon (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Is that why you followed it up by accusing me of possessing "a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible"? Because that isn't a "value-laden judgement" nor an inditement? Good lord. What disingenuous nonsense. You seem to be incapable of knowing when to stop, and I hope you are indefinitely banned sooner rather than later. Citobun (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

On a side note, PailSimon did not provide any evidence for their accusations. This is getting ridiculous. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TucanHolmes

This is coming in a bit late, but I couldn't find the time to formulate my statement sooner.

I regularly check the Uyghur genocide article for vandalism and patent nonsense, as well as bad-faith and POV edits (which, with such a topic, happen quite often). From what I've seen, PailSimon's edits are definitely aimed at softening any accusations (for example, they repeatedly tried to cut or remove a sourced section about medical experiments, see [120] and [121]), and numerous edits already mentioned in this notice (which I won't relist here) reveal a clear POV. It's not a radical one (they are not outright denying human rights abuses), but it's... favourable towards China, and they seem hell-bent on rewording the lead in a way that focusses less on the genocidal character of the human rights abuses carried out in Xinjang. Their POV-pushing (as far as I can tell) isn't blatant; they usually employ subtler tactics (e.g. misleading edit summaries, see the other statements and comments). Some of their edits are legitimate (like removing G4 categories or removing unreliable sources), which makes it difficult to discern whether their non-legitimate edits were in good or bad faith.

Comments by other editors

• Comment: In the list of diffs, I see some legitimate edits (e.g. removal of a G4/CfD category) and some illegitimate edits (e.g. mischaracterization of a source as deprecated). A more detailed listing of diffs with why those edits may have issues (e.g. similar to PailSimon's diff-by-diff response) might be helpful for examining a broader pattern, since not all of the diffs given in the original post are problematic. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey MarkH21, I've tried to do this in my statement. Is that more along the lines of what you are looking for?— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Question @TimothyBlue: What action are you expecting from ANI? Jerm (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Hi Jerm, sorry for the late reply I have limited internet and my mind is foggy atm (see my userpage for an explanation).

At this point I'd like to see PS banned from China related articles and generally placed on a 1RR restriction, advised to find an uninvolved experienced mentor, and be warned about POV pushing, LISTENing, misleading edit summaries, edit warring, and battlegrounding. (I actually inquired with El C if the page could entirely be placed on a 1RR restriction).

I'll give a final example of the battlegrounding, misleading statements, edit warring and POV pushing.

• 23:42, 25 February 2021 Content is added by Mikehawk10 [122] with the no objection from other editors.
• 08:51, 27 February 2021 Pail Simon removes the content [123] with a misleading edit summary
• 11:26, 27 February 2021 I start a talk page discussion about restoring the content [124]. Two other editors support the restoration.
• 16:09, 28 February 2021 Content is restored by Mikehawk10 per support of three editors on the talk page discussion [125]
• 03:45, 1 March 2021 PailSimon again removes the content [126] with a misleading edit summary.
• 08:48, 1 March 2021 it is restored by forth editor My very best wishes [127]
• 11:35, 1 March 2021 PS again removes the content [128] with an insulting and misleading edit summary.

This has continued right up to now, dispite the talk page discussion and this ANI thread.

Here they are directly edit warring with four other editors. This edit warring alone should be enough for a block. They've engaged in a similar pattern with others. Combined with the other examples above, I believe it merits the sanction I propose for DE.

They have shown no indication they are willing to LISTEN in anyway to others, either here or on article talk pages.

From the above comments and talk page discussions, I am clearly not alone in believing this is a serious problem. I count Czello, Mikehawk10, Normchou, TucanHolmes, El C, Citobun, Jancarcu, NoonIcarus, Horse Eye's Back, My very best wishes, Oranjelo100 plus myself (12 editors) that have recently expressed significant concerns about Pail Simon. The excuses they have given above are simply not believable when the entire pattern is taken into consideration.  // Timothy :: talk  20:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The constant edit warring alone is enough for a block. I would support a topic ban and/or a long-term block but not indefinitely, thanks for the response TimothyBlue. Jerm (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Jerm They have placed an edit warring notice on my talk page. My patience is over. This is now NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  21:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: This is a completely disingenuous account of the dispute. The content in question has been the result of multiple previous talk page discussions (conveniently omitted here) which concluded that the text in question not be included. This is the relevant context that has been ignored here PailSimon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Just as a clarifying note, I only "restored" the page after seeing that the lede had been partially restored on Feb. 28 by another editor. I've also been subject to a bizarre edit warring template being placed on my page by PailSimon for allegedly engaging in "repeated edit warring." — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

See my above reply to TimothyBlue. PailSimon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It should be noted that Africa–China_relations is another article where PS has been actively challenging other editors. In particular, in this conversation, they seemed self-absorbed purely in the process of editorial decisions as a tool to prevent valid edits from being made—e.g., repeating you need to gain a consensus or something in that line without showing any interest in elaborating what actually prevented a consensus from being reached. Normchou ^💬 20:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC); edited 02:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We have reached a very strange point if we are now attacking other editors for discouraging edit warring.... PailSimon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Pail Simon may believe that he/she is doing the right thing, but they are clearly ignoring arguments from other editors. The changes seem to reflect his/her own worldview and not Wikipedia policies. I would advise him/her to step away from the article, and stop reverting all the changes. Dimadick (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Brief note by El_C

I'd like to note that I have also found my interactions with PailSimon on that article talk page to have been, erm, challenging (diff). El_C 18:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I should have handled myself better there I will admit.PailSimon (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Breif note by Czello

Unfortunately PailSimon is still being a bit WP:BATTLEGROUND-y with his edit summaries. This was unhelpful and the edit he was undoing was not disruptive behaviour. There is a lot of content on that talk page and it's more than likely that My very best wishes simply missed it; given how often he calls edits he doesn't like "disruptive" I would advise that he reads WP:AGF on priority. — Czello 19:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

All you have to do is look on the talk page to see at least two previous talk page discussions regarding the lead. If My very best wishes is not bothered to go and look then he should not be editing the article.PailSimon (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@PailSimon: Once again, you fail to understand WP:AGF. He may well have looked and simply missed it -- don't assume that he simply "couldn't be bothered". In fact, his edit summary makes it clear that he did look. Labeling good-faith edits as disruptive when they're clearly not is one of the reasons you're here right now: given how polite he was in his edit summary, only for you to react like this, can you see why some of us think you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? — Czello 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no way he could have missed it if he actually surveyed the talk page properly, one of the sections is even titled "Revised lede" which is a major hint to say the least. He may have lazily glanced over it but its really impossible to miss if you actually take the time to read the talk page properly. When somebody acts like this its difficult to assume good faith even though you may want to.PailSimon (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@PailSimon: The talk page isn't small, dude. There are currently 32 headings on there. It's very easy to miss a specific conversation. That's why we AGF when someone politely says they couldn't see it. — Czello 21:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If you actually look through it, as opposed to briefly skimming it really is not.PailSimon (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@PailSimon: Do you not think your absolute refusal to see things from other editors' perspectives (and again, your absolute refusal to assume good faith) is at all a problem here? — Czello 21:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't confuse me not agreeing with you as not seeing things from other's perspective, something I don't see you doing here with me. I get the sense that you're more focused on pointing and wagging the finger at me than anything else. PailSimon (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon Honestly I think you dug your own grave with this one. All you had to do was be civil to other editors, AGF, and not try to turn Wikipedia into a battleground. I hope when you come back to the page a month from now you'll have taken this on board. It could be worth reading WP:OWN while you're at it. — Czello 08:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have always attempted to assume good faith unless when presented with strong evidence to the contrary. Perhaps if you did the same with me there would be less issues.PailSimon (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This thread, and your editing history, shows you're not doing a good enough job of assuming good faith. Perhaps if you did the same with me there would be less issues -- you realise that you are the common factor in these "issues", right? — Czello 13:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well as WP:AGF says - "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism".PailSimon (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not evidence to the contrary, or vandalism. — Czello 18:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well that's your personal opinion and unfortunately we are going to have to agree to disagree.PailSimon (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

False edit warring notice placed by PailSimon

PailSimon has placed an false edit warring notice on my talk page [129]. I have reverted this edit exactly once and it was with the support of four editors. Taken with the above comments towards others, they are clearly harrassing editors now.  // Timothy :: talk  21:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon really needs to take a time out from editing this page. This is just sheer WP:BATTLEGROUND editing now. — Czello 21:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing false about it (see reply in the 'Comments by other editors' section) PailSimon (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That section makes it fairly clear that you're the one edit warring. — Czello 08:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Only if you never bothered to read my reply.PailSimon (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for NOTHERE block

The false edit warring notice placed by PailSimon on my talk page is the last straw for me.

Per to the above comments regarding:

• Battlegrounding
• POV pushing
• Edit warring
• Refusal to LISTEN here and on talk pages
• DE on Uyghur genocide
• Leaving false edit warring notices on editor talk pages

I propose PailSimon be blocked as NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  21:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked - discussion may continue I agree the edit-warring notice placed on your page after a single revert, given PailSimon had reverted three times today, is the last straw. I have partially blocked them from Uyghur genocide for one month whilst this discussion continues. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite beat me to it. I endorse this block. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: This is not his first revert.PailSimon (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It is in the last 24 hours, during which time you have reverted three times. Looking at the last month, he has made five reverts; you have made 21. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Endorse partial block per this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

These are all nonsense accusations debunked above.PailSimon (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have doubts as to the efficacy of partial blocks or TBANS for PS. My impression is that this user feels they are always right. No one is always right, not even me. Their responses here do not engender confidence. If others agree, I would endorse a WP:CBAN for WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. It is always to be hoped that lesser measures will prove effective, but that would depend on the user's willingness to learn and grow. Just don't see it. If CBANned, I would encourage the user to edit constructively on other Wikipedias/WIkimedia projects and then appeal the CBAN in six months. (Assuming they are not blocked elsewhere. Haven't looked.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"My impression is that this user feels they are always right." - I have actually admitted I was wrong at least two times during this discussion.PailSimon (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I'd be in favour of this. I had hoped this ANI would make PailSimon realise where he went wrong, but he seems to be mostly unrelenting in his ways. I have no reason to believe he'll be any better in a week's time after the current partial block ends. And between then and now I suspect he'll just take his battleground mentality to other articles (such as the aforementioned Africa-China relations article). I haven't seen him seriously address the bullet list above by TimothyBlue, which makes me think he's suffering from a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Czello 09:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support the block They did something similar on the talk page of another editor, Amigao, regarding the Africa–China relations article mentioned above. The revision history of that article, however, shows PS was actually more involved in edit-warring behavior, making iffy edits and overriding others' edits. Their tendency of using the process/procedure merely as a tool to prevent valid edits from being made is a worrisome signal pointing to WP:NOTHERE. Normchou ^💬 02:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yea reverting back to the stable version will never be edit warring no matter how much you spin it.PailSimon (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You keep calling it the "stable version" -- I'm not sure you know what that means. There are now 5+ editors who are against you on this. You don't WP:OWN the page. — Czello 09:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Only two editors (originally one) opposed on that page. Please follow the discussion carefully.PailSimon (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Only two opposed it? So you agree that consensus is now in favour of including the lead? — Czello 10:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Again you need to follow and read things carefully. You're confusing two different pages here.PailSimon (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I misread there -- though my point stands about your definition of "stable version", which found it's way onto the Uyghur article. — Czello 13:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It really does not if you look at the talk page history going back months.PailSimon (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. — Czello 17:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Luckily for me it has not then.PailSimon (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Czello, you are correct that 5+ editors have supported inclusion of the content: TimothyBlue and Czello (obviously opposed), Oranjelo100,[130] Mikehawk10,[131] My very best wishes,[132]. I'm sure others would have expressly supported, but didn't both to comment because the consensus was clear. Two admins saw this and imposed a block on PS for edit warring. Now they are just being a timesink disputing what is obvious.  // Timothy :: talk  16:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. As I have reiterated there are multiple previous talk page discussions regarding that very lead introduction which concluded that it should not be included. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge their existence does not change that.PailSimon (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we and PailSimon are talking about two different things. You and I are talking about the lead for the Uyghur genocide article, whereas he's talking about the Africa-China relations article. Either way, where you and I are concerned, we now have a consensus to include the lead on the Uyghur genocide article, contrary to what PailSimon believes. — Czello 17:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No you're still confused.PailSimon (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• PailSimon, You stated above: "reverting back to the stable version will never be edit warring",[133] - you know this is false and you have been told by multiple admins and editors it is false.  // Timothy :: talk  16:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

See my above response.PailSimon (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support either an indef NOTHERE block for PailSimon or a siteban, per the evidence provided above. Nsk92 (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from any articles related to China or Hong Kong at minimum, per the diffs evidenced by Citobun here. Not familiar with their broader editing in regards to a site ban (it should be noted that a NOTHERE block as a result of community discussion is a community site ban). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, having taken a look at some of the talk page comments and removal of sourced material diffs (at the same link) compiled by Timothy and Citobun I'd also support a site ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Which sourced material diffs are you referring to?PailSimon (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: continuing this thread in the below section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support a WP:NOTHERE ban or (at minimum) a topic ban from China-related subjects per the evidence presented above and at Talk:Uyghur genocide. Citobun (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support a WP:NOTHERE ban per evidence above. At minimum (agreeing with Citobun), I think a minimum topic ban from China-related articles is needed. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support reluctantly the ban (making clearer what I said above). I was hoping PailSimon would see where he went wrong, but this thread has seen him double-down resort to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This could have been a wake-up call for him, as I think there is a good editor somewhere in there, but his obstinacy has shown that he might not be compatible with the project. — Czello 13:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have admitted I was wrong on four separate occasions during this discussion.PailSimon (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you have, well done -- but there have been other areas where you doubled-down: such as the aforementioned labeling of good faith edits as disruptive, for example. — Czello 14:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support a WP:NOTHERE ban per the evidence presented here, and the fact that their POV-pushing is achieved by gaming the system (esp. abusing copyright and reliable sources policies, mixed with misleading edit summaries) which necessitates the assumption that their editing is done in bad faith, thus destroying the foundation that allows editors to work collaboratively, i.e. every one of their edits has to be checked in the future. They also refuse to back down, or even just retract personal attacks. In short, their behaviour is incompatible with Wikipedia as a project. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have backed down and retracted personal attacks during this very discussion. Have you even read it? If you had you would have seen it.PailSimon (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This is misleading. You have not retracted the personal attack noted in the section below. Citobun (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support at the very least a WP:TBAN on China-related articles, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support block per Timothy or any other sanctions that others suggest. That user just does not seem to be a "net positive" for the project, being significantly involved in POV editing and conflicts with other users. And this is not just Uyghurs in China, but whitewashing crimes by communist regimes which they committed against minorities. For example, [134],[135],[136]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE and the provided reasons above. I ask that special attention is given to the current related open sockpuppet investigation request (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on China-related articles, broadly construed, per the above. I would be OK with an indefinite WP:NOTHERE ban, though I don't think it's the most narrowly tailored preventative solution. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon is still defending his personal attacks, against which no action has been taken

The personal attack in question. His continuing defence of this personal attack. Please just ban this person on blatant WP:NOTHERE grounds and a seeming inability to acknowledge Wikipedia policy or admit to any wrongdoings. Citobun (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont see how calling you a Hong Kong localist is a personal attack, either way it was not intended as one. I have "a seeming inability to acknowledge Wikipedia policy or admit to any wrongdoings"? I have admitted I was wrong at least three times on this page alone and on multiple occasions on other pages. What are you talking about?PailSimon (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So retract the personal attacks against me and TimothyBlue and apologise. Easy. And please stop the disingenuous replies. You did not merely call me a "Hong Kong localist". Citobun (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

What personal attack have I made against TimothyBlue? I don't understand what you're referring to here. Its true that I did not merely call you a Hong Kong localist but that's what I called you here and nothing else. Let stop veering off topic.PailSimon (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have a feeling you know what I am referring to, considering I already commented on your personal attack against TimothyBlue and you replied to me. So just so we're clear: it has been explained to you what constitutes a personal attack, it has been repeatedly explained to you that you have made personal attacks, and you remain unrepentant. Citobun (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well first I have to actually know what you're referring to but now that I know what is being discussed yes I do retract that TimothyBlue comment and apologize to said user.PailSimon (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That comment appears a personal attack per WP:NPA bullets #2 and #3. However, it does need to be considered in context, which was this comment. I've taken a skim through the diffs listed by Citobun in that discussion. By themselves they obviously demonstrate a pattern of diluting words, which I don't think alone is problematic, but the diluted words no longer represent the sources accurately, which is a problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain by what you mean when you say I dilute words?PailSimon (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. For example this diff even though the source says "sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong" (the new wording appears to make the law seem more legitimate than the source does). Here where the source says "And it was the latest in a quick series of aggressive moves by the pro-Beijing establishment that had the effect of sidelining the pro-democracy movement." And here, more of the same. I'm willing to assume good faith on some of the other dilutions, for example on the argument that the source picked may be biased, or is a primary source, which is true for some of them. But for the 3 examples I cite, and various others, it isn't really true and it's hard to AGF that this is just an attempt to 'restore NPOV', because these edits don't actually represent the sources at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Those were copyright violations.PailSimon (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Article: The national security law imposed by China on Hong Kong, has curtailed free speech of Hong Kongers both, within the territory and abroad.

Source: The national security law that China has imposed on Hong Kong is already curtailing speech in the territory

Your edit: It has been described as curtailing free speech of Hong Kongers both, within the territory and abroad.

2. Article: anyone criticizing China and traveling to Hong Kong automatically becomes potentially eligible to be arrested

Source: Anyone who criticises China and travels to Hong Kong is potentially at risk of arrest under the new law.

Your edit: anyone violating the law and traveling to Hong Kong automatically becomes potentially eligible to be arrested.

3. Article: on a wave of massive protests against the government and concerns about the sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong.

Source: sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong

Your edit: on a wave of massive protests against the government and concerns about the sweeping new national security law legislated by the Beijing government.

You were correcting copyright violations? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The third edit you list is evidently a copyright violation as both the source and the article contain the phrase "sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong". The first edit was just me applying WP:ATTRIBUTION and the second one was improved wording as the content was vague (what on earth does criticising china mean in this context?)PailSimon (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That is in no way a copyright violation; re-using a single phrase misses the bar for that by a country mile. I am less and less inclined to assume good faith, and believe this is an instance of Gaming the system. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If I read WP:COPYVIO I get the impression that copying word for word an 11 word long phrase counts as a copyvio. PailSimon (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This does not violate copyright; for that matter, it's not even plagiarism. Per Wikipedia:Plagiarism § What is not plagiarism:

Plagiarism is less a concern where the content both lacks creativity and where the facts and ideas being offered are common knowledge. [...] phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information [...] lack sufficient creativity to require attribution.

Besides, this is a red herring: If it was the copyright violation you were concerned about, rewording it in such a minor way doesn't change anything.

Please stop Wikilawyering! It is obvious that you're using these guidelines as cover for POV editing. You're wasting everyone's time (including your own). TucanHolmes (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO makes clear that this is a copyvio. You're not allowed to copy and paste sentences into articles from sources.PailSimon (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if we assume that this is a copyright violation (I would argue it isn't), this doesn't change the fact that your edits don't address that issue. From the policy you yourself cited:

Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism.

As I've mentioned above, this is a red herring. ProcrastinatingReader already asked you that same question in the beginning, and I've now explained the problem in excruciating detail, yet you still haven't answered anything; you're deflecting. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be right and I should have rephrased it more thoroughly to deal with the copyright problem.PailSimon (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no copyvio. But by your own admission above all you did was insert your POV, you did not correct what you are claiming is a copyright problem.  // Timothy :: talk  13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There certainly was a copyvio (that is evident per the above TucanHolmes provided copyvio quotation) and I attempted to fix it although it was a somewhat inadequate fix as noted above. What pov did I insert exactly? I simply rephrased the article while retaining the exact same semantic content.PailSimon (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I doubled down so harshly; in retrospect, I should've explained it like that in the first place. Copyright is a difficult topic :(. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not have the time right now to go through this entire thread, but this section alone is enough. The "Hong Kong locals" bit may include a geographic objectivity, but the rest, "your editing practices which includes a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible", that is just a blatant violation of WP:AGF. That's from a week or more ago, and I wouldn't have blocked for it now, but PailSimon had to go and defend it, and play ignorant. I refuse to accept that they didn't realize what they were saying, and that makes this move back into blockable territory. The claim of copyright violation is ridiculous, and the charge of "watering down" is acceptable because example and context for these POV edits are provided. If everyone, including some seasoned editors, says "not a copyvio", then maintaining that it is one is either obstinate or incompetent. In both cases, it's disruptive. I blocked PailSimon for a week. As I was placing that I saw that this comes on the heels of a partial block a few days ago, by Black Kite, and that makes a NOTHERE block seem even more reasonable; Black Kite, I wonder if you have any thoughts on that--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Drmies I blocked them from that article because they were being utterly disruptive on it; I am fine with any other sanctions that there are consensus for, obviously. Personally, I think we are looking at a China topic ban at the least. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite / Drmies, if either of you have a bit of time could you please consider closing out this discussion. A unanimous consensus seems to have formed above and there has been a lull in discussion for several days. I am just concerned that the thread will be archived with no action. Thank you. Citobun (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Editor refuses to communicate, adds unverifiable information, falsely marks all edits as minor

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

---

• Wilkja19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Wilkja19's editing strikes me as seriously problematic:

1. they make changes to articles without ever providing reliable sources
2. they never explain their changes in edit summaries
3. they falsely mark all their edits as minor
4. they have never responded to any attempt at communicating with them, in just under three years of editing. Not a single post on an article talk page; not a single post on a user talk page; not a single response to any of the many messages that have been left for them.

Their conduct has been discussed before ([137],[138]) They have been blocked twice for their failure to communicate, the second time indefinitely, but were unblocked on 22 January by User:Nyttend who stated that they have "done nothing wrong".

I think it is clear that they are doing many things wrong. They are violating core content and conduct policies. Their total refusal to communicate is simply incompatible with participation in a community. The mere fact of marking every single edit as minor without ever providing an edit summary is disruptive. Lack of a summary prevents the building of trust that comes with seeing that someone is doing what they say they are doing; marking an edit as minor when it is not is explicitly not doing what you say you are doing.

So I am raising this here again. I think that communication between editors is essential and nobody has the right to opt out of this. If their changes were not marked as minor, and if they provided reliable sources, I would still be troubled by their refusal to communicate. But these things all together, I cannot see how it can be tolerated. I think that blocking this user until they respond to communications is necessary.

On their talk page, there are arguments that the software they are using to edit is culpable somehow for their refusal to communicate. The software may, it seems, not give them a notification when a message is left for them; it does not prevent them from leaving edit summaries or providing reliable sources, nor compel them to mark their edits as minor. And they are not obliged to use the software in any case.

Andesitic (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This editor was subject to two community discussions and unblocked accordingly. The content changes they make on their account are not problematic -- throughout the AN/ANIs/user talk messages I've reviewed several and would be happy making those changes on my own account. Their editing is within policy. No, they often do not provide an inline citation with their changes. But they change/add entries in tables, which do not have any citations to begin with (which is completely normal for tables). Policy does not require citations for everything (as explained at WP:MINREF). Their changes are correct nevertheless. For example:

• Special:Diff/1009126991, verified by existing source
• Special:Diff/1009126991, verification
• Special:Diff/1009150509, verification
• Special:Diff/1008965161, verification
• Special:Diff/1008850467, verification

Nevertheless, all the above edits (which improve the content of the encyclopaedia for our readers), some of which are supported by existing sources on the article and simply updated, have been reverted by User:Andesitic, who has went around hounding Wilkja's changes, indiscriminately reverting them for being marked as minor and not having an edit summary, and edit warring [139][140][141][142] over a notice an admin (Nyttend) placed when they unblocked Wilkja. Their reverts are not in line with WP:CHALLENGE.

As for the communication issue, progress has been made on T275117, T274404 (currently high priority) & T275118, so hopefully that will be solved soon. In the meantime, this editor does not get any notifications of talk messages, pings, and does not see the message of block messages, due to the awfully designed app they're using. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Their editing is not within policy. Adding information without a reliable source violates a core policy and does not improve the content of the encyclopaedia for readers. Refusing to communicate is incompatible with editing through WP:CONSENSUS.
• I have not done anything indiscriminately.
• The software the user is using does not prevent them from communicating or leaving edit summaries, nor compel them to mark edits as minor. Those behaviours are the user's choice.

Andesitic (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

How are they supposed to know that they should be doing those things, if they've never received any of our messages telling them to do so? It should be mentioned explicitly that this is the official WMF iOS app. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

By doing what many of the rest of us do, look at their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would they know a talk page even exists? The link to it is hidden within the settings. You wouldn't know to look for one unless you knew the concept of a "talk page" is a thing on Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It is? I do not recall having to change any settings when I created an account, just click on the talk page tab. But maybe you are right, as I see not one talk page post, either to theirs or on articles. So what is to be done if a user is not communicating?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed only a handful of user talk edits (and most of those spam or edits to other users' pages), and zero, count 'em, zero article talk page edits from any iOS app user in the past 30 days. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. For user talk pages you need to go into the menu, settings, user, then "Your talk page", iirc. I only know that because I actively hunted through the app to find the link to my talk page, because I already knew what a talk page was and wanted to find the link. If I didn't know what one was there's no reason I'd think to try, never mind check it regularly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I think I see, I use a PC, so I presume its different.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's truly a miracle the project has survived this long with the Foundation's paid developers working so hard to undermine it at every turn. EEng 21:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Adversity powers evolution. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• If we blocked all the app users, that would probably get the WMF to spend some money to update the app. It's within the community's power to decide what software people can and cannot use to edit (we already regulate this via policy). I'm not sure it's fair to block any one user for using the app, though. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  It sounds like this iOS app is severely flawed. But to reemphasise my point, the problem is the user, and not the app. From the recent changes link, one can see that the app does not prevent anyone from leaving edit summaries, or compel anyone to mark edits as minor. I see iOS app users responding to messages, noting that they have been blocked. This user is making the choice that they will not communicate. I cannot see any reason to tolerate this. It seems to me that anyone who will not communicate cannot be here to build an encyclopaedia. Andesitic (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Will you please read the last 1/3 of this thread before repeating all that yet again? EEng 21:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  If you think I missed some salient point, then say what it is. Andesitic (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  The discussion makes clear that your determination to ascribe motive to an iOS user is unjust. EEng 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't make that clear. The app they are using does not prevent them from leaving edit summaries. It does not force them to falsely mark their edits as minor. It does not prevent them from providing reliable sources as required by WP:V. And nothing is compelling them to even use the app. Andesitic (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It does prevent them from knowing that we want them to do all those things, unless they stumble onto their difficult-to-find talk page by accident, or sometimes edit using a web browser. That's the point. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent that. They are able to read policy, guideline and help pages just as anyone else is. It only impedes them from receiving messages. Do you consider them exempt from the rules? They are obviously not going to change their disruptive editing behaviour, so that seems to me the choice - declare them exempt from the rules, or block them until they agree to follow them. Andesitic (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is simply not true. The IOS app makes it easy to do one thing: to access articles and edit them. Doing anything else is extremely laborious, and is actually only doable if one already has a substantial knowledge of the structure of Wikipedia and the necessary navigational concepts it requires. It does absolutely nothing to help a novice editor, or even an intermediate one, go "behind the scenes" and participate as a member of the Wikipedia community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If the app genuinely prevents users from even seeing policy and guideline pages, then it is clearly totally inadequate and should not be used by anyone. The problem remains that this user is editing disruptively and is obviously not going to stop unless some action as taken. Andesitic (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It does not "prevent" you from seeing policy pages, etc. If you know what they're called, you can (laboriously) input them into the search bar and get to them, but that assumes that you already are aware of them and know what they're called, or what shortcut to use. It doesn't "prevent", but it also doesn't in any way facilitate it. And that IOS app users can't see a message flag is downright counter-productive. What the heck were the developers thinking? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"Ignorantia juris non excusat", then? -- 2001:16B8:148F:BC00:3DF5:6CFA:1ED5:3E4F (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

So (I ask again) what are we to do, allow (what is in effect) bad editing practice because we can't tell them it is?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

But I am also concerned about Andesitic, as they seem to have taken it upon themselves to undo Wilkja19, over the issue of no edit summaries.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have undone, in total, twelve of their edits, because they did not provide a reliable source, were not explained, and were falsely marked as minor. These issues make it impossible to trust those edits, and this editor. That is the whole basis of the issue here.

As for what to do, I cannot see any argument against blocking this editor. The alternative is to specifically state that certain users are exempt from the rules, because of the software they use to access Wikipedia. That would seem crazy to me. Andesitic (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

ON pages you do not seem to have edited before, so yes it does look like you are targeting them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I consider Andesitic's actions towards Wilkja (for example, reverting indiscriminately every single one of their contribs since 21 February for minor/edit summary, especially when all of them were correct) to be harassment (see WP:HOUNDING). Suggest WP:BOOMERANG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

And he's still going! Special:Diff/1009533705 & Special:Diff/1001759662 (verification). revert. To a list with no sources (as is usual for lists)! The hounding is obvious. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not doing anything indiscriminately. I have undone twelve edits which did not provide a reliable source, were not explained, and were falsely marked as minor, because these edits were harmful. What is your motivation for so aggressively defending this harmful editor? All they need to do is provide reliable sources, write edit summaries, and not mark major edits as minor. Andesitic (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Wow, this has really opened a can of worms. I'm glad someone is on top of it. Perhaps I need to look again at some of my dealings with anons. Deb (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure HOUND applies here. The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. If an editor has made a recent series of unsourced edits, and refused to comment on said edits, then it is reasonable to address the issue. Ideally by finding source but often by removal. If the editor is using an editing program that doesn't notify them when others revert their edits and try to ping them, well I don't see how that is on the editor trying to fix a problem. Springee (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  It applies because the edits are correct and are all verifiable. The content does not require inline citations per policy. Most casual lists do not have verifications. WP:CHALLENGE requires consideration of the state of the article or portion of the content before tagging or considering removal, and even then advises finding a reference yourself. Ergo, the 'tracking to prevent disruption' does not apply, because their edits aren't disruptive. Andesitic simply has it out for Wilkja (repeated in their "harmful editor", "clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia", etc rhetoric above, and when they were edit warring over an admin-placed notice claiming it was false). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  To emphasise the point, if Andesitic really cared about 'verification' he would've removed the entire list at Randy Zisk, rather than just Wilkja's edits. Similar thing applies for every single other one of his reverts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Regardless of why the editor was not replying to questions about their edits, it looks like the Andesitic was concerned about a legitimate problem. Even if you feel they were misguided, the "no overridingly constructive reason" clause would come into play here. That said, it would be best if they stopped until the community figures out a better way to handle this. I can certainly see how an editor would be frustrated if they made the usual good faith efforts to contact and editor and talk about a problem and received radio silence in reply. Prior to this discussion I would certainly have taken this to be something other than good faith. I've also been concerned when I see editors marking so many edits as minor. Again, perhaps that is an failing of an edit program vs the editor themselves. Springee (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  I would point out these are not stand-alone lists (which is what our policies on lists apply to) but to lists within an article. But I would (as I have said) agree they only seem to have an issue with one editor adding unsourced content to these articles. Yes I think that they should leave the user alone until we figure out how to deal with the communications issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  There is no material on Wikipedia that does not need to be verifiable. Inline citations may not in some cases be essential but verifiability always is.

  Honestly this seems quite straightforward to me. The user is misleadingly marking all their edits as minor, not providing reliable sources, and has never written a single edit summary. Is this behaviour harmful? Yes it is. Will the user change their behaviour? They have been asked to, and it is clear that they will not. So what can be done? Either allow them to continue, or block them until they acknowledge the need to change their editing style. Lesser remedies than blocking will not have any effect because the user refuses to communicate. Why should anyone be allowed to make unsourced, unexplained, misleadingly marked changes? Andesitic (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  You're getting awful close to WP:IDHT territory. EEng 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

When these users are blocked, they do get to see the block message right? Like, a block message saying outstanding notices on your talk page here [link] require your attention, and so on. El_C 22:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Nope. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Total impenetrability, that's just lovely. Sigh. El_C 23:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If the user has a confirmed email address then (by default at least) they will get an email for each talk page message and ping. Wilkja19 does not have a confirmed email address. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

For the confused, here's how the various platforms differ (thanks to ProcrastinatingReader for testing the iOS stuff):

Comparison of communication features as of Feb 2021

Editor	"New message" alert	Other alerts	Custom block messages	Custom edit filter messages
Desktop (IP)	Orange bar of doom	No	Yes	Yes
Desktop (User)	Miniature orange bar of doom	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mobile Web (IP)	No	No	Yes	Yes
Mobile Web (User)	Looks like other alerts	Yes	Yes	Yes
iOS (IP)	No (?)	No	?	Broken; only message name shown (?)
iOS (User)	No	No	No	Broken; only message name shown
Android (IP)	No	No	Seems flaky	No (?)
Android (User)	Yes (w/ ding+vibrate)	Yes (w/ ding+vibrate)	No	No

So the one way we have to reach this user is to create a page called MediaWiki:We want to talk to you! Follow these steps to reach your talk page: Go to "settings" and tap blah blah blah... and set it as a the warning message of an edit filter that targets this user, and only this user. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

We could generalize that to an extent. Create some sort of edit filter for "alert iOS user to check their talk page for a discussion concerning them" and apply it as necessary to catch the attention of iOS users when needed. Then create some sort of system or procedure for when to apply it, with appropriate requirements (ie. there's an active discussion, such as ANI, that requires alerting the user and there's no indication they ever receive talk page messages.) Obviously it's a crude hack, but it's better than nothing - who knows when or if this issue will be fixed? We need some way to attract the attention of iOS-only users. --Aquillion (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it be desirable to hold a big RfC where the community asks Arbcom to ask the WMF Board to address the issue? At least we could find out if they know about it, and whether they care, and whether they would commit resources to solving the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the last 100 edits from iOS app users go back about 5 hours. By comparison the last 100 edits from mobile web IP users go back about 15 minutes. So I wouldn't want to focus on just the iOS issue; if this route is taken we should be demand that all the mobile editing interfaces be fixed or disabled.

For now I think we should just keep commenting at WP:VPWMF#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach) so it never gets archived; the lack of any edits to that thread from a (WMF) account is growing more and more conspicuous. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No WMF Board member will read that discussion (unless dragged to it). WMF staffers are irrelevant as history has shown they have to do what their managers direct, and they are presumably encouraged by the Board to focus on shiny new things (or hopelessly naive attempts to "engage" new editors—using an app where they cannot communicate!). Thank you for your efforts clarifying how this works but enwiki discussions will achieve nothing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

What a sorry situation. In any case, I've started expanding the table at User:Suffusion_of_Yellow/Mobile communication bugs, but I'm still not finished. IIRC they can't see edit notices either! Feel free to fill in any missing parts.

I'm beginning to warm to the idea of using an edit filter to disable app editing entirely (and maybe logged out mobile web editing, too). As Levivich suggested, just the threat that we might do that would probably encourage swift action, and the filter wouldn't actually ever be turned on. But we'd need a very carefully worded RFC to get community support for this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Suffusion of Yellow, thanks for that list. Useful to see all the options mostly checked. In particular, the Android app stuff isn't something I've seen mentioned before now and confirms my suspicion that the Android is different from iOS.

Quite a few months ago in June or something, I wanted to check mobile site behaviour since I'd read about the message problem, but never checked it. I confirmed that messages for IPs with the desktop site still worked fine, with the orange box of death. And well I already knew how both the mobile and desktop site works with my own account. But that without an account, there was no sign of new messages for IPs, unless you knew to check your talk page. I thought I also checked the Android app for both IPs and accounts and found similar behaviour to the mobile site. (IIRC, I didn't check blocks, edit filters or other notifications. Although I did check blocks for IPs quite recently on mobile + desktop but not on Android.)

But then when the iOS mess first came to one of the ANs, one of the bugs reports seemed to suggest Android users were also affected. Plus I was surprised that the Android and iOS apps would be different, I thought most developers share big parts of their code base for mobile apps nowadays. So I was confused about my memory but since it wasn't really an issue, no one was discussing what to do about any Android app user I let it be. I'm pleased to see that my memory was probably right and I did find that Android editors with accounts were notified of new messages but IPs weren't. IIRC the UI is slightly different depending on whether your logged in.

To be fair to the WMF, while there's no excuse for the lack of notifications etc, now that I think about it I'm not so surprised the iOS and Android apps are fairly different and it may not be the WMF being silly. On iOS I assume the app is forced to use Webkit etc as all apps are. With Android, not sure what the app does but it could be they even use their "own" (well probably just unmodified Blink but provided by their app) rendering engine since they can, unlike with Apple's my way or the highway system).

I assume this isn't one problem with the notifications since the WMF would have said something by now, but who knows I guess given Apple's restrictions and the WMF's notorious poor communication at times. For clarity, I mean something like "Your app can receive message, how do you moderate these? What's your moderation policy?" "Our communities generally do that themselves, we reserve the right to step in if necessary but only really do so for smaller ones. And you can see our ToU, we don't have any sort of universal code of conduct." "Yeah no, that's not good enough." "Look we're trying to make a UCoC, but it isn't going well. And if we step in more easily, there will be civil war. Look what happened when we tried that time!" "We're Apple, do you think we GAF? Our users do what we say they should, and like it; whether it's avoiding perfectly compliant USB-C devices because they're not Apple approved so may cause our products to fail, or only using the apps we allow them to on products they completely own. Yours should too!" "(WMF speaking internally) Hey you know that UCoC we're having trouble with? I have the perfect solution.....

Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've been looking onto this for a moment here, this looks on its face like classic WP:RADAR behavior. I noted they have a user page, suggesting they do in fact know that exists, but oddly, their userpage was created by Toyotaboy13, who also never, ever, not even once ever communicated with another user in any way and was repeatedly warned for adding unsourced content. I think this suggests they are the same user, although Toyotaboy went quiet in September 2019. This in turn suggests that this person has been editing Wikipedia for five years without ever speaking to another user. I find it difficult to believe that software is the one and only issue here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Possibly. But at the time when Toyotaboy13 was last active they were using an Android device, while Wilkja19 was using an iOS device. There's some obvious overlap in the articles edited though; more likely these are two users who know each other, and one learned the bad habits from the other. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  An equally likely explanation is another user clicked the red link and created their user page (as commonly happens) and this user didn’t notice (afaics, there’s no link to ones user page in the app; none, unlike the talk page link which at least exists but is buried in the settings), hence didn’t request U1 deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So the question is what to do about this editor. As this discussion has been ongoing, they have continued to make edits falsely marked as minor, without edit summaries and without sources. Their editing is disruptive, and nothing about the iOS app compels them to edit in this way or prevents them from understanding how to edit collaboratively. The only thing it does is make it possible that the user does not know they have received messages requesting them to change their behaviour.

They are clearly not going to stop editing disruptively unless something is done. Doing nothing would mean that by never communicating, they have gained an exemption from normal community standards. So I advocate blocking them until they communicate with the community. Andesitic (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The stronger consensus here is that you should stop reverting them at least while the community figures out what to do about this issue. Yet you have continued. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I see no such consensus, and I find your aggressive defence of this editor very strange. I will note the similarity of this case to another below where a block is being considered, and a recent case where a block was applied. Andesitic (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Andesitic, you've got an increasingly serious WP:IDHT problem of your own [143], and I see a WP:BOOMERANG headed your way if you don't stop obsessing about this one editor and start attending to improving your own understanding of project policies and guidelines and community norms. If you're smart you'll be quiet now while experienced discuss how to address this general problem. EEng 04:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have no comment on the merit of this report but just wanted to note I blocked Andesitic for long-term abuse (best known for IP again). Sro23 (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Surprise! EEng 18:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Leechjoel9

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

---

Leechjoel9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Leechjoel9 discusses politely on issues related to Eritrea, but repeatedly reverts, removing sourced material from articles, and in discussing on talk pages, does not appear to understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED:

• Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Eritrean population: 3.5 million or 6 million? The most reliable source for the population of Eritrea, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) Population Division 2019 report, appears to be unacceptable to this user. I NPOVed the article, improving the sources to have specific dates and archives rather than bare URLs, citing both the 3.5 million and 6 million population estimates. Leechjoel9 reverted this NPOVed version (along with some other intervening edits), asking to discuss. In the discussion, Leechjoel9 provided some extra sources, which is fine, but none appear to be as detailed and serious as the UN DESA report. I eventually proposed that this first be sorted out at Demographics of Eritrea, but Leechjoel9 has reverted a significant amount of work, despite it containing no controversial or weakly sourced claims.
• Eritrean Defence Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Eritrean Defence Forces' (EDF) presence in the Tigray War:

• I added specific, falsifiable claims by WP-notable people (former defence minister, founder of a peace research institute) about divisions of the EDF present in the war. Leechjoel9 did several reverts of material to keep any mention of EDF participation in the Tigray War out of the EDF article:
• 19:55, 22 February 2021
• 18:08, 26 February 2021
• 21:02, 26 February 2021‎
• 21:46, 26 February 2021‎

Leechjoel9 accepted to talk but does not appear to understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. S/he has been aware since late January 2021 that Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War was the consensus point of view at the Tigray War article (anti-consensus POVs can still be included, of course).

• Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Reverts by Leechjoel9 to keep any mention of EDF participation in the Tigray War out of the Eritrea article:

• See the lower part of this edit, which reverted Tobby72's edit
• Another revert of Tobby72's edit

Again, Leechjoel9 accepted to talk, but firstly seemed to confuse my edits with edits by others, secondly seemed to wish to discuss a separate topic (the population issue), and finally returned to the issue, but without providing a serious argument for overriding WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED.

• Asmara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Leechjoel9 appeared to wish to exclude listing the currently most famous person in the world born in Asmara, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who was in world news headlines almost daily for several months of 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, on the grounds of citizenship.

• Leechjoel9 removed Tedros from the list
• and again removed Tedros from the list

Leechjoel9 accepted to talk: Talk:Asmara#Notable people; Talk:Asmara#Notable people again, but the most recent restoral of Tedros to the list was again reverted by Leechjoel9.

Leechjoel9 has been aware of Horn of Africa discretionary sanctions since late January.

There's obviously nothing wrong with an editor presenting the POV of the Eritrean government, but not to the degree of using fringe or weakly sourced points of view to exclude the generally higher quality sourced points of view. This is a tricky case, because the editor engages in discussion that is polite and makes statements that generally appear reasonable, but the reasonable statements are vague and evade the issues, ignore most of the specific points made by me and other editors, and the statements and reverts don't seem to acknowledge Wikipedia policy. The actions by this editor constitute a timesink, appearing to suggest that s/he owns several articles, with the right to exclude unapproved material; s/he does not appear willing to accept NPOV. My suggestion is a topic ban. Otherwise, Wikipedia Eritrea-related articles risk looking like an advertisement for the Eritrean government, in some cases (population) sourced from bare urls rather than dated, archived, up-to-date specific references. Boud (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Boud is trying to politicise several articles relating to Horn of Africa. In particular subjects relating to the Tigray War which is ongoing in Ethiopia’s Tigray region. The Horn of Africa are under discretionary sanctions wikipedia:ACDS. Which means users must pertain level of caution when making edits to these articles. Most importantly reach consensus before making controversial edits or edits that affects large parts the articles. From my knowledge the subjects that are covered in this dispute are:
• Eritrea- Dispute started when the user wanted to include accusations of Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War, which is an ongoing conflict in Ethiopia. These allegations are one sided, not neutral, not verified and are views or/and allegations by certain individuals that are involved in the war/conflict. These accusations have not been verified and confirmed by a third party i.e by Human right commissions, Human rights organisations, governments or government officials. The government of Ethiopia (country of the conflict) has denied Eritrean involvement. Eritrea has also denied involvement, the UN secretary-general of the United Nations António Guterres, and former US- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo officially denied Eritrean involvement conflict when the conflict was at its peak. So what I have asked this user is to be neutral in editing this article in relation to this conflict since the conflict is complex and it’s not possible to provide all sides of the conflict in this article. I have advised that content relating to the conflict is better suited in the article that is about the conflict which is the Tigray War article. I have also suggested to the user that such content can be described short, for instance that there have been accusations against Eritrea in the conflict in Tigray, Ethiopia and that Eritrea have denied such involvement along with credible cited sources.
• After bringing up above issue the user went on with questioning the population estimates of Eritrea. I asked for engagement in the discussion created by this user [144], still this user made the edits prior to even beginning responding in the discussion thread [145]. I urged the user to engage in the discussion and reach consensus before making these edits, [146]. After that the user started engaging in discussion but has repeatedly added content relating to the population of Eritrea with out reaching consensus several times, while the discussion has been ongoing 1)[147],2)[148]. In the discussion page of the article I provided four sources independent of each other that indicates that the population of Eritrea is around six million. This is supported by CIA estimates for 2021, African development bank [149], COMESA-Comon Market for East and South Africa [150], and two government sources. The two government sources, one that mentions that the population was 3,5M in 2002 [151], and one that mentions that population was close to six million in 2020 [152]. The government sources are consistent with the three other sources. The user is solely relying on one source for the population which is decreasing the population of Eritrea with three million individuals, half of the population! I have argued that the UN source are possibly basing their data on older data (prob.2002) when the government of Eritrea reported a population of 3,5 million, so that would be the least credible one. For this reason the population should be based on the data that currently on the article which has been explained in the article talk section, along with the ones provided here.
• Lastly the user wanted to add content to Eritrea’s history which is perfectly fine. The problem is that the user added redundant information that already existed in the section that brings up accusations of Human rights abuses. I kindly asked this user to add this content in this section and not add it the history section since it’s not content relevant to the “History Of Eritrea”.
• Eritrean Defence Forces- Here the user have been adding similar content as in the Eritrea article, non verified and non neutral accusation from a party participating in the conflict/war in Tigray War/conflict. I have told the user to add this type of content in the relevant Tigray War article.
• Demographics of Eritrea -User decided to add a huge section to this article knowing that the same issues about population of Eritrea is being discussed in Eritrea article and also that this subject is under Discretionary Sanctions which makes it even more important to reach consensus when making so big changes. Still the user again preceded doing changes to this article. See [153]
• Asmara-In this article there was a dispute of the WHO director Tedros could be in the list of Notable person of Asmara, the capital of Eritrea. Which he can, however his names on the list has caused controversy since he is an anti-Eritrea figure supporting and a member of “Tigray People Liberation Front” the main political party in Tigray conflict. This has caused users removing his name from the list. I proposed several solutions to this issue in the talk page of the article. That discussion is ongoing. However user Boud has taken opportunity to involve the only user that objected to my proposition and asked this user to get involve in the the Eritrea article, which is against Wikipedia policy.
• Overall the dispute can be sorted with engagement in the discussion, However this user must refrain from making edits without reaching consensus, per above explanation. The user also needs to acknowledge that these articles are under wikipedia:ACDS, to avoid breaching the discretionary sanctions, which this user might have done already. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a detail on the Eritrea Ministry of Information URL: "one that mentions that population was close to six million in 2020 [332]", to explain why I didn't include it: the URL does *not* state the nearly 6 million estimate. Boud (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Leechjoel9, you said that the person's political view "has caused users removing his name from the list". Can you provide diffs or evidence showing at least two users removing his name from Asmara? Or are you the only one who removes his name from the article about the city? I wasn't able to find anyone except you removing his name, but I only spent a couple of minutes looking. If I overlooked other editors making the same edits, please share the proof here. This looks like slow-motion WP:Edit warring to me, and you could get blocked for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Here is recent removal which triggered the latest issue in the Asmara article [154]. However I did provide a solution, to link to this list instead and /or adding a list of notable Eritreans from Asmara instead since would be more relevant to the article. If I recall, it happened before I’ll try find another similar edit. As mentioned above his name can stay on the list, in the talk section of the article there is a discussion that I’ve started about the usages of notable lists in that article. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment by Alex2006:I would like to intervene because I am also part of it. The ip removed Tedros from the list of Asmara's notable persons without giving a reason, and I, who have the article on my watchlist, restored it. The removal was clearly disruptive editing. After my restore Leechjoel9 came in and removed it again.[155] After two more reverts I opened a thread on his discussion page asking why, and he replied that that name was "controversial" for political reasons. The solution according to him was either to remove non-Eritreans from the list, or to split the list from the article.[156] Clearly doing ethnic cleansing of a list goes against at least a couple of policies, and is not a negotiable solution by consensus. Splitting the list would make sense if there were hundreds of names, but there are only eight names. After that, two other users came along and restored the name for the same reasons as me. However, each time the name was removed again by him, who proposed more and more fanciful solutions, but all with one point in common: that non-Eritreans linked to Asmara must disappear from the article because Asmara is now an Eritrean city. By the way, this is not his first attempt to remove the list: he had already tried it a few months ago. He deleted the list,[157] after my revert he opened a thread on Asmara's discussion page, writing that the list should be split (deleting a list is a rather strange way of splitting it), but after my objections he gave up.[158] At that time there were only two non-Eritreans on the list: Gianfranco Rosi, a famous director, and Remo Girone, a theatre and television actor, both born in Asmara. According to his latest statements, neither of them is worthy of inclusion in the article. At this point (and after several edit wars on this article which I won't mention) I think that you have more elements to judge: personally, I support a time limited topic ban, hoping that in the meantime he will understand on what principles Wikipedia works. Alex2006 (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Alessandro57 Your entitled to your views but banning users simply because they don't agree with you is not a solution and not how Wikipedia works. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to understand this. I would prefer if you would engage in the Asmara discussion in the talk page, as you see now Tedros is still on the list as mentioned three times now so that is not an issue. But apparently that is not enough reason to remove him from the list. The others ones will certainly not cause controversy since they are not known individuals to many, however the question about a list of Eritreans from Asmara that are notable to Asmara is still legitimate question. Because there are at least 10-20 that can be included in the list, so work would be done to achieve this and this was why I started the question in the article, similar questions have been raised before yes but nothing with that discussion, it was revived again after the ip removed Tedros from the list. Leechjoel9 (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment by Alex2006:I see that unfortunately you continue not to understand: in my opinion you should not be temporarily banned because I disagree with you, but because you do not understand (or if you do, you refuse to comply with) the policies and principles of this encyclopedia. I have participated in both discussions, trying to explain to you why you (as well as I and anyone else here) cannot even begin a discussion that is based on the assertion that a list of notable people has to be cleaned up on an ethnic basis. The sentence "the whole section of notable people of Asmara should include Eritreans and not non-Eritreans" [159] (BTW, Rosi and Girone are both Italians, so according to your proposal they have to be excluded) needs no further explanation about your real intentions. And what does being popular have to do with being on the list? So, according to you, if Fellini was born in Asmara, he should be removed immediately, because he is known all over the world, and this would make him "controversial". In this whole story, the only one who has having problems with this list, for months, is you, and the reason should be clear to everyone at this point. And with that I'm done, I hope the admins do what they have to do. Alex2006 (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Once again (for the fourth time) , Tedros is still on the list, I have refrained from editing that part, so there is currently no issue about this, it is already cleared out the way. I have not said anyone should be excluded based of ethnicity, please stop assuming stuff and commenting on my behalf. I have seen several notable list that are divided by nationality, perhaps they were incorrectly used on Wikipedia? Suggestions was to add of list of Eritreans from Asmara, If that is not possible according to Wikipedia policy then I of course agree with you that we can’t add such list. Leechjoel9 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Leechjoel9 wrote: accusations of Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War ... These accusations have not been verified and confirmed by a third party i.e by Human right commissions, Human rights organisations. See: Amnesty International; also, Human Rights Watch: Ethiopia: Eritrean Forces Massacre Tigray Civilians. Boud (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A policy which has not yet been raised here is WP:NOTPAPER. Leechjoel9's live edits have an average size of -92 bytes (a negative number of bytes); they remove more material than they contribute. Eritrea is a topic that has too little coverage in en.Wikipedia rather than too much. Boud (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have engaged in discussion with you in a number of articles. You simply disagree with me in these subjects. The right place for discussions are the talk pages of those articles. Every user is different on Wikipedia, and user contributions is not about bytes, the bytes are not static and changes over time depending what’s edited and when. Regarding the coverage of Eritrea, it’s covered on the en.Wikipedia and of course could be covered more like many articles. You still have to gain consensus when users disagrees with you. Actually I’ve tried to improve the coverage on Eritrea and not the opposite. Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You entered text in the talk pages, but that wasn't engagement with the substantive content of what I wrote. Boud (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Independently of me, other users have tried to explain sourcing issues, and have been surprised at outright removal of what they felt was properly sourced material: Ssbbplayer, 13:33, 20 April 2020; OldGalileo, 21:37, 30 May 2020; Pathawi, 20:40, 2 January 2021; regarding substantive discussion, see Pathawi, 23:51, 2 January 2021. Boud (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been following the Timeline of Tigray war and Tigray war for a few weeks now and Boud has behaved as if he owns those articles. Also, many of the users who edit simultaneously with Boud seem to agree and edit the same pages. I suspect Boud is a sock puppeteer and is using these other accounts to form this false consensus. Just reading all of the other users commenting in the same style of English and editing the same articles. Moderators how do I open a Sockpuppet Inquiry on Boud?Clownshking (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: I disagree with the claim, but here is the place to start reading: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Handling suspected sockpuppets. Boud (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you now randomly finding ways to come up with accusations? All the discussion were solved or ended within those discussions. You lacked to reach consensus on several articles and now going of topic. I couldn’t agree more with user Clownshking that Boud is very active on the Tigray War article. One thing I noticed is that Boud is informing users about the discretionary sanctions WP:ACDS for Horn of Africa on user talk pages. I do agree that it is good to inform users about this, however this might discourage users from editing, especially since Boud is active editing these articles and involved in the disputes. Leechjoel9 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9: The past discussions may have been solved, but they may help understand the current situation, and uninvolved people will judge whether you have learnt from the past.

I agree that I am active on the Tigray War article. However, adding sourced content or improving the quality of sources does not mean WP:OWNing.

TLDR: To those interested in the population of Eritrea issue, I suggest this self-contained summary of the UN DESA Revision 2019 official explanation of how Eritrea seemed to drop in population by 1.8 million from 2017 to 2019 (the whole times series since 1950 was revised in 2019); the current best estimate is about 3.5 to 3.6 million. To see a lack of substantive arguments against a proposal on the same talk page, scroll up. Boud (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Boud you clearly have a AntiEritrea and ProTPLF POV. You have been overly involved in depicting the Tigray conflict with all the articles that you have edited or made up to promote the TPLF view. Nothing has been confirmed but only weaselly worded reported. You present Tplf Statements as fact but contest PM Abiy or Eritrean governments statement as not reliable. And you have been using multiple accounts to make a false sense of consensus. You also left message on my Talk page as if you are some kind of authority on Wikipedia. I stopped editing any articles at this point because of you. Are you a moderator? If not why are you contesting and discussing adnaseum about these certain articles? The population of Eritrea has multiple reliable sources stating a range in 6 million but you have gone too far with your one source cross examining the other official sources. The consensus is 6 million and not 3.5 million. And what is the point of this ANI to keep discussing your one source?Clownshking (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record: my POV in Wikipedia editing is neither anti-Eritrea nor pro-TPLF; it is pro-Wikipedia, i.e. based on the sources and NPOV. If you seriously think I'm sockpuppeting, then you should file a request instead of repeating your claim here, which is the wrong place for that. Accusations should not be made lightly. Messages on talk pages by me do not imply any kind of authority on Wikipedia. We don't have moderators on Wikipedia; we have a community. My comment was meant to help because your edit did not match the content of the source. We assume good faith and do not accuse each other of trying to support or oppose particular groups. This AN/I is about Leechjoel9 who "repeatedly reverts, removing sourced material from articles, and in discussing on talk pages, does not appear to understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED"; I added WP:NOTPAPER as an overlapping issue; and the difficulty in substantive engagement on talk pages is a related timesink issue. Regarding sources, I recommend that you read the UN DESA Revision 2019 official explanation by demographers of why the population of Eritrea is currently best estimated as 3.5 million and why 1.8 million Eritreans "vanished" from the point of view of the improvement in historical estimates for a country that has never had a census. In fact, here I have brought attention to the Eritrean National Statistics Office 2010 estimate of 3.2 million in 2010, which matches the UN DESA Revision 2019 value of 3170.437 thousand for the year 2010. The relevance to AN/I is whether Leechjoel9 (and you?) can accept that sources are not just websites. For demographic information, demographic organisations are the best source. Boud (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

UN DESA is not the census taker of any country! There are more sources disagreeing with your Source. Stop pushing your agenda. You are being a disruptive editor pushing your narrow one source agenda. Your one source is not consensus by definition. Yes there will be Sockpuppet SPI on you. Btw I will talk with a real moderator please stop threatening new editors with your threats of getting banned. You did that to me and now some editor Biniam on FANO nationalist article. Clownshking (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment by Alex2006: Clownshking, these are ad hominem arguments that have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If you have problems with Boud open a separate thread in AN/I. However, consider that if he hadn't opened this thread about Leechjoel9, I would have done it within a few hours. As for myself, I don't deal with the horn of Africa except marginally (I only have Asmara on my watchlist) I've been on wikipedia for 15 years, so I have some experience and, like many experienced users, I do routinely some anti-vandalism work. In this context I've noticed in the last few months a disruptive behaviour from Leechjoel9. And that is what is being talked about here. Alex2006 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, the subjects brought up by Clownshking is relevant to the discussion. Boud has in my view not acted responsible, judging by all content this user has been adding to Horn of Africa articles knowing they're under WP:ACDS. Despite knowing this the user added disputed content several times before reaching consensus which the edit diffs I provided shows. One can’t impose his or her views by force in articles and on others users, you got to engage in discussion to form consensus. Alessandro57 reporting users just because you feel they disagree with you on a subject is not first step to resolve disputes over content. I fully engaged with you through the talk page of Asmara article. Ive been around long enough to tell the difference between vandalism and an ordinary content dispute. I have also done anti-vandalism work when I’ve seen vandalism being committed. Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9: Regarding "has in my view not acted responsible, judging by all content this user has been adding to Horn of Africa articles knowing they're under WP:ACDS": discretionary sanctions are fully compatible with WP:NOTPAPER. COVID-19 Wikipedia pages have been under discretionary sanctions since 17 March 2020, but many Wikipedians have added a huge amount of content to COVID-19 pages. The sanctions are not meant to slow down the addition of content by discussions where the meaning of sourcing is ignored and where points are not responded to properly. Even now, after you have failed to show why a highly reputable demography research organisation should be ignored, and after I did the work to solve the population-of-Eritrea puzzle by finding the UN DESA 2019 Revision Release-Note-v1, and I found and showed an official Eritrean Ministry of Local Government + National Statistics Office estimate (see Sect 1.1.4 on pdf page 31), you have not yet restored my edit. Boud (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue was not about wether a user can edit articles that are under sanctions, but your overall edit style and behaviour when editing these articles, despite knowing they are under sanctions I.e handing out sanction warnings to those who disagrees with you, doing changes before reaching consensus, and now not respecting that you haven’t got consensus when it comes to the population estimate and you can’t simply impose your views by force.Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

So Boud continues to stalk the articles that I edited and then he falsely gives me a vandalism warning. Boud stop harassing me, you do not own those articles. Stop using other accounts. You behavior on Wikipedia is making new users like myself from editing anything. Clownshking (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Clownshking, either file an WP:SPI or withrdaw the accusation of sockpuppetry. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds I will withhold from stating the accusation publicly until an SPI filing.Clownshking (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I found this copyright violation from https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/africa/eritrea-political-geography/tigrinya with a misleading edit summary while investigating another editor. MER-C 10:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have informed I will look into this past edit.Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

After I provided four archival time series of the Eritrean population, which fully explain the variation in estimates of all the sources, again attacked me and ignored the content of the new (in terms of Wikipedia discussion) sources, claiming that "despite all other sources provided showing opposite" I am "trying to impose this view." Leechjoel9 appears to insist on ambiguity in this edit, ignoring my additional work, and doesn't seem to have acknowledged that BubbaJoe123456 favours Option 2 (NPOV) in the the RfC, which I started in response to Leechjoel9's repeated claim that I was opposing "consensus". This user continues to write sentences that seem to make sense, but avoid the point and continue with ambiguity. This specific edit seems to me like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the overall case continues to appear to be not being here to build an encyclopedia. Boud (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Outsider's passing impression

Maybe to reemphasize the point I've just made at ACN (diff), in my experience, these free-flowing, word-limitless threads that concerns AE disputes usually soon become rather impenetrable to outside reviewers. Even just the opening post alone isn't that easy to parse. Overall, that is a lot of text and material that the outside reviewer is expected to wade through. Maybe uninvolved admins will come around who'd be willing and/or able to piece everything together here. But the likelihood that this will turn into a dead-end timesink seems pretty high right now, I'm sorry to say. El_C 13:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Boud has a content dispute with the Consensused demographic of Eritrea article regarding the 6 million figure. He wants to lower the population to 3.5 million based one source UN DESA. However the other official sources give a 6 million figure. Leechj and myself and previous editors who added the 6 millionish have had a consensus. Boud brought ANIs for both myself and Leechj separately accusing us of anything and everything. Afterwards he would continue the content dispute in both ANIs as well as the Talk page of the Demographics of Eritrea article. I don’t get why he needs to use ANIs for dispute that is already being discussed in the talk page of the article. Both ANIs have become open ended where Boud brings every perceived slight as a major violation of Wikipedia rules. This appears as misuse of ANIs to force his POV on us and the articles he disagrees with. Is this acceptable good faith editor behavior?Clownshking (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I did my best to write the case as fairly as possible, with specific evidence, in a structured way. I don't feel that it would be fair for someone to be topic-banned without the evidence being clearly presented.

I would appreciate closure of this case, independently of the Clownshking case. The Leechjoel9 case is highly unusual in my experience: s/he presents arguments which at the surface seem to be reasonable, but on checking properly are generally vague and not supported by the evidence. His/her text contribution in live edits to Wikipedia is on average negative (-92 bytes, see above), and the effect is to block development of Eritrea related pages on Wikipedia while refusing to discuss sources rationally and precisely, and (for example) refusing to accept that an article on demographics should be preferably, or, at least (under NPOV), include demographic sources along with non-demographic sources. Should I be the one to call for closure or make a proposal for closure? or someone uninvolved? Boud (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This level of assumptions about Leechj is quite disturbing. I mean you are admitting to tracking every metric of an editor for the sole purpose of what? Ban or Block? What do you want to happen to myself or Leechj?Clownshking (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I have engaged extensively in discussion with Boud in several articles. For the population estimate Boud lacked to get the support for the proposal. If you don’t reach consensus you also got to acknowledge this, this was the point. Everything have been addressed in the talk page of the articles. If we look into the behaviour it’s Boud that have made personal attacks and assumed a lot of stuff, see the users comments in this thread. The user filed an ANI despite me discussing politely in the talk pages of the articles according to the user (see the beginning of the thread). Actually I could of filed an ANI against this user in the first place, since the user added disputed content before reaching consensus (see diffs above), despite user knowing very well that the articles where under sanctions. I saw this as a dispute over content and discussed the matter in the talk page of the articles, all according WP guidelines and policies. I still see the talk page as the right place to solve these issues. Leechjoel9 (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree Leechj, all of this could’ve have been discussed on the articles talkpage. Also he created several sections basically asking to add his source as the only one. We looked at his source which was not clear and required to do calculations which he mentions. I read that we aren’t supposed to do original research. Essentially he was doing population statistics using raw data and charts to come up with a number of 3.5 million in the year 2020? Very strange by logic Eritrea’s population did not grow from 1995 at 3.5 million but even reduced? All of the other sources which include CIA etc give the 6 million figure which makes sense even for a country with migration. Using the ANIs to punish or threaten editors into agreeing with his POV is not good faith editing.Clownshking (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I can also point out that Boud has created 9 new sections in the talk page of the articles. In the talk page of Demographics of Eritrea (8) and in Eritrea article (1), all relating to the same issue which is the population estimates of Eritrea. This makes it harder for users involved, Admins, and outsider to follow the discussion in an easy way. I don’t think it’s a constructive way to create meaningful discussions. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Modularity is a key to separating out different issues. Boud (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Clownshking

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

---

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

• awareness of DS/Horn: since 03:34, 3 March 2021‎
• vandalism:
  • Fano (nationalist movement) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): replacement of sourced material by material strongly disagreeing with the references;
  • Mai Kadra massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): replacement of sourced material by material strongly disagreeing with the references;
• Timeline of the Tigray War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): repeated introduction of material that vaguely could be inspired from the source, but is not stated: unsourced edit 1; repeat of edit 1; 3rd iteration of edit 1; addition of source that says nothing to support the claim in the context of the 2020 timeline;
• removal of sourced material:
  • Mai Kadra massacre: removal of sourced material (contributed by me), calling it "ethnoracist vandalism" without any real explanation; removal of reference (contributed by me)
• personal attacks: evidence-less claim that I'm a sock puppet; claim that I'm "AntiEritrea and ProTPLF"; calling me a racist in an edit summary (without evidence);
• removal of two warnings from Clownshking's own talk page: (same as edit with 'racist' in edit summary)
• unclear if acting to construct and encyclopedia: awareness of meta-level Wikipedia policies, but difficulty with the core policies of sourcing, NPOV, and AGF: accusations without evidence
• Demographics of Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): refusal to accept elementary reasoning about sourcing for demography and refusal to make even a minimal attempt to understand the reasoning and evidence presented.

Boud (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been stalking me on Wikipedia and giving warnings without good faith. I am not a vandal since I don’t edit much. You have been acting like a moderator not only on me but other users. Also setting this ANI like you did with that other user Leech only shows you are not editing in good faith.Clownshking (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Any editor may give a good-faith warning to other editors about inappropriate conduct; it doesn't just have to be administrators doing that. I also don't see evidence that Boud is acting in bad faith. I would encourage you to explain how your edits are good-faith improvements to the named articles. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems bad faith editing to portray an entire ethnic group as bad. I disagree with that and Boud has pretty much stifled my ability to edit without a threat of warnings every time there is a disagreement. Look he disagreed with two editors and jumps into using warnings and taking us to Wikipedia court. That is bad faith behavior. He needs to explain why editing these articles especially about an ethnic group with the POV of bad group. I was correcting that because broad brush attacks on an ethnic group is wrong. He also did not reach consensus then he uses ANI against two of us. Clownshking (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Again, I ask how your edits are good-faith improvements to the named articles. Further, you have made some serious allegations against Boud. Do you withdraw the allegations and accusations of racism against them? —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

My edits were good faith because they brought balance to these articles where they were portraying the Amhara ethnicity as bad. That is not fair. Also NPOV would mean to show the TPLF as the agent of the conflicts. When Boud can agree and show fairness in his edits about Non-Tigrayans ie Amhara then I will not call him a racist. Are you neutral in this? Also why did you refer to Boud as them? Is he not just one user?Clownshking (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Hrm. Are we to interpret that as you're just calling them racist as leverage over them? (And please note that I use singular they when the gender of an individual is unclear.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) Clownshking (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Please focus on the content and not on the contributors. A quick read of your edits shows that any bias introduced was done by you, not Boud; your edits painted Fano as better than the sources indicated. Accordingly, I see no indication that Boud is acting in bad faith or with bias or malice—so continuing to accuse the editor of racism would be deemed as a bad-faith action and personal attack by any person who made such accusation.

If you would like to provide sources to counter, for instance, the Guardian story in the Fano (nationalist movement) article, then the place to discuss—to civilly discuss matters of the article including content and sourcing, not to discuss editors and their motives—is Talk:Fano (nationalist movement). You need to work to build consensus for the changes you seek. —C.Fred (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to add my five cents, I think it's awfully telling that Clownshking's first edit consists of them possibly calling another user an ethnic slur and that most of their edits is just basically them of accusing other people of being sockpuppets, "TPLF apologists", "paid to spread disinformation" etc.The Peoples Front of Judea (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Several recent edits by you on Mai Kadra massacre have helped preserve NPOV and proper matching with sources there. Thanks! However, this entry in the RfC ignores the content of the RfC and focuses on me. (The comment effectively states that I am the UN DESA Population Division. I appreciate the compliment, but I cannot take credit for UN DESA publications.) Boud (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Boud actually no, the discussion is there and not here. And the statement Boud’s estimate is exactly that since you are the one pushing that estimate in Wikipedia. All the sources disagree with your claim. But you can continue to discuss there instead of here unless this ANI is just being used to try to paint me as a bad faith editor? Are you assuming I did not respond to your RfC in good faith?Clownshking (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You were asked by C.Fred to focus on content, not the user. I'm giving evidence. I'm not aiming at any particular result; I didn't propose what action, if any, should be taken. I can see that on some pages such as Isaias Afwerki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), you seem to be accepting to edit together with other editors and you've started showing understanding of sourcing. However, here there is a misunderstanding of the need for an RfC to be properly threaded so that others can follow the conversation; here there is a focus on my apparent ethnic identity as a Tigrayan (I'm quite honoured, I admit), which doesn't help focus on the point (the widespread and systematic torture of Eritreans is on-topic, because it affects emigration, mortality and the demographics of Eritrea); and this edit says that the United Nations DESA Population Division is an "obscure POV not based on consensused facts", which does not look to me like participating seriously in the discussion. I gave a link to the article for UN DESA, and it's difficult to see how someone can read that article and then say that UN DESA is "obscure". Even if I had not given the link, elementary respect for the arguments of others means seriously considering the possibility that others are correct; it would not have been difficult to find the UN DESA article before dismissing it as "obscure". I have put in considerable effort in looking at the sources provided by Leechjoel9 (none of which are demographic sources). Boud (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually the reason I asked your background is to understand your POV. The comment you made using words that are circulated in Tigrayan circles whom some masquerade as Eritrean asylum seekers was made by you? Apparently you have created this ANI on myself and Leechj all because neither of us agree with your single source obscure data. Again you can continue content dispute there instead of bringing that here. Using the ANI to force me to accept your POV is unacceptable because if that is the case and Wikipedia allows this then I won’t edit anymore. In good faith why did you mention accusations of torture tactics in a discussion about population number? Seemed completely off topic and distracting to the topic. Look this is getting useless stalking my edits and trying to control my POV. Again I won’t discuss demographics or any article here.Clownshking (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You stated my apparent background, you didn't ask about it: why is a Tigrayan like yourself. Widespread and systematic torture affects the probability of people fleeing from a country, which affects the demographics of that country. Stalking: you happen to edit pages that I have been editing for quite some time. WP:AGF means making a reasonable effort to read what the others say and to read, or at least browse, the references that they provide, especially if you want to claim that the reference is "obscure". Boud (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well you have track record of using the ANI to settle content disputes. Apparently you used the nuclear option instead dialogue. Why attack me or Leechj simply because we disagree with you. Yes I did ask questions. And you editing longer doesn’t mean you solely control the content of the data. You disputed the other sources but you get upset because your source is not accepted therefore you send us to ANI. If you want to own all articles of the HOA maybe you should request Wikipedia to give you ownership until then I have a right to disagree. The stalking part is your following me on Wikipedia and crying to the moderators to do something about me. Seems you are trying to convince the admins to ban me?Clownshking (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You're doing a very good job of that on your own. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, and wait for admins to weigh in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record I have not started an ANI for any reason. Boud has started ANIs for simple consensus disputes. If the goal here is to get myself or Leechj banned then what’s the point of an ANI if Boud can simply have someone like yourself already taking his side on this manufactured issue. Disagreement on topics should not be used as a proof of bad editing.Clownshking (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to add my own experience, concerning the Mai Kadra massacre, he kept undoing edits to bring the article back to the version of the article made by user BiniamAmbachew (who was blocked for his edits). Which wasn't sourced at all and gave a pro-Amharan pov. Changing the deaths to 1,200 and made the sole victims Amhara or Amhara/some other group not Tigrayan, and going against what sources say. Also removed Amhara Region Special Force as a perpetrator even though that was also sourced.[160]

Finally concerning the Fano article, he also undid edits back to edits made by BiniamAmbachew describing the Fano as "honorable soldiers and millita members that protect and defend Ethiopia. Fano soldiers work to stablize and prevent any foriegn army from invading ethiopia." When none of the sources said that and he didn't give any sources to back it up. As well as attributing massacre by the Fano to the Samri. Not saying the Samri are good and all, but the sources said they were committed by the Fano.[161] Wowzers122 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

In the Timeline of the Tigray War article he kept claiming that the TPLF (Rebel group in the war) was threatening to overthrow the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments before the war even started and said there was video proof but gave no sources aka original research.[162] And kept undoing edits of people when they tried to remove this unsourced conflict.[163] He would end up giving a source however but the source never even mentioned it and he tried to pass it off.[164] Wowzers122 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Admins I am Requesting that this ANI be closed because I’ve sufficiently participated in resolving any issues that Boud had brought up?Clownshking (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the points initially raised, I agree that Clownshking's editing behaviour with respect to Fano (nationalist movement), Mai Kadra massacre and Timeline of the Tigray War has improved and no longer qualifies as vandalism. His/her talk page comments continue in some cases to assume bad faith without contributing sourced edits, but this is annoying rather than obstructive. At the Demographics of Eritrea RfC, Clownshking does not (yet) appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, e.g. claiming that the most recent (2010) Eritrean National Statistics Office estimate should be ignored, despite apparently not having browsed the official Eritrean source that s/he asserts is unreliable, and then attempting Wikilawyering rather than looking at the substance of arguments. Clownshking does not appear willing to acknowledge the clearly stated option by a previously uninvolved editor and wishes to close the RfC without acknowledging or understanding that user's argument. My guess is that this user is making an effort to learn, and could learn, Wikipedia norms, but currently is being confused by the WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT talkpage behaviour of Leechjoel9. For the goals of protecting Wikipedia and to allow content development, I would suggest that the Leechjoel9 case be closed first. Boud (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And yet: User_talk:Clownshking#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction. Anyway, returning to my point in the other thread. This noticeboard may be fine for more obvious AE matters, but the more nuanced ones aren't as likely to lead to any action (often, not even an expressed "no action" conclusion) as it would at WP:AE — a noticeboard whose structure tempers the flow of information in a number of important ways. Speaking from the experience of being one the top admin contributors to either noticeboard, which I think counts for quite a bit. El_C 13:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Post-post close note: this user claims to be new, but their edit summary here does make my spidey sense tingle... El_C 13:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

New User:11Anonymous1122 and disruptive editing

11Anonymous1122 (talk · contribs) has been trying to remove cited and referenced text and insert poorly supported claims in Suhungmung ([165], [166], [167], [168])and Borpatrogohain ([169], [170], [171]). It is possible that these edits also constitute WP:EDITWAR. They have been pointed to using WP:RS and following WP:RULES (here) and the response has been a list of social media links [172]. I am requesting intervention to deal with this disruption. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give 11Anonymous1122 a final warning, since on his talkpage he seems to at least realize he'll need to change his editing patterns. If it continues after that, a block would be in order. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: thank you, this sounds very reasonable. Chaipau (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi, I came to the talk page of Cancel culture in good faith looking at some dubious sourcing at the article, User:Crossroads asked me to not make vague complaints [173], so I came back to discuss the overall quyality of sourcing, making it clear I was happy to be corrected and to discuss things in a civil manner. Then Crossroads just launched into a personal attack:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACancel_culture&type=revision&diff=1010567513&oldid=1010539306

I feel like this is completely out of line and nothing more than a full blown personal attack. They do not own the page. I'm not seeking sanctions, I just want the personal attacks to removed, for the personal attacks to cease and for content discussion to be civil going forward. Bacondrum 04:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What exactly did I say that is a personal attack?

Readers of this thread should see the two previous ANI threads about this topic and involving Bacondrum. At the first, from June 2019, Bacondrum was reported for tendentious editing and related misbehavior and a topic ban was requested; it was closed with a statement saying, Bacondrum has admitted to making mistakes. I am of the opinion that they should have another chance — I'm a big believer in second chances. They are taking a break from the article. If and/or when they return to it, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that's both collegial and collaborative. Sanctions at this point would be a bit harsh. At any rate, I feel hopeful. At the second, from July 2020, Bacondrum opened the original ANI thread (scroll up), and I, a previously uninvolved editor, added a subsection about Bacondrum's misbehavior. As a result, he was blocked from Online shaming and its talk page for 3 months (at that time, all the "cancel culture" material resided on that page). SlimVirgin also commented on his misbehavior. He promised at that ANI after the partial block, I won't be editing the article or commenting on it any further. Don't get to worked up about it. That didn't last. Now he's back at the topic and has been so for some time, and as before is wasting time WP:SEALIONing by tendentiously arguing that various WP:Reliable sources are not reliable, using WP:UNDUE as a POV cudgel, and demanding I WP:SATISFY him. [174] He is also again engaging in soapboxing on the talk page. [175] This report is frivolous, retaliatory, and an expression of the years-long misbehavior and POV pushing on this topic. I have therefore made a proposal below. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"Says who?" is not a valediction used by people "happy to be corrected and to discuss things in a civil manner." Crossroads' response was brusque, but I don't think it rises to a level that would ordinarily warrant administrator intervention. Your criticism of the sourcing may be completely correct on the merits (I admit I have no interest in or desire to enter the underlying content dispute here), but it comes across as something of a Gish gallop. A more focused and sequential approach to criticism of these sources would do more to drive article improvement than asking administrators to tone-police the discussion. Choess (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks; any chance of a clue? Is any text in the article actually wrong? It looks like the topic ban proposal below is the way to go but I'll have to leave examining that for later. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not seeing a PA in the OP, and definitely not a "a full blown personal attack" diff. Bacondrum seems to be upset that Crossroads is brining up past ANIs (I'm entitled to move on from past behaviour andbe given the assumption of good faith.); I agree they should be allowed to "move on from past behaviour", but this requires actually moving on, not just a rinse and repeat.

• The first ANI about Online shaming closed with an admission by Bacondrum that they were in the wrong, and an offer of a "second chance" but with the expectation, "If and/or when they return to it, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that's both collegial and collaborative." Comments made by experienced editors make it clear that their conduct on the page was not acceptable. They state near the end of the thread re: Online shaming, I'm more than happy to leave it, I've played my part in improving the article. But this didn't happen as the second ANI shows.
• The second ANI about Online shaming was started by Bacondrum and resulted in a boomerang partial block from the article and talk page for 3 months. While they disagreed with the block, they stated, I leave the article alone, it'll end up being an incomprehensible mess, but so be it. They might have left Online shaming, but they followed the same subject to the to the current article Cancel culture and we're back for a third round at ANI, again the OP is Bacondrum and after the second ANI they started backfired, they should have been very cautious about started another.
• I don't care about the topic and normally wouldn't have commented, but this section Talk:Cancel culture#Notability issues got my attention. Raising "Notability" issues here (on a clearly notable topic as your examples in Talk:Cancel culture#Reliable sources demonstrate) I believe is a clear prelude to trying to delete an article or grinding it down into a stub. You tried this at AfD recently for Virtue signalling and got your ass handed to you (pardon the expression, it fits) [176]. You participated another time at AfD for Call-out culture (the parent of Cancel culture) with the same Keep result [177], but you still started Talk:Cancel culture#Notability issues on the talk page. You're not LISTENING and refusing to DROPTHESTICK.

Getting into the content dispute here is inappropriate and a distraction. The issue that belongs here is Bacondrum's conduct at the discussion. Bacondrum, I don't know who is "right" on the content dispute (it's ultimately irrelevant here), but an editor can be completely "right" about a content dispute, but completely wrong in the way they go about making their point. Again I have no idea who is "right", but I think the way you're going about the discussion is wrong - you're bludgeoning and battlegrounding, refusing to LISTEN and DROPTHESTICK on a topic that you clearly have an issue with participating constructively in and in the past you've acknowledged you should leave it alone, but seem not to be able to despite two very clear warnings. I've said this before, there are certain subject areas I do not go into because I know if I do I will be banned. I think this is true for all editors and experienced editors recognize it and abstain for their own good. Bacondrum I state all of the above with nothing but goodwill, take it or leave it.

Normally I'd say give the editor a chance to voluntarily abstain from the topic before a ban, but been there done that, and they have not been able to. I think a topic ban unfortunately may be needed, not based on this particular incident, but on this and the above. I also think it might be in the best interests of Bacondrum, before this gets worse and results in something more. However if they are willing to state they will abstain, I'd oppose a formal topic ban with the proviso this is the final chance. I defintely don't want to see a formal ban unless its absolutely needed.  // Timothy :: talk  07:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Bacondrum from cancel culture

• Support, to end the years of time-wasting tendentious editing on this topic, per above. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm having some difficulty in seeing the supposed tendentious editing on Bacondrum's part. I don't see anything objectionable about his analysis of the sourcing of the article, and, indeed, it seems highly inappropriate for it to rely so heavily on opinion pieces and op-eds instead of factual articles. I will say that it was probably a poor choice on Bacondrum's part to file a report here, since the comment from Crossroads he cites is aggresively frank, but not really a PA. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to me that Crossroads was willing to overlook a bit of hyperbole from Bacondrum and deal with the real problems with the article's sourcing that he outlined in considerable detail, and instead jumped immediately into ad hominems aimed at Bacondrum's past, a lot of which I don't see as terribly relevant -- certainly the evidence presented in that comment and above is far from sufficient to justify a topic ban.
  I would say that both parties are being somewhat precipitous, and they should both back off and attempt to deal with each other more calmly, focusing on the specifics of Bacondrum's complaints about the article, and not on each other's behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks BMK, I'd gladly focus on content rather than each other. Bacondrum 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• • I went into more detail why Bacondrum's post at Talk:Cancel culture was tendentious in my reply to him there. Crossroads ^-talk- 09:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

    I don't get it. You want folks to dig through that talk page and pick this out themselves? If a proposal for sanctions is made here, it should be presented with sufficient context and diffs of problematic edits. It's not very effective to expect editors to go digging and figure it out themselves (and seems like railroading otherwise). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

    That's not what I said. Here is Bacondrum's long post, [178] which as I said above is "WP:SEALIONing by tendentiously arguing that various WP:Reliable sources are not reliable, using WP:UNDUE as a POV cudgel, and demanding I WP:SATISFY him", my reply going into some detail with the issues in it, [179] and a recent post by Nil Einne [180] zooming into the misleadingness of one point in particular. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

    I have skimmed that thread and don't see anything wrong with it. SEALIONing does not seem to be apparent. Their listing of "Op-eds, analysis and opinion pieces" is not because the sources are not RS, but because Bacondrum believes they're biased/opinion pieces/etc. He then lists a bunch of journal sources (ie WP:SCHOLARSHIP) which he believes should be used instead. I'm not saying whether the argument is good or not, I haven't looked into the content aspect deeply, but it certainly seems reasonable to bring up. Instead, it seems you immediately accused them of WP:TE in your first response to them (the second diff in your reply to me). See WP:ATONED. If the editor is being productive now, there's no reason to hold his past misgivings against him. If there's a problem with that section, it is not apparent to me. Are there any serious conduct issues that have to be dealt with here, or what are we doing here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I've protected Cancel culture for a day due to some disruptive editing which appears to be mainly by IP editors. Confirmed users can still edit. (I see continued discussion on the talk page.) I would suggest to Bacondrum to tread lightly here (and filing this "PA" complaint where others seem to think it's not a PA is a step in the wrong direction) Historically editors with block logs tend to gain the attention of admins (rightly or wrongly) when they have multiple (page) blocks in the last 9 months. You seem to be passionate on this online shaming/cancel culture topic, which is fine; but I'd suggest a more tempered approach. Just IMO. No preference on this topic ban proposal. — Ched (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for the toe-stepping, but I've set the semiprotection not to expire, because it looks like there has been little if any reprieve from frequent non-confirmed disruption (for a long time), which I don't conceive getting better any time soon, which is to say: for the foreseeable future. El_C 14:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment If a sanction is requested for "years of time-wasting", we're going to need more specific examples than this, and also recent examples of recent disruption. I looked at the talkpage and can't see anything particularly problematic (indeed, surely listing possibly unreliable sources is a good thing?) whilst Bacondrum doesn't appear to be edit warring or anything else on the article itself - infact they haven't edited it much at all recently and the last time they removed content was nearly a month ago and actually restored the article to a version by Crossroads. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Overall, that's my sense, too. Though, as usual, Black Kite phrases it better than I could. El_C 14:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• My proposal is not for the recent conduct alone. It is for the years-long pattern of disruption on the topic of which the recent activity shows the same issues are present; tendentious and misleading argumentation on the talk page coupled with frivolous ANI reports of "opponents" is still disruption even if one doesn't mess with the article itself (yet), though he is clearly building up to doing so. Considering he was already warned at the first ANI and given a 3 month block from the topic at the second, and that he opened this thread on me, this is where we're at. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Crossroads, that may sidestep the point of this being a rather slow trickle recently so as to be actionable, as opposed to a steady stream, not to mention anything torrential... El_C 14:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is a long winded personal attack, look how desperate he is to have me topic banned!!! For what, for daring to discuss issues with his article? I'm absolutely certain I've done nothing wrong this time round, I've asked to discuss sources? OMG, someone get the noose! Crossroads is being a bully and WP:OWNing the page, end of story. Bacondrum 22:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Look at crossroads edit history, he certainly spends a lot of time here trying to get people blocked, fella isn't even an admin. Bacondrum 22:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever that's supposed to mean. Clearly you have too strong of feelings on this topic. As for "owning", there's no evidence of that on my part. You, however, have previously ground the topic down to a dicdef and engaged in ownership to keep it that way (documented at the last ANI); the latest argumentation is more of the same. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Restored comment of mine which Bacondrum removed. [181] Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• This should boomerang, Crossroads is WP:OWNing the page, he is using my past behavior in an ad hominem manner to attack me rather discuss content, if you look at history of the Cancel Culture article you'll see changes by different editors are routinely reverted by the Crossroads to keep the article unchanged. I came to the talk page with issues and received an ad hominem response, a personal attack, they've then called for me to be topic banned for what? For daring to discuss sources? From WP:NPA What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." None have been provided because my only crime other than past behavior was to ask to discuss issues with sources in a civil manner. Crossroads over zealous desire see other editors blocked should also be addressed, the level of participation at ANI despite not being an admin appears to be malicious. Bacondrum 23:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack by C. because the statement was strongly supported by links. You are right that people should not discuss each other on article talk pages. But a lot more importantly, they should not bring each other to ANI instead of peacefully resolving their differences on article talk page, and especially if they had was a history of previous similar discussions on ANI, as you do. By bringing this here you are making a disservice to yourself and waste time of other contributors. This will only get you blocked or topic banned. My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

if you look at history of the Cancel Culture article you'll see changes by different editors are routinely reverted by the Crossroads to keep the article unchanged. I have done nothing improper of the sort. Got any diffs for this accusation or is this just WP:ASPERSIONS? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice the statement Crossroads over zealous desire see other editors blocked should also be addressed, the level of participation at ANI despite not being an admin appears to be malicious.. A remarkable accusation considering Bacondrum filed this report. Bacondrum was also here last week after seemingly threatening another editor with a block over a content dispute. I genuinely believe there may be a WP:CIR issue here, but at the same time, Bacondrum seems clever enough to slide each time they end up on these forums, so they must be doing something right. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite and El_C You're both fair admins who I respect, I'll follow whatever advice you give here. I feel like I've improved and no longer edit in a problematic fashion, but I'm happy to be pulled up by you guys if I'm doing the wrong thing. Was I wrong to question the sourcing in this article? Bacondrum 00:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem is that you've questioned sources that are fine. For example, you say that Zoe Thomas, "What is the cost of 'cancel culture'?", BBC News, 8 October 2020, isn't an RS for Cancel culture because it's "opinion and analysis". In fact, it's a good source for that article. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, it is an "analysis" piece, but it's also perfectly good for the use it's been given. Bacondrum, whilst some of the sources in that list clearly are op-eds, not all of them are, so it might be worth being a little more careful there. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I made it clear in the post that I wanted to discuss the sources, not remove them and was open to the idea that I may very well be wrong about some: "So I hope we can have a calm and civil discussion about sourcing in this article. I've been told that vague complaining is useless, so I'm going to get very specific - I'm sure I've got some of this wrong and am happy to be corrected and discuss." This pile on by the anti-bacondrum squad is a straight up attack, it's why so many editors walk away from this project, it's just vindictive BS. Bacondrum 02:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support, Suggestion to Bacondrum (Edit: I'm going to recast this as my observations of what might be going wrong, and a suggestion for Bacondrum to cool it) not only because of the past/current problematic behavior being virtually indistinguishable, but because Bacondrum's response here shows no understanding of what they're doing wrong and no willingness to change. Nothing about Crossroads statement was a personal attack against Bacondrum, yet Bacondrum still seems to be putting in a Herculean effort to turn the tide and somehow continue with this frivolous report against Crossroads, attributing malice, harassment, etc. etc. As another editor noted, prior claims of redemption and apologies have been undermined by later behavior so many times, only a sincere and self-aware expression of contrition should be accepted as persuasive, and BD has not even come close to that. Indeed, they're still attacking Crossroads here and mocking them. "fella is not even an admin" is not a nice statement, and not especially relevant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note to reviewing admin I'd point out to any admin reviewing this that Wikieditor19920 does not appear to have had any part in this dispute (they have never edited the article or its talkpage), but does have a history of conflict with Bacondrum including at least two ANI reports [182] [183], the latter of which saw Wikieditor sanctioned, and you may wish to weigh this comment given that backstory. I am going to warn Wikieditor19920 that attempting to get an editor sanctioned purely that you have had a previous dispute with them is not a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This is only my input having had previous negative interactions with this user for similar reasons. But I'll reframe my vote as a suggestion to Bacondrum on how to move forward, and hopefully that will resonate more deeply than supporting sanctions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite, it also struck me as a blatant attempt to get revenge, that's why I've not responded too him at all. Having said that, I can see that I'm too quick to come to ANI and I do bring a bit of the drama on myself, I'll seek other remedies before ANI in the future. Thanks again. Bacondrum 00:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Other than a frivolous (and ultimately self-defeating) ANI thread, I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of a problem by Bacondrum, who identified some potentially problematic sources (along with some that aren't so problematic, indeed). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• This thread is just silly. Crossroads should’ve done a better job at assuming good faith in the discussion that prompted this section. Bacondrum should learn to treat ANI as a venue of last resort, not a first resort at the first sign of trouble, and is further not doing themselves any favours by their commentary in this thread. I wouldn’t say the complaint is “frivolous”, but it’s not actionable either (imo). Maybe an admin should just close this whole section as going nowhere productive, before one of the parties does say something to incur themselves sanctions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I just want this removed [[184]] lest the whole section becomes a discussion about me rather than content. I did not come here seeking sanctions, I have contributed to talk in good faith, we are supposed to discuss content not other editors, I thought that was policy? If we could just get back to discussing content at the articles talk page I'd be over the moon, I don't want the discussion to be about me and it is a firm policy that we should only be discussing content. If Crossroads can focus on content and not me I'd be more than happy to move on. Bacondrum 21:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Another editor pointed out that your "discussion of sources" doesn't come off as serious, and it's difficult not to agree. You are just rehashing the same arguments basically you made in several other sections on the same talk page. In this latest instance, you just listed all of the sources in the article and offered largely the same frivolous complaints about all of them (e.g. Who is this? Who is that? UNDUE). You're asking "who is this" about noted opinion columnists in prominent papers like the NYT and made the sweeping, and incorrect, statement that op-eds are not usable or WP:DUE in any case. See WP:RSEDITORIAL. Basically, it looks like you're trying to throw whatever you can at the wall to whittle down the article and create obstacles to fleshing it out, i.e. genuine improvement. This seems to be based on your own dislike the subject per your own words, and other editors are finding this approach exhausting. I don't know why this behavior is being written off, but I agree with Crossroads it's a more serious problem than others are acknowleding. I assume you'll only "move on" until the next time you end up bringing someone to ANI or threatening them with an EW template or some other sort of escalation tactic, because as I said in my vote, this is the same pattern I've seen with you to a T over and over. My suggestion is this: I see that you've objected to the usage of those sources in prior talk page sections. If the objections didn't stick that time, raising them again and again in a much longer post is not going to accomplish anything. It was probably not 100% appropriate to comment on behavioral issues on a talk page forum. But you were also being disruptive, so I don't think ANI was appropriate for you either. I'd agree should be closed without sanctions and hopefully with a lesson learned about dropping the stick, something I can recognize and understand having struggled with it too. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'll just move on, there are other editors who are discussing content rather than me, we can move on and discuss the sourcing in a civil manner. I'll just ignore any further assumptions of bad faith and comments made about me. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Bacondrum 00:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No foundation. No reason. A solution that tries to manufacture a problem. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Close this whole discussion. It was unhelpful from the start and still unhelpful. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Trolling of talk pages and threats

Would like to request some urgent admin attention over at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2). As you can see there has been a pile on by unconfirmed editors, IPs towards myself and RandomCanadian. This includes and is not limited to multiple calls (and empty threats) for us to kill ourselves as well as major spamming because of a content dispute. Please can some delete the edits and hide them permanently? I'm not too fussed about actual content of the edits however, it has gotten out of hand.

Involved users:

• RandomCanadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (victim like myself)
• non-involved third party responders Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Redrose64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
• Perpetrators

• 100%ure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irin161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a02:c7d:8a4d:2d00:1d2f:df1a:5351:c2ad (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 146.7.112.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Caroline Quentin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suspect some of the perpetrators might be sock puppets of each other.

Notified the involved users.≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Deepfriedokra is in the midst of sorting it out. El_C 22:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response(s). Must have happened while I was filing the report. Can we redact the threats from the page history please? Is any further admin support required? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There's also some very probably copyvio (the big edit here) and some more blatant threats like this. Though as I said since that was there pretty much throughout the whole bit can probably be revdelled. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Bloody Hell! I just semi'd a talk page. Revdle'd. Blocked. Please someone, check my work. I doubt if I blocked all of the mob that attacked that page. Adjust as you see fit. Actions of this magnitude need double checking. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Never seen such a pile on, so quickly. Thanks again for the swift action. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, Deepfriedokra, I protected the main article a couple of days ago, so I guess we can be RuPaul buddies! El_C 23:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

- I feel uncomfortable with the article being unprotected given what's happened today. What do you think> ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

When life gives you zesty lemons, make lemonade DFO

:The full protection expires on the 10th. It was imposed due to edit warring among EC users. Not sure I want to touch that further just yet. El_C 23:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We (by that meaning not myself because I'm not an admin and if I were, I'm involved) can probably stick indefinite SP (but if I remember correctly that page was already protected, hence the reason I fell upon it and fell into this when I was going through CAT:ESP) under the full protection. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. But the semiprotection that my full protection overwrote was set to expire on the 12th. El_C 00:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The more pragmatic deadline would be the figure out when the last episode of this will air and have SP expire a week or two after that; but given that this has an apparently very dedicated Wikipedia-editing fan following, not sure if it will just cease all of a sudden when it goes out of the short-term memory of the said fan group. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Update. After the SP, clean up and blocking, discussion on the talk page is better. I will be slipping away from this. I would like to keep this thread open in case problems arise after the expiration of FP on the article. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Well there still is the same repeated fan-ish requests on the talk page (I've held short of removing them); so not that much of an improvement.RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And now (two!) socks and a rangeblock... @Zzuuzz: Thanks for that. The last edit by that IP could maybe use edit summary deletion too? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we're all done. And BTW, FTR, some of the sockery smells of User:ZestyLemonz. It's sometimes difficult to tell on those types of page though. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

We'll find out. FP just ended. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, there is a ground swell of edits that are felt to be in violation of WP:MOS. Particularly MOS:ACCESS. Apparently all RuPaul's Drag Race UK pages are like this. The rationale being they must all be the same. I hate MOS fights, but acknowledge the importance MOSACESS. Best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I note that within a couple of hours the original table has been restored in the name of "keep them all the same". I obviously will not restore the other version, particularly as there is a discussion on the talk page that is still ongoing (in which I participated, arguing for the removal of such tables, for full disclosure). It's not just RuPaul's Drag Race UK tables that are like this, but many many tables for all sorts of reality TV shows. From what I can gather, there appear to be... strong feelings, shall we say, around including and speedily updating these tables during a series. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• My 2c: due to the multiple recent protections, the page(s) should be ECP for a good duration (months). EC editors who continue to edit war (or violate WP:ACCESS!) should be handled one-by-one: give them a warning, and on second offense, partial block, and if they continue on a different page, full block. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Asqueladd point of view in Spain

User says that "It is the generic one not presuming gender" in "King of Spain" infobox label and erase some image climate of Spain and by some reason puts this text: "Undid revision 1010126176 by Eightbenny (talk) Discuss in the talk page.". User is likely from Spain. Please, revert that edits. --Eightbenny (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute at this stage. The proper place to discuss would be Talk:Spain, where neither has engaged so far. To be fair it should probably use whatever the current title is. So to take another example it's Queen Elizabeth II (UK and Commonwealth) [and on her death it will be King Charles (whatever the number)]. And I don't know if all monarchies have adopted less gender restrictive rules (UK has, me thinks, but I have no clue about Spain) - so it's also more likely to be King in the future... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

But because typical user's tone I consider more aproppriate make a request. --Eightbenny (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the edit summaries I don't see any issue of tone or uncivility. ANI is for issues of behaviour. Except for failing to use the talk page, I don't see one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem here is not Asqueladd but Eightbenny. He wants to edit-war. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)}

@Tbhotch: Please, show that I am "guilty", if you makes allegations as just because if I invite you that not fall in WP:UNCIVIL. Greetings!. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: user justs makes superfluous justifications. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the proof that Spain article haves many issues. --Eightbenny (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear enough in my first comment: "The proper place to discuss would be Talk:Spain, where neither has engaged so far." So go have a talk there instead of reverting each other, because yes, reverting each other, no matter who is right, usually IS edit warring. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

For me, is inappropriate manage that type of users just in talk page. I believe. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You see it?, they were even two biased users. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Just informing that I've filed a sockpuppet investigation on Eightbenny Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janitor102. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of that possibility. Of course if these suspicions are founded then we should let that process run it's course. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Guilty of being a sockpuppet of another editor, of violating the BLP policy,[185][186][187] of edit-warring against WP:CATEGORY (as requested at WP:CATV) [188][189][190]. Shall I continue? Because as a matter of fact you "seem" very incompetent when speaking in English, yet you know about several of our policies and guidelines despite the fact that you have been here for some weeks. How stupid do you think I am? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't known, because but you edit few and in ethnic pages just to camouflage disruptive editing in "sockpuppets". --Eightbenny (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What does that even mean? M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Tbhotch is in my point of view, a biased user. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The OP of this thread also opened WP:EWN#User:Tbhotch reported by User:Eightbenny (Result: ). I blocked from mainspace for 48 hours but the SPI does look like a match to me based on page-level editing (I haven't looked deeper). --Izno (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Are there enough aspersions and personal attacks to warrant a stronger remedy against OP? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please, put attention on issue. You're welcome. --Eightbenny (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Beaneater00 - When did it become ok to use racial slurs in usernames?

"Bean eater" is a widely-known racist slur (see also Beaner). Why on earth is an editor called Beaneater00 not already blocked simply for the name? If one assumes good faith about the choice of name being possibly a reference to simply enjoying eating beans, the name itself will still be offensive to many people. This user is actively engaged in editing far-right US political topics (including arguing about the designation of America First Political Action Conference as White Nationalist), which suggests that they are very much aware of the offensiveness of the name. Mo Billings (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mo Billings: The proper place is WP:UAA (where, with a justification such as the one you give above, a block would likely be forthcoming). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The old name of the Braves was the Boston Beaneaters, so it's not hard to see another entirely anodyne explanation. Regardless, UAA is for unambiguous violations; the proper venue for a discussion is WP:RFC/N. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad they changed it to something that no one could construe as racist. Mo Billings (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering their anti-semetic "jokes" a few months back, it's really no surprise. UAA won't be worth anything in this case. They never should've been unblocked. CUPIDICAE💕 00:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah well with the above it seemed rather unambiguous to me. Wasn't aware the Braves were once called the Beaneaters (was aware they were formerly in Boston); apparently that is a century old though and it lasted barely more than a decade, though, so the racist explanation is more likely... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the only association in my mind with "beaneater" is that it's slang for someone from Boston, a.k.a. "Beantown". I've never heard of it being a slur for Mexicans. I believe that last time I head it used to mean a Bostonian was on an episode of M*A*S*H. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Recognition of the racist connotation is helped by having lived or worked in U.S. states like California or Texas (the territory of which were once part of Mexico). I'm sure that term and phrase has spread over the last four years. — Neonorange (Phil) 04:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for the reopen @Davey2010:, but there are more than enough concerns about this users choice of name and editing to warrant an indeff. Since being somehow unblocked by Arbcom after previously being blocked for similar disruptive editing, they've made very little useful edits, mostly pushing POV, edit warring when their edits are reverted, or trolling/ messing around, here are just a few examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and admitting to being anti-semitic. There's also this bizarre edit where they randomly add ">This user comes from Israel." after another users comment in a discussion they're not even a part of, these user boxes, and being banned from wikipedia's discord server with the reason "alt-right". Even disregarding all of that, they're evading the block of their previous account User:Tablekitten, which was blocked back in 2018 for vandalism; it has the same topic interest and the same name as Beaneater00's discord account. I've blocked them, review is welcome. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 02:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'd forgotten this user. It looks like I declined two UTRS unblock requests. Be interested in hearing ArbCom's reasoning for unblocking. Anyone want to propose a CBAN? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, Yes that would be highly appreciated, this dumb saga needs to end, they are an obvious net negative. I actually emailed arbcom asking them to re-indeff this user since they're the ones that unblocked them and they seem like the type to harass, but they declined and referred it back to the community, so I decided to block. This and other blocks/unblocks/other events appear to be part of an ongoing fracture between Arbcom and the Functionaries, which appears to be something people are aware of but are saying nothing about. I'm angry and getting tired of it. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 03:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  I am also curious as to what reasoning convinced ArbCom to undo a CheckUser account block of someone who had been evidently editing disruptively (from my brief review of their contributions at the time of the original CU block). For what it's worth, I endorse re-blocking. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  If it was a CU block they were undoing, it may have been on technical grounds only. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Community Ban for Beaneater00

Since this was floated around above and no one proposed it while I was gone for the day. Per the evidence above and the Arbcom unblock, I believe this user should appeal to the community if they are to ever be unblocked in order to prevent further gaming of the system and more wasted time. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 04:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm actually neutral on whether they are CBANNED I actually oppose the CBAN, since appealing to ARBCOM would have been reasonable on their side and not indicative of a "gaming appeal" - I endorse the block since coupled with their disruptive behaviour, some of their comments indicate their name probably, though not certainly is meant offensively, I'm just not sure I feel it needs the extra protection, when any unblocking admin will be considering all the facets, not just the CU component as appears to be the case with ARBCOM here. I'm going to specifically note that I would not consider their name to be a "blatant breach" and would not force an editor with a similar name, editing in GF, to change. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Another editor might claim Tuscan heritage or a fondness for a particular painting or book of poetry. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• strong support Wikipedia shouldn't host racist, anti-semetic editors. I don't know why so many are eager to explain away the username of someone who has repeatedly made anti-semetic comments, edited with a heavy POV skewing toward racism and outright trolled. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Assuming good faith isn't a suicide pact. Arbcom unblocking is irrelevant and I'm guessing they weren't fully aware of the gravity of the situation and their extensive history. CUPIDICAE💕 12:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Seems unnecessary. Plenty of blocks like this (and 'worse') are regular admin blocks, and I'm sure (hope?) admins are competent enough to assess whether circumstances have changed and if an unblock is appropriate without needing a referral to the community. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per WP:NONAZIS and the diffs linked by moneytrees above. I may have been inclined to AGF on the username under different circumstances, but in the context of dog-whistling so loud it's giving me tinnitus, I simply cannot. Someone who creates a userbox like this one (see the wikilinks) is not compatible with a collaborative editing environment. Suggesting that the US is a puppet state of Israel that is going to war for it isn't even veiled antisemitism – it's outright repetition of an antisemitic conspiracy theory. And that's just one example for the far-right POV-pushing and trolling Beaneater00 has been involved in. I do not, and can not, know if the arbcom-unblock was justified on technical grounds. But I do strongly feel that if they want to return, they should demonstrate to the community – and not to anyone else – that they are willing and able to comply with the basic norms that they have deliberately and consistently disregarded thus far. --Blablubbs|talk 22:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per WP:NONAZIS. The diffs speak for themselves. ~ HAL333 05:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per Moneytrees and Blabbubs. It need be said, and it need be said loudly, that racists should not be at liberty here. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support CBAN Zero chance they will be a productive editor. P-K3 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible impersonation of deceased Wikipedian

Hello, I came across Sbuogakrmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the user creation log. A couple of suspicious things here:

1. The account's first edit is an RFA for NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs). Its only other edit as of this writing is a notification of the RFA at North's user talk page. Note: I don't suspect NorthBySouthBaranof of any wrongdoing at this time.
2. The account's signature says "KevanGormen", which last I checked (admittedly several years ago) is not a violation in and of itself since it links to the correct user page and user talk page.
3. I noted that "KevanGormen" is suspiciously similar to Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs), a deceased Wikipedian that seems to have been well-respected in some circles (I never interacted with him AFAIK), which got me wondering if this is a case of impersonation.

Can some folks look into this? I find it highly unlikely that Sbuogakrmn is a truly new user. I smell a sock but I don't know who the master would be. TIA. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clear impersonation/vandalism. I blanked/db-tagged the page and the sock should be blocked/CUed. Likely that whoever's doing it is CU-aware and the lead will go nowhere, but worth a try. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kuyabribri: @NorthBySouthBaranof: Yeah it's a perennial LTA obsessed with impersonating Kevin Gorman. I've blocked them, Total weirdo behavior. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 04:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I first met Kevin Gorman at a conference on Wikipedia in Higher Education in Boston in 2011, even though we were both Northern Californians. He was a thin, intense UC Berkeley student interested in mushrooms, philosophy and gender equity. He had obvious physical health problems that may have affected his mental health as he sometimes showed signs of stress when I interacted with him at edit-a-thons in Berkeley and San Francisco. He was totally devoted to Wikipedia and contributed some great content but was also drawn into various ugly gender related disputes. And then he died way too young of the health conditions I had perceived years earlier. I met some of his family members after his death at the Wikimedia North America conference in San Diego in 2016. Five years later, there is a vile troll who obsessively engages in reprehensible socking behavior to besmirch his memory and mock him in death. A truly sick puppy. Revert and deny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Any chance of an edit filter to stop any attempts to post using various re-spellings of "Kevin Gorman"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There was another attack by this sad person using the moniker Jaekg65364. I am reminded of words of wisdom by Antandrus: "While it feels bad to be attacked by one of the persistent, nasty, obsessive trolls, it is helpful to remember that some of these people are profoundly miserable. They are really suffering; life is hell for them: often they are neither in control of their impulses, nor completely sane. A little compassion can help, although one's initial impulse is to strike back. Don't. It's a sign of strength not to retaliate, and a peaceful response may actually do some good." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Wise words, though still ban them on sight, and preferably poke a CU if you haven't seen one around. I see some unfortunate names used when it comes to this particular troll. It's worth mentioning the name which should be used for the troll, if any, and that's User:Jaredgk2008. Just Jared will also do. As for the filter, we do have filter(s) dedicated to Jaredgk2008. We could maybe work them some more, but some of it is frankly a bit difficult to filter, which is why there's all the obscure characters. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of honorific prefixes in articles of deceased public figures (like politicians)

Dunno if this is the right venue for this complaint, but I'd like to report IP user 120.29.77.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for re-adding honorific prefixes in articles where they aren't applicable despite having been warned in the talk page and reverted several times by other editors. This has been his only (and recent) activity since joining the website. Nincompoopian (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• It would help if you would give specific examples so we don't have to pour through all his contribs and guess which you object to. Honorific prefixes are part of the template, although they should be sourced like any other content. If they don't belong at all, then yes, but it would help to give us a list of some. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. I discovered that this IP is another sock puppet of a banned registered user. I've filed a sockpuppet report to the admins instead. Feel free to archive this one. Thanks. Nincompoopian (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to article ban Cambial Yellowing from United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020

• Support, to end their effective ownership of the article and tendentious editing through countless edit wars / breaking of the 3RR, misappropriations of wikipedia policy they clearly understand, referring to sources which don't back their increasingly absurd arguments (they hope you don't have the time to read through), rarely conceding obvious facts to ensure discussion only ends when every other editor gives up, regularly filing reports on other's behaviour which they don't adhere to themselves... for the purpose of including as much negative material and skewing the language of the article to make the act it describes appear to have a greater imposition than reality.146.198.108.170 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This evidence-less (zero diffs) post, that jumps straight to an WP:ABAN for some reason, seems like a non-starter. Probably should be summarily closed. El_C 20:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi El_C, I will appreciate your eyes on this. Have been trying to implement CaptainEek's proposed version of this section made during moderation, as the discussion has gone dormant due to lack of engagement. The verbatim version of that proposal, and attempts to reword in various ways to address what IP says are their concerns and incorporate IP's contributions into the lead, have been met with blanket reversions to their own interpretation of the primary source. The post here is I think an attempt at "revenge" after their behaviour was reported at 3RR. Cambial foliage❧ 20:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The link reported at 3RR Cambial Yellowing would like to bring your attention to would be a good place to look before making your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, the current discussion on the article talk page is a typical example of the editor's style of never reaching consensus through arguments that are patently false to anyone who cares to investigate[[191]] .146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, both of you violated 3RR, IP, so for you to only mention CY's violation but omit your own — that isn't a great look. It also doesn't look promising for your position that everyone else seems to disagree with your changes, yet you keep edit warring to insert the addition back. That is disruptive editing, in my view. So, please aim at observing WP:ONUS, because, right now, you're doing the very opposite. El_C 20:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have a tool which can show how many times Cambial Yellowing has inserted/reverted the text "and to restrict" into the article; having read the last few comments in the talk section, it should be very apparent why I've decided to start this process.

I have encouraged you to visit the link that Cambial Yellowing provided which is their report against me. I do not hide from my own actions, I hope you have the time to visit the page and also to investigate the context of which this all occurred.146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I do have such a tool, IP: my eyes! El_C 02:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I had been trying to moderate the discussion, but a variety of factors hampered my effectiveness. Several of the contributors were either banned or simply gave up, and then the IP came in and starting causing trouble. I think some combo of full protection, or blocking, is in order. Through a significant amount of discussion, I think the version I proposed in my moderation (and which is substantially implemented in the current version of the page) is the consensus version, and the IP is warring against it for reasons that are beyond my comprehension. To be fair, Cambial was also warring with the IP, which is disappointing. Though I think Cambial's version is the consensus. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of progress on CaptainEek's moderation (edit: which I did attempt to contribute to in the absence of editors who became frustrated, I've also attempted to contact CaptainEek directly), it was Cambial Yellowing who then presumed the outcome and edited the introduction to include again "and to restrict" which is the issue I've been attempting to solve on the talk page since then. I won't rehash the discussion there; for anyone who has a bit of time to understand the subject, the facts speak for themselves and I'm now arguing against something which makes no logical sense at all. I appreciate this is a technical matter and Cambial Yellowing has a veneer of integrity but I am confident you would then understand why I'm spending any effort on this.146.198.108.170 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

After I first implemented a slightly modified version (because of a technical legal sense of the word "prescribes" which could lead to confusion), IP reverted to an arbitrary earlier version taken from the middle of extensive disruption. I then implemented the exact version proposed by CaptainEek and linked to the proposal in edit summary. Recent changes on my part have not been reversions, but attempts to rephrase to address what IP says is their concern (that it implies a separate and unmentioned section of the act, though I struggle to perceive this interpretation), and to incorporate their text into the lead in npov (which is done in the current version). I admit that attempts to work through WP:EDITCON when it became obvious they were simply reverting anything regardless of the content was seriously unwise. Cambial foliage❧ 21:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was and remain neutral on the precise wording of the sentence in question and my efforts on the article reflect that. All I was and am seeking is for the article not to start with a sentence which is easily misinterpreted and inaccurate. I am stunned by how difficult doing so has become.146.198.108.170 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

IP, I'm not sure I understand the point of you saying that. Obviously, both camps (are you solitary in your own?) consider their approach to better reflect policy imperative. But, again, the point is that, for you, representing the contesting version, to observe WP:ONUS (linked a 2nd time).

If resolution on the article talk page hits an impasse there, there are dispute resolution requests (like launching a Request for comment) that can bring further outside input to the dispute to resolve it once and for all — though it sounds like this was already attempted, but you still remain steadfast against the prevailing consensus. Possibly, I've missed something as I have not reviewed any of the details at this time. This is just my general impression (only). El_C 02:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I made my previous point in the context of edit warring, I have no preferred text to bulldoze. I make this plea as a solitary individual, other editors facing this treadmill have left wikipedia as a result. I would strongly encourage you to review the details, the current impasse on the talk page is a matter of defying truth and logic in a manner that I can only describe as malicious; placed against the history of the editor in question, it's yet another example of concerted pattern where a veil of appearing to adhere to policy at a casual glance is far more like tendentious editing when held up to scrutiny.146.198.108.170 (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• El_C I know this is boring. IP user is now canvassing editors who have never contributed to the page, presumably in the belief they will be sympathetic to IP's POV. Cambial foliage❧ 20:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that it is canvassing (or presumptive), but for the time being, I'll keep the breadcrumbs in my pocket. El_C 20:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at the latest entries on the [talk page], you won't even need to research the subject (although I encourage you to, in order to understand how deep this goes) to see the shark being jumped by Cambial Yellowing; the current argument they're making is the equivalent of claiming that black is white, while screaming indignation at someone pointing out the obvious facts.146.198.108.170 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

IP, to be clear, I'm unlikely to do that. Sounds boring and, erm, taxing, too. Volunteering my time any further to this doesn't really appeal to me. El_C 21:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it and it would be helpful, if before forming an opinion, you would to lend the favour of judging the case on its merits.146.198.108.170 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

IP, I haven't formed an opinion, except for, as I said from the very beginning, that as far as ban requests go, this one is especially poorly-documented (zero diff evidence). Beyond that, I've offered some general advise and recommendations, but, otherwise, am just not that interested in looking into this further at this time. El_C 23:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I read through the talk page discussion. Twice. And marveled at Cambial Yellowing's patience. Schazjmd (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Really? even where they just seriously contradicted themselves based on false claims?146.198.108.170 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, really. ANI is not for adjudicating content disputes; the specifics of the disagreement on the lead don't matter here. ANI is for conduct. Setting aside the edit warring on the article which you both engaged in, what I see on the talk page is CY trying really hard to figure out what your precise objection is. I do believe that you think that you're communicating your issues with the content clearly, but I can't figure out them out from that talk page discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Michaelstarwolf9 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

He has disrupted Wikipedia for months, yet he's only blocked for 72 hours! Based on his behavior, an indefinite block is in order. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, this editor only has about 100 edits. Admittedly, some were self promotional and some were about a non-notable talk show. But unless you can provide diffs of severe disruption that I am not seeing, the 72 hour block looks like a good first step. A longer block is easy to implement if disruption continues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to adjust behavior, not be punitive. I see some good-faith editing where the user merely needs guidance rather than to be forever blocked (and did a good job with the start of The Patrick Star Show (TV series) article). The only issue seems to be on that Epic edit, and worse comes to worse, we can apply a page block for them on that page only. Nate • (chatter) 06:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Update User has since been indef'd with TPA removed. User does not appear amenable to behavior adjustment. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sadly have to agree; I would've helped if they had waited it out, but this would've upped it to an indef no matter what to me. Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back Attacks & False Accusations

Not sure what can be done at this point, but this has gone on long enough to warrant at least a record of User:Horse Eye's Back's recent behavior. For full details, see Talk:Taiwan. (Comments are mine.)

Exhibit 1
(pretty minor, so I let it slide) We aren’t talking about isolated tribes, we’re talking about more than 1/3-2/3 of the island’s land area that the Qing had not yet conquered when the colonial project of conquering Taiwan from its indigenous people was turned over to the Japanese. Only under the Japanese did the indigenous nations in the mountains lose their sovereignty. You appear to be arguing semantics when you should stick to history 101. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you agree then only parts of the island were ceded by the Qing to Japan? The Empire of Japan did not think so! It sounds like you are just trolling now. Don't you get it, your personal opinion of what defines annexation does not matter. Spain, Portugal, Mexico, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Imperial Russia, the Mongol Empire, Qing China, etc. all possessed/possesses significant territories where the indigenous peoples were/are not conquered or subdued. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(seriously?) Your repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations is unhelpful as well as offensive. The Empire of Japan had to invest a significant amount of blood and treasure in conquering the last of the independent indigenous nations of Taiwan, I think they were well aware that they were not being handed the sovereignty of all of Taiwan because the Qing did not possess it in the first place to give it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

First, no one understands your position anymore. Qing's annexation of the island is well evidenced by historical documents, and Japan specifically asked for the cession of the entire island of Taiwan and all its appertinent islands from the Qing. I've also listed numerous nations whose territorial expansions were recognized internationally despite not having conquered/subdued all their indigenous peoples. Case closed. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Second, your ludicrous and outright fabricated accusation that somehow my writing amounted to "repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations" completely perverts its true character while conveniently omitting the fact that you were the one who first brought up the notions of conquest and subjugation. Please stop trolling and spreading lies before this escalates. Lastly, before telling other people whether they should stick to semantics or history 101 or what not, you may want to brush up on these topics yourself. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Exhibit 2
(chose not to respond) WikiwiLimeli, I don’t think you posses the necessary competence when it comes to this topic to be drafting sections for the lead... Within Taiwanese domestic politics there are *three* major camps not two, status quo is a position in its own right not part of the two others. I would also note that status quo factions exist within both the KMT and DPP and in fact those factions are currently dominant within both parties. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Exhibit 3
(While there are comments on other paragraphs, there were no major objections from other editors to the history paragraph at that point, which was my edit that User:Horse Eye's Back chose to revert wholesale and, on top of that, malign me. From edit history) 05:27, 8 March 2021‎ Horse Eye's Back talk contribs‎ 246,969 bytes −139‎ Revert lead to pre-edit war condition, consensus for the changes to the lead is being falsely claimed by WikiwiLimeli undothank Tag: Manual revert
— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiwiLimeli (talk • contribs)

I have found HEB to be a bit of a grump (eg: Talk:Russell S. Winer); however, being a bit of a grump isn't a sanctionable offense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think we need a noticeboard to report users that forget to sign their posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 12:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• As Ritchie333 said I can be a bit of a grump, but I do also appear to be right. Now to the exhibits:

Exhibit 1: Wait, is that them baselessly accusing me of trolling and spreading lies? I wouldn’t have cherry picked that section if I were them. These are their hand picked snippets from a massive conversation and yet I still look better than them.

Exhibit 2: I stand by that, WikiwiLimeli lacks the competency to to make sweeping rewrites to the lead of Taiwan. Why they chose not to respond after being informed that their understanding of Taiwanese politics was inaccurate is beyond me.

Exhibit 3: They didn’t have consensus, both editors who they claimed agreed with them reverted them as well "Revert. Many new claims being inserted into the lead need discussion in talk. Furthermore, consensus was not obtained for (some) other edits as claimed."[192] “partial revert; there is NO consensus on this addition in the talk...” [193][194]. They were also told on the talk page that their changes did not have consensus “However, your recent edits haven't gotten consensus here, and I and others apparently don't agree with all of them.” [195] yet they persisted in claiming it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Ex 1: Does this mean you stand by your accusation that somehow I engaged in "repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations"? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It does, as I stated before I found your comments regarding the historical sovereignty of Taiwan’s indigenous nations to be both unhelpful in the specific context under discussion and categorically offensive, especially when you then doubled down on those comments and tried to apply them to the whole world (you botched the history on that one too, remember?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Also do not threaten me with spurious legal action again, Wikipedia *is* IRL... You made those comments in real life. I wrote what I wrote, I stand by what I wrote. If me calling you out on what you wrote would be terribly damaging to your career if people became aware of it [196] maybe you shouldn't have written the offensive things in the first place? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Ex 2: This opinion coming from someone who insisted annexation implies full subjugation of indigenous populations, despite evidence contradicting that. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That reading of my argument is your and yours alone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Ex 3: Here you go again. There are disputes about other edits, but that's not what you reverted and directly accused me of falsifying consensus for. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I’d check again if I were you, also you never got consensus... So are you saying you never claimed consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose boomerang

Clearly disruptive behavior, falsly claiming consensus even after multiple editors have pointed out that they don’t have consensus is a big deal. More that they admit that they don’t have full consensus but they think its ok to proceed anyway "I spent a full moth gaining partial if not full consensus on the Talk page while you've been clicking away at undo.”[197] Trying to bludgeon questionable claims into the lead of a major wikipedia article is a big deal. Wasting admin time at ANI with false reports is a big deal, how they don’t understand that they were falsely claiming consensus is beyond me. Battleground behavior [198] is a big deal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Here you go again. Switching up the chronology. Do you get away with doing this all the time? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Accusing good faith editors of "trolling and spreading lies" during a commonplace content dispute is also a big deal. You should abandon that bad behavior, WikiwiLimeli. It is not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read my exhibit? HEB accused me first of "repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations", which is completely untrue and also would be a huge deal in my country (not sure about WP). Had they done so IRL, I would have filed a legal complaint. I (edit: initially WikiwiLimeli (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)) stopped short of actually accusing them of trolling (which for some reason seems to be a bigger deal on WP than what he's done to me), but they had already made 1/2 dozen of posts insisting that their definition of annexation (requiring full subjugation of indigenous populations) had to be the only one, even though no one else agreed with them. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:Cullen328 Even if trolling or not might be a subjective call, the other stuff HEB wrote about me were untrue, unwarranted, and carry serious implications. Still waiting to see if you have an actual set of standards upon which you are basing your judgment. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It is bad form to post essentially the same point in two different places, WikiwiLimeli, and I have responded in detail on my talk page where you posted pretty much the same thing. In brief, as an administrator, I am scrutinizing your behavior and encouraging you to correct it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? I only posted on your talk page because you provided the link to it after your comment. Now you are accusing me of bad form. Is this a trap? The case with HEB is not two sides flaming each other. They clearly attacked me first. I only pointed out their behavior and told them to stop. Even regarding trolling, I was reserved until they made up something about me groundlessly. If HEB were to lie about me again, I will call them out on it again. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with the initial ANI, and I do think that WikiwiLimeli is acting in good faith, but has a tendency to react very defensively, very quickly when editors disagree or criticize or don't accept their proposals. E.g. on Talk:Taiwan, accusing editors of "group psychosis" (later calling it an "impersonal question") or not spending time doing research or "spreading lies", or that "real people" would "laugh" at editors like me. In one instance, they accused me of ignoring their perspective, and I replied that it wasn't me that reverted the edit, and they accused me of "making stuff up again" (seems to have deleted that response, see [199]). In one case I explained that I was against their proposed addition to the lead, and they demanded that I therefore justify everything in the lead. Generally, I'm kind of ambivalent about their edits, some of them seem horizontal, some are improvements, some are not, some I just vaguely think are awkwardly worded. But it's hard to work with someone with this kind of attitude; it's exhausting. Every little word turns into a battle (which, going forward, I will refrain from engaging in as much as possible). I'm not suggesting sanctions/punishment, just trying to start a conversation outside the context of any particular editing dispute. DrIdiot (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a selective representation of what happened. There are things you said that came out of nowhere and I can provide actual examples, but I deleted the remark because it's not worth pursuing. Somehow you associate my frustration with characterization against you personally while I was just making a general statement. I don't have any personal grudges against you DrIdiot, but HEB is going way overboard IMO (see above). That might have carried into my general sentiment, and I'm sorry for any unintended offense. Some of your edits have good rationales behind them but are somewhat lacking in terms of sources, which would have benefited both readers and editors if provided. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For my part, I do not always communicate clearly. I'm not here looking to fight. Let's just both make a committment to try to keep things as constructive as possible and not take things personally going forward. Keep in mind editors aren't trying to thwart you; they might not like your edits for subjective reasons (e.g. wording) or might not understand your rationale. Assume good faith. DrIdiot (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And, even if they ultimately disagree, it's not about you. DrIdiot (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

As someone who is not directly involved here, I am nonetheless concerned about the means in which WikiwiLimeli appears to have cast aspersions that Horse Eye's Back was "just trolling" in making comments on the talk page regarding the status of Taiwan at the time of the Qing transfer of de jure sovereignty to Japan and in further accusing HEB of "trolling and spreading lies" at a later date. In the same edit, WikiwiLimeli responded to DrIdiot by asking if editors were suffering from "group psychosis". In later interactions with DrIdiot, WikiwiLimeli accused the editor of just making sh_t up". These are clearly non-civil interactions that don't appear to follow the WP:AGF guideline, thought it does not appear that WikiwiLimeli has attempted to offer an apology thus far or accepted any sort of fault. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As I have done so earlier, I again apologize if any of my remarks hurt others, some of which probably have. However, I have never directly accused anyone of anything unbecoming without evidence. It was becoming ridiculous how HEB insisted round after round that annexation must = full subjugation without any evidence backing them up, while I had them. Is that not trolling? I shouldn't have said "just making sh_t up" and a few other things to DrIdiot intended to refer to some of the claims they had made. I'm sorry if I crossed the line and let my frustration get to the better of me as the process went on. It was not meant to be a specific, groundless, serious attack like what HEB had leveled at me. A lot of you have issues with accusations, but my statements were factual about HEB's attack on me. It's quite interesting how after all my faults have been picked apart, no one wants to even mention what started this all. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right regarding the apology to DrIdiot, where you said that you are "sorry for any unintended offense." I apologize for the lack of clarity in my comment; you have apologized to DrIdiot and my comment was written in a way that implied you did not; I had intended to communicate that you have not offered an apology to Horse Eye's Back. I have struck the relevant portions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the other point, that "HEB insisted round after round that annexation must = full subjugation without any evidence backing them up, while I had them. Is that not trolling?." This is a content dispute, and reading through the talk page it appears that HEB was making an affirmative argument that the native peoples of Taiwan were mostly not subjugated under Qing rule and that the Japanese had to conquer native tribes in order to produce de facto sovereignty over the island, rather than just a de jure sovereignty that was recognized by treaty (HEB wrote that, "We aren’t talking about isolated tribes, we’re talking about more than 1/3-2/3 of the island’s land area that the Qing had not yet conquered when the colonial project of conquering Taiwan from its indigenous people was turned over to the Japanese. Only under the Japanese did the indigenous nations in the mountains lose their sovereignty"). I don't think this is trolling, since it articulates a coherent position (though it might be a minority position; I have to look through more sources) that Taiwan was not colonized to the point of effective annexation until it was under Japanese rule due to an insufficient amount of land having been conquered by the Qing prior to handover of claims to the island by the Qing to the Japanese. I also don't think that the assertion that "no one understands your [HEB's] position anymore" is fair to Horse Eye's Back, if my understanding of their argument is correct. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

By "no one" I only meant among the editors actively in discussion, not every one in the world. It wasn't a helpful comment in retrospect, but by then the situation had already become very different (see below). WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't have any preconceived notion going into this. Looking at the body at the time and other articles on Qing "annexation", none suggested it being partial. Looking at the article on annexation, a whole list of countries with widely known indigenous unrests. HEB's position was not supported by the body nor any other article I could find nor external RS, but they were really hung up on insisting "partial" annexation. Why didn't they edit the body then, and add RS, especially if it were, as they had claimed, "common knowledge"? Whenever I made a proposal, the other editors were sticklers about RS, consensus, sometimes going around in circles in terms of their objections. On the other hand, the body had been left inconsistent as such with the lead for a while, and HEB (in light of all our back-and-forth edits and their reverts) seemed to have the time to spare. And then telling me to "stick to history 101". All these indications suggested stalling (since there seems to be some sensitivity around "trolling" here), not a genuine content dispute. Of course, I figured it could have just been some random zealous person getting really defensive, but I did want to make my observation known to HEB that they seemed to be just tr***ing at the time, i.e. arguing for no good reason. I mean, WP:AGF right? Of course, with HEB's next volley at me, that went straight out of the window. I don't think any reasonable person would have interpreted what followed as good faith. Looking back, I wish I hadn't responded afterwards so strongly. Things might have turned out better. But I was very offended, considering the line of work I'm IRL. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I think if editors look at DrIdiot's post and then see how WikiwiLimeli responds, and look at their responses to Cullen and Mikehawk10 as well, you'll have a good idea of how WikiwiLimeli interacts with others. Looking at the Taiwan talk page, I wouldn't have been as generous towards WikiwiLimeli as DrIdiot is being; DrIdiot is clearly trying to give WikiwiLimeli a way out of this, but they respond negatively and agressively. I think this demonstrates the problem is not about how they react to Horse Eye, but a problem in general with how WikiwiLimeli communicates and responds to others. BATTLEGROUND and failure to LISTEN is the problem.

WikiwiLimeli, if the community tells you here that you need to change the way you communicate and interact with others, will you accept that and change or will you continue to insist you are right and not change?  // Timothy :: talk  08:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing you won't find fault with my interactions in the future, but I'd appreciate it if discussion unrelated to HEB not take over, since while I respect your point, similar points have already been raised by other editors. Anyhow, I've never had any issue with anyone before this row with HEB. I do regret how things deteriorated afterwards, but it was only a part of my overall editing experience. I disagree with your characterization but understand how things appear in retrospect. As for Cullen328, I don't know what to say. IMO he prematurely judged this to be a commonplace content dispute and assumed HEB was acting in good faith. Then he blocked me while I was in the middle of responding to this, despite having ambiguous basis, which was very unhelpful. But since I've never known him or Mike or you before, I won't base any judgment on our brief interactions so far. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• WikiwiLimeli when you come to ANI, your conduct will be examined along with anyone you report. This is regular practice and if you can expect it each time you come here. The best thing you can do for yourself right now is disengage from this discussion; the BATTLEGROUNDing and failure to LISTEN problem is becoming more obvious each time you post. HEB hasn't done anything that merits a sanction; your conduct has merited a sanction. So you have nothing go gain by contining this, but you're risking another block if you continue. This is the best advice you will receive here: Just walk away.  // Timothy :: talk  10:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I've already complied with everything in WP policies and guidelines, apologized repeatedly and personally for things that I had actually done wrong. Nothing anyone says or choose to ignore will change the original facts about HEB's conduct. The amount of favoritism and disregard for truth here is self-evident, but I won't argue the point anymore. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Persisitent addition of coyrighted material by User:Princelg22

Princelg22 is persistently re-adding copyrighted text into the article Music of Sunda, even after having been warned twice[200][201] on their user page (the first warning was for a different article). This text is taken almost completely verbatim from this page, the only difference being the addiotionally inserted text "but Sundanese compositions and tuning systems are recognizably different". Judging from their replies, they seem to have only limited knowledge of English. –Austronesier (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier, I've partial blocked this user for copyright violations pending response. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 21:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: They continue to edit the page Music of Sunda and others as IP and with a newly created sock account Linguatistic. I've requested PP and opened an SPI. –Austronesier (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis and tagging

SoyokoAnis is a new editor who is overly eager and engaging in areas they lack the competence to edit in, resulting in nothing short of disruption. They have been given ample guidance by admins and experienced editors and ignored advice and direct warnings, even though they've acknowledged them. They don't appear to be interested in actually learning from their mistakes as they continue to make them and double down when called out.

• Following Ferrets final warning to stop inappropriate CSD tags, they tagged this A1, which very clearly does not apply.
• Then we have this lackluster response to an inappropriate page move.
• Tag bombing one minute, two minutes and three minutes after article creation and doubled down after I warned them.
• Tag bombing 2 minutes after creation with a completely inappropriate tag
• Tagging a1/a7 where A1 is clearly not applicable, just minutes after creation and after their tag bombing of maintenance templates just 4 minutes after creation
• tag bombing minutes after creation, while the creator was clearly actively editing and I'd argue this tag isn't even applicable
• disruptive and non-applicable tagging of a stub
• silly tags 4 minutes after creation
• very clearly not a1
• not a1

This isn't to say that the articles they're tagging don't have problems, just that the immediate rush to put tags that are often inappropriate is disruptive and this isn't even a comprehensive list, just a random recent selection. Combined with their responses and continued disruption, I am led to believe that the only option to prevent further disruption is a lengthy block no less than a year or two, if not indefinite as they appear to lack the competence to edit in the areas they do and do not have the maturity to know when they're in over their head. Hopefully a lengthy block will allow them to gain perspective and mature. CUPIDICAE💕 12:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There's also this attempt to circumvent @Billinghurst's good faith undeletion of a page for off-wiki recovery, where she then was preparing to submit the draft again. I support a CIR block at this time. She was also the one who pushed repeatedly on NASCARFan, against and in opposition of the advice of many experienced editors, and caused this. Since then she's made several edits about how she wants to be admin, including red-cat'ing her userpage and messaging others for mentorship. I fear her patrolling/tagging shows that she's read some RFA guide and is trying to tick the boxes. -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There was also this stuff culminating in this. If community remedies are indeed needed, possibly instead a ban on any kind of maintenance/backspace activity (including tagging articles) would be a lesser and possibly acceptable solution? I'm not sure if SoyokoAnis has much interest in writing articles, but if so such a ban might help them develop their editing without causing the above issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I originally was going to suggest a ban but given their inability to take any sort of criticism and reflect on it, I don't see this as a viable option. There is also this request which is problematic because they're really just not reading the room (or the directions.) CUPIDICAE💕 13:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae Should I just stop tagging articles altogether? If so, please listen to what I have to say. What is the point of the New Pages Feed if I am gonna keep getting warned for using it? This is starting to get really annoying, it's in the new pages feed I'm gonna see it and see if it has issues and tag it. Most of the articles you stated still didn't fix their issues. Why do you keep coming after me for using the feed? SoyokoAnis - talk 13:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis Your tone deaf response to the concerns here is precisely why I think you should be blocked and demonstrates your inability to collaborate and listen to constructive criticism. It's pure disruption. CUPIDICAE💕 13:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For the RFA nomination, I just wanted to help someone. I didn't know you had to be on Wikipedia for years and have lots of contributions to help. Either way, if it stops anyone from coming at me for tag warnings then I'll just stop tagging to avoid any more issues. I'm sorry. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The core issue here is that you aren't listening to experienced editors. For that RFA, numerous experienced editors advised you and the RFA Nom not to do it, that it would go badly, and said why, including the tenure and other experience. And you continued to push the editor to agree to the RFA, completely ignoring everyone. Your response to every warning thus far has been the same. People tell you not to do tagging, you continue in the exact same fashion with no change. This is why people keep "coming at you", because you continue to do the same things. -- ferret (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've partially blocked from the article space for 2 weeks, having done so prior to seeing the user's response above, however — which, unfortunately, doesn't inspire too much confidence, though hopefully, that is something which can also be overcome. El_C 13:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, now I remember the incident ferret describes that I was looking for (this).

The core issue here is an editor who is, without doubt, acting in good faith but does not quite understand the communal norms around here. We see this evidenced in this diff, where the editor says they've read the policies and dislike being treat as if they're clueless. The issue, of course, is that being able to apply policy well (or, at least, in the ways that the community wants it applied) is separate from reading policy. I feel like in such a case it's worth the editor asking themselves why they edit. Without an answer to that question, one can end up in the endless hole of policy enforcement without an overarching goal. Which manifests in, for example, the redundant tagging of stubs evidenced by Prax. However, I also see Prax's view that perhaps adequate self-reflection is not possible in this case (per WP:CIR), though I continue to hope that it is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty sad (in the 'upsetting' sense) case for everyone involved. Overzealous tagging/rejection is one of the most damaging things possible on Wikipedia; effectively telling a new user their contributions are unwanted is a way to guarantee that unless they happen to have someone experienced in the project guiding them along (and there are ~3,000 active Wikipedians compared to ~40,000,000 "people who ever made an account", so you tell me the odds...), they will leave and never come back. (Or if you're very lucky come back in a decade.) SoyokoAnis is one of the people who managed to avoid being strangled in the crib, but is hitting another common wall of getting in too deep too early and attracting people's ire. A block for 'a year or two' is a permaban more thoroughly than any actual permaban would ever be -- few people who aren't already 'vested contributors' will sit and wait for that timer to expire rather than go find something else to do -- but there are very severe CIR concerns (competence is required // competence is acquired // but no one can sit around forever to wait for the acquisition) and any given tagbomber is probably a net negative. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion of a year or two was that they will hopefully mature with time. They obviously would have WP:SO too. This doesn't stop them from editing other projects that may be more suitable to their learning ability. I also don't see this (a block) as a detriment to the project if I'm being honest. They've said they don't have an interest in writing articles and thus far they have very few useful contributions. CUPIDICAE💕 14:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a complicated and unfortunate matter. My thought on block duration is that if SoyokoAnis is going to be blocked for a much longer duration than she currently is -- which is a possible outcome -- it might be more honest, if that makes sense, to indef rather than a 1-2 year block. Both have essentially the same outcome (someone either leaves forever or comes back a very long time later, at similar probability), but the indef block is probably more open to appeals and the SO, while an extremely long limited-duration block is an odd mix of "we aren't showing you the door, but we clearly don't want you here". My comment with regards to detriments to the project is more or less agreeing with you; new user retention goes both ways. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think this CIR issue may spread to AfD [202]; they've also attempted to sign up at AfC [203]; and they are giving advice at Teahouse [204].  // Timothy :: talk  14:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Second Comment: We have to do something, the temp block below is necessary, but I've been thinking about this and I would really like to see the community find a way to help this editor contribute productively. They clearly want to contribute, I think everything they are doing is in good faith, they just need help. I just don't feel good about this and I don't think anyone else does either. I'm not throwing stones at anyone, but I think many editors were aware of this problem and if some kind of helpful intervention had come sooner, we wouldn't be here. Yes they were warned, yes they should have asked for help, but we all could do better in these types of situations.

I know there is a problem, but I really hope we can find a good solution that hopefully keeps this editor. Again I'm not casting stones, Wikipedia collectively does a shitty job and developing and retaining editors, which is something the community should have a broad discussion about; if we want a quality editing, we need to invest in developing quality editors.

SoyokoAnis, would you be open to some kind of mentorship to work on building and creating articles?  // Timothy :: talk  03:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue I urge you to read through the talk page messages she has removed for the full history, if you have not. While maybe not every message left to her was the utmost gentle, she has received nothing but relatively polite handwritten warnings and explanations, somehow avoiding a single templated warning. -- ferret (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

ferret, I know a site ban is justified (even before I saw the history). Perhaps a ban from everything but adding sourced content to existing articles? If they have shown productive editing at the end of a defined period of time, we can leave the ban and let them continue adding sourced content to existing articles. If they are not showing productive editing or if problems continue, the site ban can be implemented. But perhaps I need to be saved from my own good intentions by more experienced editors.  // Timothy :: talk  03:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Block extended, converted to sitewide

In light of these additional concerns from multiple users (involving additional namespaces), I've extended the block to 3 months and converted it to sitewide. Honestly, I'm wary to block for any longer at this time, but other admins should feel free to adjust this block action in any way they see fit (no notification or consultation with me is required). El_C 16:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: probationary mentorship offer

I told Prax earlier that nothing was set in stone about beefing up the sanction, and due to the above concerns, have done so. But I feel it is only fair, in this case, to also do so the other way — nerf if it calls for it. The notion of probationary mentorship, as opposed to one faced by an unsanctioned user, is that the mentor's focus largely fulfils the role of consulting on whether this or that is borderline-sanctionable activity. It doesn't matter that Timothy isn't an admin —they can turn to the noticeboard or me, personally, for any enforcement action— this is something that I feel he is qualified to handle. And he seems, well, not inherently opposed to the idea (direct link). I'm inclined to let both of them refine the formula, bring it back here for discussion, and then we go from there. But my first impulse is that this seems workable; that harmonizing all that energy, without the dissonance, is an undertaking worth pursuing. Thoughts? El_C 12:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: As El C said, I have made an offer to mentor SoyokoAnis with the condition that they focus solely on content improvement and creation and abstain from everything else. You can see the offer and their response in the above link from El C. I should disclose I have not mentored anyone before, I know this will be a challenge.

Since there is a site ban in place, there needs to be a consensus for it to be lifted and a indef topic ban put in its place. If there is a consensus to switch to a topic ban, it should be clear this is a final opportunity and any further disruption or violation of the topic ban will result in a site ban. I am open to any revisions to the conditions stated.

SoyokoAnis if a consensus emerges to replace the site ban with a topic ban you'll be notified and we can begin.  // Timothy :: talk  19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This was not a siteban, but a normal admin action only. That said, I welcome further input into the matter, and see no reason to rush this. El_C 21:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As a random passer-by, this seems like a good proposal. --JBL (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Same, seems like a reasonable way to deal with it. Given the strict "expand articles only" scope, it'd be easy to re-block if the don't stay within those bounds - but I do think she can become a productive editor, just needs more experience. Regardless, it's worth a shot. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Avedji

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

---

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

1. "POV pushing by an Iranian nationalist"[205]
2. "Referring to him as an Iranian nationalist is not abusive or derogatory. If it quacks like a duck..."[206]
3. Tried to add the same content on four occassions:[207]
4. Has made 12 edits in total[208]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that user "Avedji" is not here to build this encyclopedia.
For the record; there's a massive surge in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on this article by drive-by accounts, sleepers, IPs and sockpuppets. In addition to overal harassment on Wikipedia targeting User:HistoryofIran. Pinging El C as he's aware of this. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Mass attack at List of mental disorders

I figure this may get more rapid attention here than page protection noticeboard. The vandalism appears to be just today. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Already done. Great, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

New target: List of neurological conditions and disorders. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both pages protected by Zzuuzz. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

English versus British, and violations of no original research

• 2A01:E34:EC61:2680:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• David Pahrohahro (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Somebody using IPs from France has been changing a ton of music articles to say the artist is English rather than British. For instance, we have Estelle (musician) who is considered British, but the France IP person insists she is English.[209][210] Then there's the fictional cartoon band Gorillaz which is somehow English rather than British.[211] Many more examples of this can be shown.

This person also adds very extensive analysis to Miles Davis albums, citing no source because the analysis cannot be found in published sources. These are clear violations of WP:No original research. For instance, they wrote that the song "What If" was later re-edited and released as "One And One", citing no reference. This person frequently includes the fact that Miles played his trumpet through a Harmon mute or a wah-wah pedal which is true in each case, but is never listed along with his trumpet as being equally important. And the strange term "electric trumpet"[212] is completely original. Nobody ever writes about Miles playing electric trumpet, which is something Miles did not live to see (in the form of a MIDI wind controller.)

In response to me reverting the IP, a new username popped up to revert my reversions: David Pahrohahro. I don't know if they are the same person from France, or just someone with an axe to grind, but they have been following all of my recent edits and reverting them. They categorized themselves on their userpage as an administrator.[213] What is the next step? Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, David ... is an LTA sock. Pahunkat (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The IP range is still on the table. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Account blocked. Will report to SPI for a CU sleeper check. I don't see a mention of geolocaiton on that SPI so I'll take no action at the moment on it. Other admins are welcome to. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, the geolocation is pretty off here, and this does not appear to be a proxy. Whether it should be blocked for disruptive editing is a different question. Blablubbs|talk 18:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been an 'achille's heal', that Wikipedia goes along with using English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish/Irish, as opposed to British, with such bios/non-bios of British articles :( GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

"Reach out and touch the screen, folks!" Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

We should stop using nationality, ethnicity, or race in British articles and instead only use citizenship. That way we'd sidestep the issue. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the adjective form, though, for someone from the United Kingdom (like German for someone from Germany, or American for someone from the US, or Dutch for someone from the Netherlands)? Not British, and I'm not aware of anything like "United Kingdomian." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And walk right into a crunching blindside tackle. Half the population of Northern Ireland identifies as British and half as Irish. Many hold, and all are entitled to hold, both Irish and UK citizenship. I identify as English, but could easily secure Irish citizenship; it would just be paperwork. There is no simplistic answer. Narky Blert (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And the other half as Northern Irish :). I have a tendency, as others do, for people from Northern Ireland to not put in any nationality or citizenship and purely say "from Northern Ireland." I honestly don't believe we should make any assumptions on anyone's nationality, UK resident or not, on any articles unless we have a specific reference stating they're an X citizen etc. Just use what country they're from. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I can safely say that identifying Irish people as "British" would be spectacularly bad idea (as well, of course, as being factually untrue). Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Safer than calling them English, though. Narky Blert (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors seem to have an obsession with including a person's national identity in the opening sentence of an article, interpreting "most" in MOS:CONTEXTBIO as "all". If we don't have near-unanimous agreement among reliable sources then we should simply leave it out, explaining it in the body of an article if it needs any explanation. I, for one, can be either British or English depending on the context (and I had two grandparents born in England, one in Scotland and one in Australia), and some of my close family members have more than one citizenship, but, even if they became notable, I doubt whether their citizenships would become public knowledge reported by reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, with a slight tweak. Such information is worthless unless it adds valuable context to the article (which in modern times usually means public self-identification). I've seen articles in which people were (or are) asserted to be citizens of countries which did not exist in their lifetimes (or do not yet exist and may never do); inexcusable WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mrmister371

Mrmister371 (a new account created today) has a habit of either altering the vocal octave range of artists, which ignores the citations within the article,[214][215][216][217][218][219] or adding unsourced vocal ranges to other articles.[220][221][222][223] (Note, these are not exhaustive examples: there are many more in his edit history). I think they might be good faith edits, but he unfortunately isn't responding to talk page messages. He's received several warnings, but I also tried to be clearer. Nothing's getting through, unfortunately, and he's persisting. — Czello 18:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Indef block. Any communication from this user would have been helpful. Open to unblock iff the user shows an understanding of WP:RS and WP:V. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Persistent edit wars and other WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Traineek

Traineek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently managed to reach 4RR twice on the article Great Wall of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), one day apart, despite two earlier warnings and being reverted by 5 or 6 editors in total. Only after being reverted the 8th or 9th time did Traineek start to respond in the talk page, and they resorted to personal attacks (claiming the others to be all Chinese censors). Now less than 24 hours have passed since the last 4RR and the user is back to edit warring again.

Traineek's other activities include another edit war against consensus on the articles Tang dynasty and Sui dynasty, as well as a section in Goguryeo that reads exactly like the one they are trying to insert to the Great Wall of China page. I cannot find a single edit on non-controversial content in his contribution history. Esiymbro (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not willing to call them "not here" just yet, but obviously the edit warring has to stop. I've blocked for 31 hours. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: Another batch of claims and attacks [224]. Esiymbro (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The inevitable vandalism at Woody Allen

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

---

I'm surprised that this wasn't locked long ago. The result is a consistent rainstorm of WP:BLP violations. I don't know how far back it goes, but a summary look at the last week alone is sufficient to get an idea. This begs for a lot of rev/deletion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been protected and some revdel done. Let us know if you think anything else needs to be hidden. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There's an insistence on calling Soon-Yi his stepdaughter [225], [226], which despite the implication may not meet the level of defamatory. Or maybe it does. And the predator business [227], [228]. It looks like you and Ohnoitsjamie got the most blatant stuff. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Revdel'd all 4 of those, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Atley

Please can some admin review the contribs of Atley (talk · contribs).

I have blanked their userpage twice as WP:UP#PROMO/WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, but I see now that they are also creating an autobiog draft (Draft:Vipin Atley) and a COI draft (Draft:Antappante Athbudha Pravarthikal (Miracles of Antappan) - 2021). Looks to me like WP:NOTHERE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think they might actually be notable (there is certainly coverage) but I've nuked the draft because it was simply a copyright violation, and of course they shouldn't be writing their own bio. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery

• Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IPs edit warring to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery.

In honor of the subject matter, I suggest that they should be homeopathic deletions.   :)  

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: While I understand the desire for promptness, was this really necessary with a request already pending at RFPP and the thread at FTN (I've merge your recent addition with it, if it doesn't bother)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't merge the two sections. They cover completely different aspects. One is about Homoeopathic Surgery, the other is IPs edit warring to overturn a valid deletion discussion.

The disruption continued after the RFPP. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'll just add my two cents. When I reverted, it was for no other reason than an editor (in this case an ip) re-adding unsourced material, which as per the policy of WP:BURDEN, is not allowed. I like Guy Macon's humor, however. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this related to homeopathic A&E? Narky Blert (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected indefinitely. Logged AE action. El_C 16:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I got pinged here. I found Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery. It was, not right then, being used as an advert for schools. I couldn't see why a single sentence was required so merged it to homeopathy. El_C you may also want to protect Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery but that may count as pre-emptive. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Go for it, CambridgeBayWeather. I feel like I've reached my preemptive protection quota, for now, with Jill Biden and Jewish space lasers (pew pew!) — hey, that's a cool mix! //Recharging mana. El_C 21:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's OK. That's getting close to me being involved. Plus I don't like pre-emptive and / or (note how I followed the MOS there) indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Nora Elshwemy

Nora Elshwemy (talk · contribs) keeps on creating articles that are copy and paste of existing articles (at 3 over the last 24 hours) but are translated in (I think) Arabic. They have been asked to stop [[229]] and told to stop [[230]]. This is getting disruptive. Note that apart from this all they have done is copy the same material to their soapbox. They have made no other edits (not even a user page).Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at their talk page, this behaviour has been going on for years. Is there anyone who is able to type a response in Arabic to this user to essentially tell them to write in the Arabic Wikipedia? It seems quite clear that this user has no grasp of English at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this looks more like Egyptian Arabic than Modern Standard Arabic to me, so the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia (yes) might be more appropriate.. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There are basic templates for these situations in Category:Non-English user warning templates, and I left {{Contrib-ar1}} on the user's talk page. Had their article submissions been in poor English, there's {{Welcomeen-ar}}. As an aside, if you're fluent in more than one language, please look at the warning templates and the Category:Non-English welcome messages. Many languages are still missing from the list, and yours may be one of those. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this means they got the message, they created another, but then deleted the text [[231]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And we now have this [[232]], there is no attempt to engage or explain, not even now they have been wanted in their own language, their response if to blank.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I finally thought to check their accounts, and they've been at Arabic Wikipedia since December 2016. Apparently what they've been doing recently is translating articles from English to Arabic and moving them to their sandbox there. Why they tried to publish them here is a mystery. Perhaps now they understand it doesn't work, and won't do it again. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, so maybe they are using article space as a sandbox, that makes some sense.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Reporting users for abusive behavior and excessive trolling in sockpuppet investigations

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

---

I am here report 2 users for abusive behavior and excessive trolling in sockpuppet investigations R1 User:NEDOCHAN and User:Squared.Circle.Boxing. Trying to team up to get people blocked left and right. R2 R3

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georges_St-Pierre&type=revision&diff=1010908732&oldid=1010646416 - I updated information to correct info which based on the fighter last fight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFzGM3vxs_U which is Middleweight (185lbs). There no evidence of he going back 170lbs last fight.
2. They are obliviously reporting anyone and get them blocked because they use the "words" just like that. If i see someone use the word "THE". They can get blocked for being same person because the users used "THE". This is what happening.
3. I am here to request a instant dismiss & prevent the SPI case from moving forward because of excessive trolling from 2 users i am reporting. RepublicanMMA (talk)

Just a note from an outsider, but "this SPI must be stopped" does not ring of virtue and transparency. Do with that what you will. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@RepublicanMMA: the accounts that have been blocked as a result of these SPIs were not blocked because of words they used...they were blocked because they were confirmed to be socks. If you're not one of the individuals I suspect you are, then why do you want the SPI shut down? No harm done if you're found to be innocent. – ².O.^Boxing 22:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Issues with editor

• Ragnimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Malassay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Ragnimo, has been warned multiple times by myself and others to stop editwarring on articles. [233] [234] [235] [236] [237]. We've had disagreements on multiple pages and I have told them to stop harassing me by showing up on articles/talk page discussions involving me before [238]. Fast forward today, the user showed up on an article I created Malassay, they begin by POV pushing and removing content that I added. [239] and when I disagree with the removal, they tell me to "discuss before making changes"[240]. This editor also doesnt understand the WP:BRD process, the editor made one reply and didnt even bother to wait for mine, he immediately editwarred right after [241] [242]. Its difficult to edit wikipedia when an editor follows me around and attempts to exert ownership of an article. Magherbin (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all those diffs are all past disputes that were resolved from several weeks and months apart. It's unrelated.

Having disagreements with you means harassment? I opened up a talk section to discuss the changes[243] and i kept referring you to it but you kept making changes anyways[244] and edit warring. Thats according to Wiki Policy. That you are supposed to see to discuss and seek consensus.

I only showed up to the Malasay article you made after i had made revert of a sock on the Adal article [245] and corrected the information about them on the Adal military section[246]: . You tried to restore an edit made by a sock.

I have not only explained my edits in the edit summary but i explained them 1 by 1 in the talk section. Also explained why your edits were wrong. You just seem to be persistent in adding a specific POV onto the page regardless of what the sources say and even if it violates WP:Fringe or WP:OR.

Secondly you also don't seem to understand what neutral POV even means, you think it means creating some WP:FALSEBALANCE. When it means that the mainstream view gets the most weight and then other minority opinions are either marginalized or not even added. Only the mainstream view of something is added to a leed introduction. Ragnimo (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It is worth noting that whiles Ragnimo is citing WP:FRINGE both above as well as on Noticeboard#Ethnicity_of_Ahmed_ibn_ibrahim_al_ghazi, they've been concurrently arguing with multiple editors for the inclusion of minority viewpoints on other articles: Noticeboard#Nur_ibn_Mujahid. They have recently been warned by @EdJohnston: due to edit warring over Horn of Africa articles and alerted to active Horn of Africa discretionary sanctions. Other harassment reports against Ragnimo here. Judging by their nationalist POV pushing and disruptive history (recent example of edit warring: [247], [248], [249], [250]), WP:NOTHERE might apply given ongoing discretionary sanctions on Horn of Africa articles. They're not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This ANI was opened by Magherbin to complain about edits by Ragnimo. I'm responding here since my name was mentioned due to a 3RR which I closed. Here is the 3RR case from last December about the Ethiopian–Adal war which led to warnings to Magherbin, Ragnimo and Ayaltimo. Prior to that, in January of 2020 Magherbin was unblocked per a standard offer after a previous socking violation. Ragnimo and Magherbin have both been alerted under WP:ARBHORN. These two users have made some effort at discussion at Talk:Malassay but I recommend more steps of WP:DR before coming to ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo still reverts during discussion and is removing tags [251], this is not just a content dispute, they dont follow wikipedia guideliness. Magherbin (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Incidents involving User:Sundayclose

I've been editing Wikipedia for many years, focusing on relatively simple improvements to articles I happened to be reading. Recently I made what I thought was a non-controversial improvement [252] to the Wayne Williams article. User:Sundayclose reverted the edit with no edit summary or discussion on the article talk page [253] and added a warning [254] to my talk page. I tried to discuss the matter with him [255] but his replies were not responsive to my points and almost immediately became abusive [256] [257] [258] and everything has been downhill from there, although after I made a fresh proposal on the talk page [259] and received some reinforcement from User:Anastrophe (with whom I had no prior contact) we did at least achieve a good and apparently stable outcome with that article.

But before and after that result, User:Sundayclose has directed many demands, threats, and insults against me [260] and has gone on a rampage of reverting recent edits of mine [261] [262] [263] [264] [265] in an exhibition of spite, revenge, and sheer vandalism. I believe all five of those reverts were unjustified, particularly in being deliberate violations of WP:NOCITE.

I think if you look through his edit history you will that the vast majority of his edits are constructive, but you will also find many other incidents where he has made harmful edits, mostly unexplained and unjustified reverts like the one with which he first engaged me, including four reverts in two days on the Carl Gugasian article [266] [267] [268] [269] without explaining on the talk page his issues with material he was removing (in this case, my issue with his reverts was that he swept up good-faith contributions by editors who weren't even the actual target of his wrath). He seems to target IP users and is prone to throwing warnings and threats on talk pages even when the user was clearly making good-faith edits. I also found many more examples of his edits that harmed Wikipedia by removing good-faith contributions from other editors, but I did not attempt to correct any more of them once I realized he doesn't respond well to criticism.

I've made a very serious effort to stay polite throughout this whole thing, but User:Sundayclose seems bent on making it impossible for me to contribute to Wikipedia. If I'm in the wrong here, in whole or in part, I welcome the correction, because I want to be a good contributor and not a problem for anyone. But I think User:Sundayclose must be told to cease this pattern of abusive editing. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

67.188.1.213, your edit summary "Want to go for four?" makes clear you're aware you are edit warring. 3RR isn't a right. Also, you followed Sundayclose to Carl Gugasian and then have the chutzpah to accuse them of hounding you. Keep that up and you'll be blocked. If an edit is challenged for not having a source... find a source! You can consider this your final warning, unless another admin would care to block you already.

Sundayclose, IP editors are people too. Please be less confrontational and don't go overboard on the templates and rhetoric when you're in an editing dispute. Fences&Windows 19:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, neither of you edited Talk:Carl Gugasian. You need to stop reverting each other and both making revenge edits, and start talking to each other with respect. Fences&Windows 20:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the original issue at Wayne Williams, the IP's edit was good and well-explained, and I agree with the IP that Sundayclose was aggressive and non-responsive. I had a similar recent experience with Sundayclose: a lot of combativeness and repeated failure to engage with the arguments raised by other editors. (I have not looked more deeply into the present question than reading the IP's talk-page and the original reverted diff.) --JBL (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Current Burmese case

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

---

Request comments for the interim government case in Myanmar (Burma). Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

To recap: You might have seen that, in Burma, the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH) is the only national legislative body, and Min Aung Hlaing's State Administration Council (SAC) has not been recognized by both UN and the world. However, User:Tartan357 has been one-sidedly reverting edits in articles related to the current sensitive case in Burma, by leaving comments in edit history like Incorrect information; CRPH is not in power in Myanmar, there was a coup and the military is in power now. here in which I just added sources (He overacted to me like I'm adding incorrect information. here) and CRPH does not speak for the Burmese government. here. Therefore, I, one of a few active Burmese editors, would like to request for the administrators and other editors' advice for what Tartan357 has been currently doing to the Burmese political articles. Thanks in advance.

​@Zin Win Hlaing: Wikipedia is not for WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. It is not a place to adjudicate legal disputes and determine who the rightful leader of a country is. Please see Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi/FAQ. The fact is that there was a coup d'état and the government in Myanmar is now a military dictatorship. That is a fact. It does not matter that the State Administration Council has not been recognized by both UN and the world. The CRPH is simply not in charge. The sourcing base for this is extremely strong. And yes, after a month of nonstop disruption of exactly this type, I'm reacting firmly. I fail to see what action of mine you think violates Wikipedia policy. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You've also engaged in improper WP:CANVASSING regarding this ANI discussion: [270], [271], [272]. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And some more canvassing: [273]. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Current Burmese case 2

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

---

You might have seen that, in Burma, the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH) is the only national legislative body, and Min Aung Hlaing's State Administration Council (SAC) has not been recognized by both UN and the world. However, User:Tartan357 has been one-sidedly reverting edits in articles related to the current sensitive case in Burma, by leaving comments in edit history like Incorrect information; CRPH is not in power in Myanmar, there was a coup and the military is in power now. here in which I just added sources (He overacted to me like I'm adding incorrect information. here) and CRPH does not speak for the Burmese government. here. Therefore, I, one of a few active Burmese editors, would like to request for the administrators and other editors' advice for what Tartan357 has been currently doing to the Burmese political articles. Thanks in advance. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

PS– Some editors have been invited to give opinion on this issue. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

​@Zin Win Hlaing: Wikipedia is not for WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. It is not a place to adjudicate legal disputes and determine who the rightful leader of a country is. Please see Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi/FAQ. The fact is that there was a coup d'état and the government in Myanmar is now a military dictatorship. That is a fact. It does not matter that the State Administration Council has not been recognized by both UN and the world. The CRPH is simply not in charge. The sourcing base for this is extremely strong. And yes, after a month of nonstop disruption of exactly this type, I'm reacting firmly. I fail to see what action of mine you think violates Wikipedia policy. Also, WP:CANVASSING ([274], [275], [276], [277]) is not allowed. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fact? CRPH's legitimacy is also a fact. Why don't you want to accept the fact? And leaving messages on their talk pages is just to request their opinions, nothing related to decisions nor debates nor votes. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 is not normal on Burmese case and so serious. He have reverted all WP:AGF edits from other edtors even that are fix typo see [278]. Why? Do you think Wikipedia is you own??? Ug! Marcus MT (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Marcus MT: possibly this relates to your level of English but just to be clear, this is not fixing a typo [279]. Tartan357 is probably right on the WP:NOTBROKEN point, but even if they're not, it's not a typo. A typo is a typographical error. Traditionally for Wikipedia, this is pushing the wrong key/s (whether extra keys, different keys or even missing one). Nowadays I think some may call an autocorrect error a typo even though that may have little or nothing to do with the user's input. And IMO it's fine to call a spelling mistake a typo in an edit summary (not in article text) even when it's almost definitely simply an error rather than a typo (e.g. independant) since although this isn't strictly correct, it' close enough that it doesn't matter much. But don't call something which is almost definitely an intentional stylistic choice or even a complicated error, a typo since it leads to confusion about what being changed. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 is clearly one sided editor [280], he know nothing about Myanmar because he is not a Burmese. Stop trying to pretend Burmese political expert. You are not an admin and only a low-standard editor. 185.205.142.78 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Zin Win Hlaing, I have said nothing about their legitimacy. I have said they are not in charge, which represents the strong consensus of reliable sources: [281], [282], [283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290]. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Close Again: This is a content dispute; it has not been discussed on the talk page. This should be closed with a warning about canvasing and reopening closed discussions to Zin Win Hlaing.

JJMC89 closed the previous identical thread at 12:34 am; Zin Win Hlaing recreated it at 12:43 am.  // Timothy :: talk  12:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The first one which had been closed was due to RfC. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Zin Win Hlaing This is a content dispute; simply removing the first sentence doesn't change that. I only see two minor conduct issues, one with you canvassing, the other with ownership issues Marcus MT when they state Tartan357 is not normal on Burmese case and so serious. Neither issue is worth an ANI report. You should drop this complaint, request it be closed, and work to gain consensus with sources on the talk page, which has not been done.  // Timothy :: talk  13:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: I also oppose to close this discussion, some shameless are trying to judge of Burmese politic. Do not judge Myanmar's politics Ok? PS, hello old friend bad to meet you again! I'm this one [291], are you remember ? 😂😂🤮185.205.142.78 (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

We (Burmese native) possesses a greater familiarity with our region, culture, and social context. Hopefully that might result in more constructive and cooperating conversations for all of us. Thanks. 185.205.142.78 (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ughh!!!! I checked Tartan's contributions and he have reverted all edits of Burmese editor and warned without guilt. What the hell??? See [292]. How rude is that? 185.205.142.78 (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

EEng's talk page size

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

---

"I can see your talk page from here"

I realise that by starting this thread:

• ... I am causing drama
• ... I am inviting jokes about the talk page being visible from space
• ... a number of editors will wonder if I have more important things to do, such as writing an encyclopedia

Nevertheless, User talk:EEng is so big (almost 1 million characters) and archived so infrequently, that it has become unusable. It hangs on my desktop browser and crashes on my iPhone, giving repeated "This page reloaded because a problem occurred" errors. I do have a genuine reason to use his talk, such as asking questions about various areas of the MOS, as I consider him to be something of a subject expert, and if he doesn't know there are plenty of talk page stalkers that will know the answer.

I can't see EEng ever increasing the archiving frequency of his talk voluntarily, and I suspect any admin asking him nicely will get custard pies thrown at them. Nevertheless, I would like this to happen simply for usability reasons. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment re: accessibility issues: Extremely long talk pages such as this are miserable for visually impaired editors (whether they use a screen reader, or extreme magnification software). I think there is an accessibility issue with excessively and unnecessarily long talk pages.  // Timothy :: talk  12:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm actually watching the race between DGG and EEng with great anticipation — 328:329 in EEng's favour, at the moment. Anyway, I can't see how we can force someone to archive their talk page on an individual basis (either of them). Updating the policy is probably the way to go, or if it's an issue, raise the matter with them directly. To that: I can't see EEng ever increasing the archiving frequency of his talk voluntarily, and I suspect any admin asking him nicely will get custard pies thrown at them — to the best of my recollection, a couple of years back, I actually did ask EEng (by way of a gentle nudge) to archive their talk page, which he did, down to double digits. Full disclosure, I've also reached the 300 club earlier this summer (diff), but when I (proudly) told EEng about it, he wasn't as impressed as I hoped he'd be, which made me sad. El_C 13:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can award EEng a major award for "Largest Irregularly-Archived User Talk Page"? (conditions of acceptance include archiving their talk page) Mackensen (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

EEng's talk page as seen sideways from space

• A man's talk page is his castle (or something). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Or in this case, his dungeon? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Boo, no Moat? El_C 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, but the dungeon does have a dragon. oknazevad (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• .Mine does! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• What flavor custard pie are we talking here? Banana or coconut? --WaltCip-(talk) 14:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Lemon meringu or bust! El_C 14:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, you're thinking of Carmen Miranda?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I Can See Your House from Here (John Scofield and Pat Metheny album) reminds of of the time I personally met John Scofield, which was amazing! But I won't tell the full story here for fear that Serial Number 54129 will ban me from the noticeboard for good...¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 14:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Has EEng ever refused to archive his page when asked? If not, I don't really see the need for an ANI thread.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if "refused" is the right word, but in 2015, this request was ignored and in 2017 and 2018, this and this thread devolved into japes and tomfoolery. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

But on the other hand [293] --> [294] and [295], so apparently a gentle nudge can work. What I continue to find astounding is the focus on the size of a page's text, when it's images that are almost the entire determinant of load times -- a dozen modest-sized images are bigger than all of the text put together.

Now, as it happens I'll be traveling for the next few days, but after I'm settled in next week I'll make a half-hearted token effort that should get you off my back for a while. If I forget please give a reminder. EEng 16:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry. We'll keep good care of your pictures while you're gone. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I expect the answer would be something like "Here we go again with the nannying of user pages. Jesus, find something useful to do." Woodroar (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Might find this query interesting: top 500 longest user talk pages. (Thanks to Firefly for help with that). Both EEng and DGG's user talk pages have killed my browser at various points in time (which isn't to say every time, but I'd just ping elsewhere rather than leave a message there at this point), but they aren't even in the top 100 (granted, some are archives and other such subpages). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Folks, please archive appropriately! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

So, you guys are complaining? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, they should maybe remove one or two of their MediaWiki messages...-- P-K3 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:OWNTALK - "The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. " So there's nothing that can be done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that's talking more about the choice between setting up archiving verses just deleting threads you've read. Plus, WP:TPG states "As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has numerous resolved or stale discussions". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Apart from clarifying policy, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with your original point, Ritchie. It's a pain to have a massive talkpage (or userpage come to think of it) for no apparent benefit. I'm guessing if you were WP:BOLD and did the archive yourself, it would be reverted. As a side note, I do like the irony that a signature should have a link to a talkpage, but your talkpage doesn't have to be accessible due to size limits, with editors being blocked in the past for not conforming with the former! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} — Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 10 March 2021

Getting on my soapbox for moment, I've long felt that this project should enact a different approach to archiving talk pages. I'm recalling my own personal experience, which is now a dim memory. It didn't take long to get the hang of editing articles. It was quite sometime before I ventured into the concept of templates. I needed to begin archiving my talk page well before I had acquire the skills to set it up myself. Thankfully, I'm in a community where others helped, and someone help me set up my talk page archiving which I don't think I've touched since. I'm vaguely aware that there are several bots that can do this and I don't have a full understanding of the differences nor do I care to learn them. I am appreciative that we have editors who are intensely interested in those technical aspects, but I see archiving as a housekeeping effort that ought to be automatic. A very common post at the helpdesk or Teahouse is how to archive tar pages. I don't think users should ever have to ask. (Are your old checks archived by the software you use for your bank? Of course. Did you have to manually set that feature up yourself? Of course not, and it is mind-boggling to think that that would ever be necessary.)

I do not suggest that every new editor should have archiving of the talk page turned on automatically. I think that would generate a little bit of overhead for each one and multiplied by literally millions of users who might only have a couple of entries on the talk page it's not worth it. My suggestion is that they a bot could monitor new editor's talk pages and when may exceed some minimum number of entries, a bot should automatically add the code to create the archives. This code should have parameters so that knowledgeable users who have good reason to have control over the frequency can modify them, but I can't think of a legitimate reason why we would ever allow a user to say archiving is not permitted. I'm open to the possibility that there is such an argument but I can't think of a rationale that makes up for the headaches that large unarchived talk pages create.

I know this is the wrong forum—I ought to be proposing this at VPI, but may be while we are talking about this I could get some feedback on whether it's even worth proposing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, you want to post to his talk page to ask him a favor, and the best way to achieve that is starting an ANI thread about him, to force him to do something? Seems unlikely to result in a favor-granting mood; at least it would be for me. I don't think talking to EEng beforehand should have been considered optional. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Like. And, I mean, which top-tier musical performer goes to hang out with concert goers after a show? Just goes to show that John Scofield is a super-nice guy! El_C 16:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Threesie did ask on his Talk and I think he's awaiting a reply. So he obviously favours a "two-pronged" approach. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Solutions — Friends, let's not dwell on the problem, let's focus on brainstorming some productive solutions. A few ideas to get us started:

1. Partially block E from his user talk page so the rest of us can archive it while he watches helplessly; we can unblock him one day per week to respond to posts; I suggest Tuesdays
2. Steal E's user talk page (move it without a redirect), then split it up into several smaller pages, and offer to return one section for each article E improves to GA
3. Code Legobot to delete the 300th thread on E's talk page

Anyone else have ideas they'd like to share? And if anyone tries any of these, we'll ask you about it next week, on Wait Wait... Don't Block Me! Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• The only serious solution I see is to ping him to an alternate talk page, like your own, article talk, or WP/MOS page. Nothing will be accomplished here. My desktop browser hangs as well, so there is no way my screenreader can load it either, so since I'm denied access to his talk page due to the size of it, alternate solutions are my only choice to communicate with this editor. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  ...and the dozens of other editors with longer pages. Page length (for screen readers) and size (for loading) are both legitimate concerns, yet no one ever starts the RFC at WP:TPG. (In all seriousness, that's the solution to this problem. An RfC.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Do we need an RfC? As I said above, the guidelines already say to avoid going over 75K. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is one of those things where the rule is so stupid nobody complies with it. 75k is a stupidly-low number. Your talk page is 120k. The page we're on right now is 640k, and that seems accessible enough. E's is 990k, and there are ~100 user talk pages longer than that. The 75k probably should change to 500k or 750k, and it should be applied to all pages in all namespaces, and perhaps some thought given to giving the rule some teeth. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, since I have been mentioned, I have had as many positive notes about the material on my talk page as complaints. I've shortened it somewhat, and will shorten it some more , and, like EEG, I intend to remove images, but I intend to continue using it as a place to show the current status of my views on a number of important issues, including some about which I am frequently quoted. . (I do have subject talk-pages also, but that's an older system that never worked well--what is on them is either obsolete or a duplicate). I find it much more unhelpful that other people don't keep their recent work so easily available. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

81.99.175.183 again

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

---

• 81.99.175.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2003 in British television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I first noticed this IP in Recent changes when filtering by tag "mw-removed-redirect" overwriting some redirects with mostly plot and no sources (examples at Casino (Malcolm in the Middle)). I've brought their repeated edits to 2003 in British television here as this IP has persistently added the same non-notable event without sources. This IP also makes no effort to discuss when contested. See also this IP's block log; they have been blocked before for similar behavior and no effort to discuss. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

IP nonsense threats and personal attacks

• 69.94.57.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 174.197.130.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 174.197.133.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

69.94.57.91 disputed an image change (with nonsense threats) on 4 (New York City Subway service), the issue was resolved by another IP editor. But then today, 174.197.130.137 is likely the same user, all these edits are blatant WP:NOTHERE with their personal attacks on my talk page. Other matches between the IPs include reading comprehension and mobile edits. Cards84664 18:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If nothing else; there is a severe WP:CIR issue because the English in the edit summaries is almost incomprehensible. 86.164.109.106 (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP making personal attacks for a month and revdelled those comments, and I've semi-protected the target page for two months. I'm not sure whether the other IPs need action. Fences&Windows 19:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:ACCESS violations again at RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 1) and RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)

Following an absolute pile on that has included death threats, the talkpage of at least one of the articles being reldev'd and a number of users being blocked [296], User talk:Caroline Quentin, User talk:Irin161, User talk:2A02:C7D:8A4D:2D00:1D2F:DF1A:5351:C2AD) the page protection preventing the edit warring on the two pages has now expired and multiple editors have reverted back to edits which are not supported by MOS:ACCESS, MOS:DTAB, MOS:TABLE including gross violations of MOS:COLOUR, WP:SYNTHESIS of show results which cannot/are not supported by third-party reliable sources and ignoring repeated requests to engage with discussion.

See the mess that was the talkpage for Drag Race UK (series 2). I am at a loss for what to do here - I was under the impression that MOS was not negotiable.

• This edit by Ethan MP, though to be fair they have not previously been warned for making these changes.
• This edit by 2a01:4c8:c8c:5d55:7d57:5c29:4fa7:1d98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) adds information that is solely dictated by colour and a gross violation of MOS:COLOUR
• This edit by Messinwithbruce who has previously been warned by someone for BRD and left an edit summary that stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF ("Needs to be consistent with ALL other seasons. Either change all of them or don’t change them at all.") Note that Messinwithbruce also uploaded unsourced/improperly sourced copyright images relating to this subject and has previously been blocked for unsourced/poorly sourced editing
• This edit by 2a01:4c8:c8c:5d55:7d57:5c29:4fa7:1d98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that smacks of its fine no one has complained before so its fine per their edit summary "They are not rules, just guidelines. This is the format that has worked for many years, and nobody has had an issue with. The majority of articles on Wiki use abbreviations, so if you change this you’ll need to change all of those too".

1. Tagging Billwebster91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who previously engaged in similar edit warring and failed to respond to warnings [297], [298]
2. Tagging Thijslandsmeer who also reverted MOS changes and was warned here

The same situation happened at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_5) with a variety of editors. There was a discussion on that talkpage too: Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_5)#Accessible_Table_Format that has fallen on deaf ears.

To confirm there are several issues:

1. Wikipedia editors treating reality TV shows like current news and therefore creating WP:FANCRUFT tables full of WP:SYNTHESIS ("high" and "low" positions are mentioned in the show but "safe" with/without critiques come from individual' editors interpretation and are not reliably sourced.
2. There are multiple violations of MOS:COLOUR which impact visually impaired users icluding the use of multiple shades of the same colour (light red, dark red), failure to use high contrast e.g. white text on dark background and use of greens and reds in the same table which impact negatively on colourblind editors. There is also issues with colour being used as the only means of conveying information
3. Failure to adhere with MOS:ACCESS, MOS:ABBREV, MOS:TABLE.

Everyone who reverts says all the articles need consistency but there's never any policy or guidance reasons given even though multiple times I have shown how the current status does not meet wiki guidlines. Note all this refers to a previous report filed earlier this week too - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trolling_of_talk_pages_and_threats Users: RandomCanadian, Deepfriedokra, Firefly have all been involved in the discussions on the talkpage - helping for firefight the situation. Have notified all involved parties. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Messinwithbruce now blocked for edit warring to get accessibility-violating content in. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  I have protected both articles again. --Jayron32 19:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  This editor's userpage was deleted as an attack page; they've been blocked before for BLP violations; I see a bunch of edit warring warnings; and now this ... seems to me like a candidate for a TBAN from BLPs. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• What a silly charade this is turning in to. I'm honestly not sure of the best path forward here, given the strength of feeling from some editors around having these incredibly detailed, borderline fancrufty tables in articles, and (more concerningly) edit warring over the minutiae therein and rushing to update them when episodes air. I think we may need a broader RfC on such things to get clear consensus on (a) whether to have them (personally I would say 'no'), and (b) the general shape of them if we must have them and ensuring they comply with accessibility standards. The rushing-to-update is adequately covered elsewhere, but I fear without a clear consensus to point to we'll forever be pushing a boulder up a hill against those who wish to cram tables into reality TV articles and wasting sysop time. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 19:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

On a content note, I agree that the Drag Race tables are super crufty and a flashpoint for disruption. I would be more than happy to see them all removed, or at least seriously reexamined/reformed. I don't know quite enough about how the show works to propose a solution, but would love to see some kind of RfC on it. AdmiralEek (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all of the sentiments about this. I think there should be a wide ranging RFC supporting accessible tables because to be honest it applies all of reality tv. Also I think there should be proper sanctions for those who don't follow MOS... its very clear and shouldn't be up for debate. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think sanctioning people who don't follow most of the MOS is a good idea, after all much of MOS is nitpicking nonsense that doesn't relate to the real world at all (and sometimes actively makes our articles look daft), but ACCESS is the one that is definitely an exception to that. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to confirm - I agree - I meant specifically on accessibility. I don't have an issue with sparing use of colours but its so tricky to get people to follow the rules! ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• There aren't many things that irritate me more than people who violate ACCESS after being repeatedly told why they shouldn't do it. I admit to having a lower tolerance of this that many other disruptive editing practices. Also, these reality show articles simply look hideous and unprofessional. The tables are bad enough but the multi-coloured text andd violent pink borders in the episode list look like a Geocities website from around 1997. Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star (series 1) (which I've also just fixed the table access issues on) is even worse. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not people's private webpages and I wouldn't object to sending everything monochrome and saying "sorry - you simply can't be trusted to use colours". Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  To be fair, colour issues don't just affect colour-blind users. Looking at a rainbow-coloured table is also annoying for anybody who has full vision too... As for crufty details (if we for a moment disregard that the whole of the table might be such a thing), even way back in 2013 (caution: massive colour misuse, too) there were some reservations about those, though apparently the fancruft somehow prevailed... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I’ll write up an RfC tomorrow on reality show article formatting and detail (e.g. do we want progress tables?). Hopefully we can get consensus to clean up the cruft and make them more accessible. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• IMO updating these shows week by week is like updating articles of football matches before they've finished, which is something we don't do. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Well we do update cricket matches mid-way through (at the innings break, or at the close of play each day if it's a first class game). But then again, cricket is a sport which requires patience, a virtue which, judging by persistent requests such as this one, those misusing WP as a repository for crufty fansite-material might be sorely lacking... Not that there isn't some valid encyclopedic content which can be written about these reality TV series (their cultural impact, and mostly how they are not reality...), but yeah to quote previous editors "blow by blow accounts" are unecessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This can probably be closed as Messinwithbruce is now blocked as a sock. 86.164.109.106 (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

J.Turner99

J.Turner99 has been given an extremely specific reminder that 3RR is not an entitlement ([299][300]) with regards to their edits to Beyond Order and has continued to revert after a warning. This is three contiguous series of reverts within six hours, most with incorrect edit summaries, and an indication that the user will continue reverting further ([301]). Attempts to engage them in discussion (User talk:Bilorv#Greetings) see them completely missing the point. They have made no attempt to reach out to either of the users they are reverting, or to begin a talk page discussion. During the writing of this report, the user overtly breached 3RR with a fourth non-contiguous revert: [302].

The user has an intractable case of it always being somebody else's fault: Why did you not leave a warning on the other user's page?[303], I am not implying that my edits are or are not contructive[304] etc. This points to a battleground mentality which is furthered by: their repeated filings of spurious claims of edit warring, sockpuppetry and warning templates when in a conflict with somebody; refusal to hear the reason for an AfD redirection; their recording of two negative comments about me by another user without permission on their userpage and their edit warring. I am also seeing a hat-collecting tendency and an unusual tendency to advocate for the unblocking of users they have no relation to. This list discounts all actions which I believe a newcomer could reasonably make or that seem to be made in good faith, except where it's part of a pattern.

Lots of editors have tried to engage with the user in good faith, such as Cassiopeia, Sro23 (here), myself (here, here, here). The user's behavior has not substantially improved from any of these conversations, from what I can tell.

Possible solutions I see are a topic ban on American Politics (the user is aware), a temporary block for edit warring, or possibly some series of IBANs (though this seems to involve at least three users: myself, NorthBySouthBaranof and Acousmana). I am not the first user to suggest sanctioning: for instance, JayBeeEll suggested a block in February here.

I've struck one part upon noticing it was completely incorrect and the comment was made by another user, albeit directly on J.Turner99's userpage. I apologise to J.Turner99 for the mistake. — Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

References

— Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Just a general warning, for now. El_C 21:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Here the user threatens to make their fifth revert in eight hours (I think I should revert). Is it not uncontroversial to block for at least 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation? — Bilorv (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have significant concerns about J.Turner99's ability to operate in the American Politics topic area, for the reasons Bilorv outlines. J.Turner99 combines some typical newbie traits (cluelessness and enthusiasm) with a battleground approach focused on advancing a particular point of view. (Although this is not sanctionable, they also have a deeply grating misunderstanding of what it means to assume good faith.) I have reviewed their edits on several occasions when they've come across my watchlist; I think their work outside of American Politics has been fine (appropriate vandal-fighting, appropriate copy-editing). A medium-length topic ban might allow them to continue to develop their skills and experience as an editor while avoiding conflict. --JBL (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fwiw I would also support a politics topic ban, since that's where most of the disruption can be traced back to. Sro23 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by J.Turner99

All I have to say is: Ref 2: I just cited a single source as an example. Thank you for the apology Bilorv, easily done. I believe I have spoken elsewhere, I have nothing more to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Turner99 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

6-month WP:AP2 TBAN now in effect (AE)

El_C 02:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2603:9000:FF00:A7:1927:4C3A:3389:CF0B

• 2603:9000:FF00:A7:1927:4C3A:3389:CF0B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring, Undid Sourced edits on Abu Mohammad al-Julani and the connected edits on Template:Al-Qaeda Norschweden (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

User:PDKevin reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

Making threats of legal action over edits at KDNL-TV. [305] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: You need to revoke PDKevin's talk page access as well. He made comments on his talk page right after you blocked him. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

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

IP range vandalism of user talk pages

• 92.40.202.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Persistent vandalism of user talk pages and jumping to a new IP after each block. I'm not sure if this range is the best one, I put a few into ip-range-calc and this is what it gave me. DanCherek (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, just saw that this exact range was blocked in December and the block expired 2 days ago, so fairly sure this is the right one. DanCherek (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

AmericanPropagandaHunter and NOTHERE POV editing

• AmericanPropagandaHunter
• Uyghur genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From the name of the account and their edit history, I believe this is a NOTHERE POV user [306]. I suspect this is a sock based on their 36 edits and history eg: [307]

This is very similar to the recent problem with PailSimon and their POV edits re: Uyghurs and Taiwan are very similar [308].  // Timothy :: talk  02:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. The POV tendency is just a common occurrence, though, so no connection to PailSimon can be established this way. El_C 02:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I've also upgraded to WP:ECP (expires on the 25th) due to this recent influx of disruption from confirmed accounts. El_C 03:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Exhausted-Sinologist and potential block evasion

Hi guys! There's a potential that block evasion may be occurring with a recently created account (3:39 UTC on 11 March 2021), Exhausted-Sinologist. Not sure if I should post at WP:SPI or comment here, but the account is commenting along the lines as the user that was just blocked (the account's contributions so far are 1 and 2). Can anybody look into this to verify whether they are the same account or different? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Yup. El_C 04:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Should I place sockpuppetry-related templates on each of the user pages, or is that best left to admins? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That's best left to admins. El_C 14:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Ramanpanikar and CopyVio

User:Ramanpanikar is insistent on copy and pasting the material directly from the personal webpage of Reshma Thomas into article space. I've tried copyvio flags, edit notes, messages on talk page and finally, a warning template. None of those have gotten a response nor changed their behavior, so here we are. Slywriter (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, don't forget to use {{Copyvio-revdel}} to flag the offending revisions for deletion. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, I've protected the page, revdel'd all of the copyright violations, and indeffed the user for edit warring to add copyright violations. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 17:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

SepticSociety

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

I don't know what this person's problem with skeptics is, but they certainly are not here to build an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure seems like NOTHERE. They just add their unsourced opinion despite warnings. And "septic" is probably mockery of "skeptic". Crossroads ^-talk- 06:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Obvious parody of The Skeptics Society is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Mate I don’t know what you’ve got against me, I’m just using a bit of discretion in the introductions of some articles. You do enough of it you fucken hypocrite. SepticSociety (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

REFUSING TO DISCUSS

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

---

[309] and Talk:Death of Kyal Sin#Not a Bio.

I added some bio info to Death of Kyal Sin, like this Death of Chow Tsz-lok#Personal background. But CommanderWaterford reverted several time. If I cant add bio to this article, sure I will remove bio information in Death of Chow Tsz-lok. Taung Tan (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: First of all this is a Content Dispute. Next: This account has been blocked 2 days ago by Girth Summit because of several WP:NGA and Insults against me and other editors. Not even 24 hours after unblock they reverted several, almost all of my (and others) edits of highly discussed articles which are at AfD Discussions. Those articles were in the first WP:BIO1E Articles, had been directly converted into WP:VICTIM articles in the moment I nominated them for deleting by this editor and now this editor tries to insert (poorly sourced) WP:BIO Info again. I asked them to seek consensus on the talk page before reverting mine and others edits and reverted their edits. Result: They added their opinion on the talk page and reverted my Edits directly afterwards (without seeking consensus). CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This is highly inappropriate. I propose this be speedily closed, and TT indeffed for harassment of other editors. Firestar464 (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464 I did not nothing wrong and why always blame me everyone? I putted ANI for CommanderWaterford's harassment! No one helped me? All of my edits are improved for Burmese article. I'm not doing anything wrong. Why am I to blame? Taung Tan (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Addition: Now the editor is accusing another editor at the Talk Page Discussion of acting "biased" -> [310] CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: A Block has the idea that you learn from your previous behaviour - I, too , had a block last year in my early days and I learned my lesson, I was definitely wrong, had no idea how Wikipedia works and my behaviour was totally inappropriate. You are constantly not assuming good faith to all editors who are not of your opinion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sad and no one help me! I really don't understand English editor, CommanderWaterford alway harass me, please see my talk page and we have a long story. Taung Tan (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Should I leave the wiki? Taung Tan (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you know currently my country is in a bad situation. Burmese people killed day by day. Wikipedia has also been banned. No one has time to edit the Wikipedia at this time. But I did editing Burmese related article for 15 hours of day and everyday because I'm happy to editing on Wikipedia and I love Wiki. I admit my English is very poor but I tried as much as i could. Another senior Burmese editos have retired and I'm alone with other 2 Burmese editor. When I'm in problem, on one help me and i got warning and blame only. I'm very sad. Why? why? Taung Tan (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Taung Tan, once again, I am not the one harassing anyone here. And your English is good enough to raise several discussions, to create articles, to insult other editors etc, etc. I tried several times to help you and explained more than a dozen times how to better edit or interact with others. The situation in your country is indeed unfortunately sad but Wikipedia is not the place to correct this, you could use Twitter or anything similar. There are several Burmese editors and this is not a war or a fight in order to get your edits into articles which - obviously not only I - do not agree on. We can discuss on any content dispute - but in a polite way w/o harassing me or other editors. And once again: ANI is not for Content Disputes. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

please check my contributions, all of my contributions are improved for Burmese articles, I did not violated any Wiki rule excpet uncivil words to other editor. Taung Tan (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Taung Tan, undo this statement quickly - you are here admitting harassing and insulting other editors which is a lot of violation against several "Wiki Rules". Close this discussion, get back to the Talk Page and discuss with me and WWGB your issues (politely!). CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"[P]lease see my talk page and we have a long story" yes indeed- a long story of harassment of CW. I'm sorry about your situation, but unfortunately this isn't an excuse for your behavior. I suggest you refrain from editing the disputed topic area and conversing with CW. Firestar464 (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Because of my previous block, I want fix my problem by legal process like WP:ANI. But I got warning only! I dont understand really. Taung Tan (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Some English senior editor suggested that when I've problem with CommanderWaterford, complain at WP:ANI per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mya Thwe Thwe Khine. That's why i take ANI for my problem. Taung Tan (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford Thanks 11:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If I do something wrong, point me out, but do not be blame i request to all.Taung Tan (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Taung Tan, thanks for confirming that you're editing in good faith. However, I suggest you read WP:TALKDONTREVERT, WP:RS, WP:AGF, and WP:PA. Also, they didn't understand what was going on when they replied, and the convo has now been collapsed. Good luck. Firestar464 (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please close this discussion. I'm Ok now. Thanks all. Taung Tan (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CommanderWaterford, we know Taung Tan is under stress (experiencing a military coup), has relatively poor English (though not so bad as to be uncommunicative), and is new to editing. So please don't WP:BITE and give them some slack. Maybe let someone else patrol their new articles?

Converting a BLP1E into an event article isn't inappropriate editing: it's a common pattern that new editors don't realise to not make a bio rather than a disappearance/death/etc. article. Including biographical details about the subject of such an article is also not prohibited. Fences&Windows 11:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Fences and windows, I would agree but she is a 2 years very experienced Editor (long history at the Burmese WK Edition) here, absolutely not new to editing. Knows exactly about adopting several policies and her English seem to get worse only in special situations, this is not a new editor. I am far away from biting her anyway, tried to help her several times (see her talk page), she indeed thanked me several times for my help on mine. I have absolutely no personal feelings about those articles, but if we agreed with almost 100% consensus to merge the subject, several days later it is recreated and in the moment of deletion nomination it is converted into a WP:VICTIM I refuse to accept later adding (furthermore poorly sourced!) BIO data into the article and I am by far not alone as you can see at its talk page. Regarding topic ban - no problem at all, I would be thankful to be able to polish my GANs or work on the looonggg AfC Backlogs. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, please have a look at her user page User:Taung_Tan: "2 years 8 months" on Wikipedia is she stating herself. Next: "I'm back to the Wikipedia (my internet home) one day we were free from dictatorship" .... Wikipedia:Advocacy ... new editor ? CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows Thanks admin. Taung Tan (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Withdraw and retired. If I've violate the rules, please block my account for 1 month. Taung Tan (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Removing reliably sourced content and replacement with unsourced material at Leva Patel by User:Hpatel100

At the page Leva Patel, User:Hpatel100 has been removing reliably sourced content and replacing them with unsourced content [311] [312] [313]. The user was was warned several times as seen on their talk page [314] [315], as well as the fact that since they are editing a caste page, there are stricter rules due to community ordered sanctions [316]. However, the editor is being unresponsive, and will not provide an edit summary for their edits. Action must be taken by an administrator to stop these disruptive edits. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Per WP:CASTE, with the usual WP:ARBIPA overlap. El_C 15:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:BirTawilMonarchy

User:BirTawilMonarchy is a WP:PROMO-only account. Its only purpose is to promote its supposed claim to the territory of Bir Tawil. It should be terminated with extreme prejudice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Their majesty has been notified, and their draft article Draft:The Monarchy of Bir Tawil has been MfD'd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A similar recent MfD was User:Heymikeyatl/sandbox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Heymikeyatl notified as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely and speedy deleted as WP:SPAM. El_C 15:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Danke. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

IP User disruptive behavior

193.52.24.13
Talk:Rent_control_in_the_United_States

IP user has been attempting to WP:Bludgeon their opinion into the article for 2 days. they have previously engaged in edit wars on this page and has been blocked for this in the past. Their block expired and they are back to disrupting the page. Within 2 days of starting conversation about their desired change- they opened a DRN case, which was summarily closed by me as opened too soon. They have been advised that their behavior is not conducive to change.

When I closed their DRN, they then came to my talk page to try and convince me of their point. After being told I don't have an opinion or an interest in forming one, they have continued to try to beat the other editors, and myself, into submission- including comparing people who don't agree with them to flat-earth conspiracy theorists [317]. Ironically- after being incredibly rude to their fellow editors many times,[318] [319] [320] they find it insulting to be told they are insulting others.

They are also telling others to assume good faith [321] despite not doing so themselves in the same comment (assuming that any disagreement with their "obvious" conclusions is editing to ideology over truth.

I am requesting this IP be banned from editing this article as they seem to have an unhealthy fixation on a single statement supported by WP:RS combined with a refusal to engage in productive discourse to find a compromise. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much to say here. I have written at length my thoughts on the talk page of the article. Thank you.193.52.24.13 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The IP also frequently calls other editors vandals: [322] [323] [324] [325], and we just had an exchange at Talk:Rent_control_in_the_United_States#A_Philosophical_Reminder in which the IP stated that "The article you mention does not imply that there is a consensus among economists. You know that.", essentially accusing me of misrepresenting the source. The relevant quote from the source in question is 'the economics profession has reached a rare consensus'. It's difficult to keep the focus on content in the face of such incivility and disconnection with the plain language of the relevant sources. - MrOllie (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing more to add regarding this attempt to silence me. The conversation can be followed on the article's talk page. As it is, I think the article in question has a serious problem of neutrality. 193.52.24.13 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No one wants to silence you. We just want you to engage in civil discourse. To find a compromise with you. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

167.217.31.47

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

---

IP user disruptively using talk page, threatening users who revert them. Eridian314 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Mazarin07

This editor has made personal attacks or at least makes no attempt to assume good faith.[326][327][328] JFW | T@lk 18:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverting in bad faith is not a personal attack, of course. However, how would you call deleting important information in medical-related articles - by important information I mean those founded on clinical trials -, thus preventing people suffering of diseases to get the latest information? What are your moral standards, if any? Mazarin07 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF / WP:CIVIL, and particularly read the message on your talk page from Sphilbrick. It is possible someone was mistaken and removed your edits when they weren't actual copyright violations on account of a Wikipedia mirror having the text and making it look like a copyvio; even so, you have to make more effort to resolve the disagreement civilly before accusing editors of bad faith and wrongdoing. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if you react like that at the first sign of disagreement then it becomes hard to work with you. (People are also less likely to listen to you if you react like that, which makes it harder to be heard even if you have a legitimate complaint.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

redact personal info

Hi! Can someone please have a look at this and redact the personal info. The editor claims to be the husband of the subject. Vikram Vincent 19:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoa! That was fast! Vikram Vincent 19:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:LouiseFeb1974 on BLPs

User:LouiseFeb1974 has continued to add contentious and unsourced or poorly sourced information to various biographies. They often include sources that have no mention of the subject. Recent examples: here and here. The editor has been warned by others on their talk page but has not responded, and they have been discussed on this board before. Can an administrator please take a look and see if it would be appropriate to block this editor from editing BLPs? 68.224.72.132 (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

John wickly: another apparent sock and more promotional Adityaram drafts

Very persistent attempts to create the promotional article Adityaram. Originally deleted in 2013 and 2014 per AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adityaram. Article repeatedly deleted or moved to draft space in 2021. Also created in other places including Help talk:URL [329], Help:URL [330], and Draft:Draft:Adityaram. ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#Shaanvisuresh and article moves, resulted in sock blocks of SPAs user:Shaanvisuresh and user:Sharinisuresh, salting of article, and semi of draft. New SPA user:John wickly has now recreated the material in Draft:Adityaram (producer) (twice) and Draft talk:Adityaram (once user had enough edits to become autoconfirmed).

It does not look like this is going to end without salting the drafts. Requesting deletion and salting of the new drafts, and block of user:John wickly, Pinging admins who cleaned this up last time: user:El C, user:Johnuniq, user:331dot, user:Newslinger Meters (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)