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

Ownership and competency issues on Silver Ghost

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

@Eddaido: has made a series of reverts on this page, apparently on the assumption that $30 million 2005 dollars of “agreed value” (i.e., a claim of insurance valuation) are unequivocally larger than an actual cash sale for $48 million 2018 dollars. A quick look at the recent history of the article will show the certain questions of competence that spill over from his editing on Concord coach and Stagecoach in the past. Qwirkle (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend a warning on their talk page first and requesting them to self-revert. Not only have they been edit warring, they've surpassed WP:3RR. I count seven reverts. If they don't self-revert, then perhaps a short block may be in order. Amaury • 01:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have never had reason to question Eddaido's competence, nor often any particular sense of ownership to articles; however their refractory obstinacy is legendary. Their is little likelihood of any success in attempting discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

On the Concord coach article mentioned above, he edit-warred to restore a claim he knew to be wrong, and added multiple cites to the talk page which explicitly contradicted his position. Perhaps this isn’t typical. Qwirkle (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it's typical. EEng 06:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• A 48h block for edit warring and ownership seems appropriate at this point - this does need to stop I think. Guy (help!) 11:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Although if we're to start looking at WP:COMPETENCE issues in car-related articles, the obstinate-but-competent Eddaido certainly isn't our worst problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I’d agree to a point there, certainly, but the drunk-under-the-streetlight research techniques are a competence issue, albeit one that’s pretty widespread. Qwirkle (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The reader is invited to see the latest edits, by IP:73.148.104.176 AKA Obvious IP Sock Being Obvious. Like taxis, there is never a checkuser handy when you need ‘em. Qwirkle (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice thing about socks, how you can get ‘em in pairs.... Qwirkle (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411

• Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thucydides411 is essentially a single-purpose account dedicated to obscuring the fact of Russian interference in the 2016 US election, most recently in respect of the GRU's use of WikiLeaks as a conduit for publishing stolen DNC emails. He was blocked for a week in Fen 2017 for violating AP2 restrictions and TBANned from all edits pertaining to US-Russia relations for three months in November 2017 - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive221 § Thucydides411 - due to disruption and personal attacks at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and its talk page. Rather than continue editing in other areas, he essentially did not edit during that period. He has under 4,000 edits in total but is the third most prolific contributor to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (and first by volume of text added), fifth most prolific to talk:Julian Assange (and second by volume of text added), third to White Privilege and second by volume added, and third to talk:Useful idiot, again first by volume of text added.

So for the four pages he edits most often, despite having a remarkably low total edit count, he dominates discussion. In as much as a POV can be discerned in the absence of a direct statement, his edits clearly show a personal rejection of the established facts of Russian interference in the 2016 US election (e.g. [1], which changes a statement of the Mueller conclusions to frame it as Mueller having "asserted" Russian interference or this in which he quibbles with the fact that Mueller "demonstrated" Assange's knowledge that Seth Rich was not the source of leaked emails by continuing to correspond with GRU operatives after his death, and, based on that asserted quibble with the wording, removes the entire paragraph noting the established fact that Assange did indeed continue to contact Russia after Rich's death). This is a fringe POV, and in my view his continued advancement of this POV through talk page statements that assume its factual correctness is unacceptable.

Basically, I think he's here to Right Great Wrongs. Reversions are a prominent part of his content editing, and lengthy comments on Talk are the norm. This can be fine in someone with wide interest in improving Wikipedia, but here it is narrowly focused on a handful of articles where he consistently dominates debate through stonewalling. Guy (help!) 10:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking, but is there any actual indicent being reported here? Is there any actual misbehavior? It looks like Guy is just complaining about me generally, as an editor they dislike.

Guy cites precisely two diffs: one in which I restored long-standing, well-sourced and DUE material (an opinion article by Glenn Greenwald that received secondary coverage in the Columbia Journalism Review, the Washington Post and Salon); and another in which I removed a recent addition that I think was worded in a POV manner and was UNDUE. Neither of these edits is particularly noteworthy.

As for the accusation that I don't have a large enough edit count, I don't see what Guy is getting at. Yes, I don't edit Wikipedia for a living. Is that an offense? I've been editing for over a decade, focusing on different subjects at different times, including American history, astronomy and physics, and American politics.

I'm actually quite proud of some of the contributions Guy complains about. At Useful idiot, I worked to reorient the article around what reliable sources on etymology, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, actually say about the term. Before I began editing the page (November 2017 version), it prominently reported what is apparently an incorrect etymology of the term (attributing it to Lenin). Compare that with the page now: [2]. I think it's clear that the page is much better organized, has better sourcing (including the OED, which I added to the article), and that it gives a clear explanation of the status of the popular attribution to Lenin (i.e., that the attribution is often made, though there's no evidence for it). In other words, I left the page better off than when I arrived. This took a lot of discussion on the talk page (something Guy is faulting me for). Sources had to be evaluated and discussed. References had to be tracked down (for example, I tracked down the origin of a reference that another editor claimed was from the Soviet Union, showing that the book was actually written in France - the question was whether the reference demonstrated usage of the term "useful idiot" in the Soviet Union, which would contradict what the OED claims about the term: see [3]). In any case, this is all to say that Guy is faulting me for using talk pages to discuss sourcing, edits, etc., which is precisely what talk pages are for.

The background to this complaint is a content dispute at Julian Assange, about whether to mention an appeal by 130 of the most prominent figures in German politics, journalism and media calling for Assange's release. I criticized Guy for referring to "Assange cultists" ([4]) and "an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more" ([5]). It's still unclear whom Guy meant to describe with these epithets, but I felt they were out of place and said so. The current ANI complaint appears to be the result. I think Guy's complaint is vague (I'm not actually accused of any violations of Wikipedia policy or of any concrete forms of disruption), and should either be speedily closed or boomeranged. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, if it was specific it would be at WP:AE. My issue is more general: you are a single-puropose advocacy account pushing a fringe POV. You are also abusing Wikipedia process to gain advantage in content disputes, notable with respect to SPECIFICO and BullRangifer (and also Calton, who you managed to get blocked for three days). All three of these have massively greater contributions to Wikipedia than you do, yet you seem to think you have greater understanding of our policies based on your <4000 edits to a handful of closely-related articles. Guy (help!) 12:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't rank editor value by the number of their edits. This is a volunteer project, and participation is not required. I interacted with this editor at the Casualties of the Iraq War page, where they made clear improvements. Bringing up Calton is irrelevant - they broke a sanction in place, were given ample time to revert, and were blocked after they ignored it. If you have a problem with that you should seek to have the sanction removed. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This report alleges no wrongdoing. It is perfectly ok for editors to edit where they want to. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, no, it is not "perfectly OK" for single purpose accounts to dominate articles. Guy (help!) 12:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but that's not what I said. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy's concerns are not frivolous, but are legitimate and very relevant right now.

A current issue is now at BLP/N, where Thucydides411 is making personal attacks against SPECIFICO and me in an abuse of the BLP/N drama board:

• #Unsourced claims about a living person being involved in a criminal conspiracy.

Thucydides411 has made seemingly false accusations against us but presented no evidence of wrongdoing. Now they refuse to respond to pings to resolve the matter. Accusations without evidence are just personal attacks, and unresolved personal attacks that are escalated, rather than withdrawn, demand sanctions.

What should have been a minor blip of no consequence was made major by Thucydides411 when he made it personal and actively escalated the attacks from Talk:Julian Assange, to User:Drmies's talk page, and then to BLP/N. At each step he was rebuffed by multiple admins who saw no BLP violation. Rather than retract the personal attacks, he escalated and expanded on them, and that is what made it serious.

As near as I can tell, SPECIFICO did not use the word "conspired", as accused. Thucydides411 is the one who did that in his seemingly false straw man accusation against him. And as for his accusation against me, he hasn't yet provided any evidence that I said anything that is not factual about Russian interference or Assange's involvement in the Russian interference. A BLP violation occurs with the statement of negative and/or false information that is unsourced, not the statement of "sky is blue" facts backed up by several whole articles exclusively on the subject that are based on myriad RS. That's where I'm coming from. I believe the narrative in those articles and RS. Thucydides411 has often made it clear he does not like the narrative in those articles or their RS.

Thucydides411's personal attacks seem to be rooted in his well-known denialist and fringe attitude toward the well-documented "sky is blue" facts that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections and that Julian Assange was involved with GRU agents in their criminal dissemination of stolen documents and emails. The Mueller investigation established that Assange=WikiLeaks was a key player in the Russian interference. Twelve of those agents are now under criminal indictment for their crimes. The issue of Assange's culpability has not been addressed (by me in this dispute). He did not have to know he was dealing with GRU agents or know that he was involved in the commission of crimes to have been involved. I have made that plain. Mueller, OTOH, details how Assange and GRU agents planned, coordinated, and lied about their efforts to share and release the stolen documents and emails. They didn't just lie about it, they sought to shift the blame from Russia and the Trump campaign (which welcomed the efforts) to the Clinton campaign, Seth Rich, Democrats, Ukraine, China, and just about anyone other than the ones involved, which were Russia, Assange, and the Trump campaign, with Rohrabacher personally delivering (according to Assange's lawyers) a message to Assange from Trump that Trump would pardon him if he covered up Russian involvement by denying it. Assange obeyed, denied, and shifted the blame, but the pardon....well, that hasn't happened yet, but may well in the future.

I have repeatedly made it clear to Thucydides411 that I will gladly retract/revise any incorrect statements I have made, revise my thinking, and thank him for the enlightenment, if he will just explain what I did wrong, but he refuses to respond to pings or explain. He just made the accusations and left them at the three venues. The last one at BLP/N is a serious enough venue that it must be dealt with.

Do we want editors who still deny these facts editing in the AP2 area, especially after their previous sanctions and warnings? They just make trouble. We want editors who believe what RS say, not those who deny them. Such denialist attitudes strike directly at the RS policy itself and the heart of our required basic skill set, the ability to vet sources for reliability. Any editor who favors misinformation from unreliable sources and denies RS should not edit in the relevant areas, and some would say they lack the skills to edit here at all, at least on controversial topics. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Your description of what happened at WP:BLPN#Unsourced claims about a living person being involved in a criminal conspiracy is inaccurate. I raised concerns about editors using talk pages to imply that Julian Assange is involved in some sort of criminal conspiracy, by referring to GRU agents as his "accomplices". You then posted at length, explicitly stating that Assange committed crimes in 2016, for which he supposedly deserves to be indicted. You stated, "It is not just an 'implication', but a legal fact, that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime. Why Assange hasn't been formally charged, unlike the GRU agents, is a question you'll have to ask Trump and Rohrabacher, who actually made a quid pro quo offer of a pardon, rather than a justified criminal indictment, to Assange, in exchange for a cover-up and denial that it was the Russians who hacked and leaked the emails" ([6]). I responded, "You should not be making these sorts of statements on Wikipedia. They don't serve any purpose related to editing the encyclopedia, and they violate our WP:BLP policy" ([7]). Your response has been to repeatedly ping me and post to my talk page, demanding that I answer your theories about Assange. As I told you at my talk page, I'm not interested in getting into political debates on Wikipedia.

Anyone is free to look at my edits to article space and see that they're almost always sourced to multiple high-quality reliable sources. For example, the content dispute that Guy and I are involved in at Julian Assange began with this addition that I made, which is sourced to three high-quality reliable sources. There is an ongoing RfC about this addition, in which a plurality of editors so far have supported my addition, which suggests that it was a reasonable edit. I take WP:RS very seriously. If you have any problematic diffs, you're free to raise them. So far, I don't see any in your complaint. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Let the battleground come to ANI, and the fighters take their corners. I'll be honest, I think ANI is the wrong venue for this. It really should be brought to ARBCOM. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Funnily enough, I was just writing up a topic ban warning for Thucydides. They have been trying to interest admins in what they call SPECIFICO's "very serious BLP violation" in using the word "accomplices" for GRU agents [8] at Talk:Julian Assange, then User talk:Drmies, then WP:BLPN. They don't seem able to find one that agrees with them. It's time you dropped the stick, Thucydides. Furthermore, while I know Drmies suggested you try WP:BLPN since you wouldn't accept the opinions of three admins (including Newyorkbrad of all people) on his page, it's time you stopped ascribing terms like "criminal conspiracies" to Bull Rangifer and SPECIFICO. You yourself are the only, single, solitary person who has mentioned conspiring/conspiracies in the context. Are you trying to exhaust your opponents by repeating it over and over and consistently ignoring both denials and questions about it? Your discussion style is disruptive, and you are coming close to a topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 US election. Bishonen | tålk 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC).

Drop what stick? I stopped commenting at WP:BLPN two days ago, despite being pinged several times there (and messaged on my talk page) by BullRangifer. I only mentioned BLPN here because BullRangifer raised it. Given that I "dropped the stick" days ago, should I go further and bury the stick underground? What, exactly, am I supposed to do to avoid this topic ban you're swinging over my head? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about your dedication to denying Russian interference in the US 2016 election, not just about BLPN. I make it 19 hours since you took an opponent to AE for reverting you (on that subject) at Julian Assange. Bishonen | tålk 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC).

That AE report was in response to a straightforward violation of discretionary sanctions. I notified the user in question and gave them ample time to self-revert before filing the report. The user got blocked. Are you suggesting topic-banning me for filing a straightforward complaint that the admins at WP:AE decided was valid? Why would you criticize me for that, of all things? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is just a terrible edit and I don't understand why someone would raise this hill to die on, because it is the kind of edit that screams "topic ban"--and so does the edit summary, "Mueller Report could be mentioned with more neutral wording". It is hard to imagine more neutral wording than "This [Russian interference in 2016] was subsequently confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his report on his investigation and summarized in his 2019 testimony before Congress". If the argument that this is part of a pattern is borne out (I know not if't be true), then a topic ban is in order. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"concluded" would be a more neutral wording. I didn't decide to "die on this hill", though you seem anxious to topic ban me for that edit. Part of that edit was restoring long-standing and well-sourced content: Glenn Greenwald's commentary on the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which was covered by Columbia Journalism Review, the Washington Post and Salon. Topic banning someone for restoring long-standing content and suggesting that more neutral wording could be used for another sentence is sort of an overreaction, don't you think? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't deflect by focusing on what you restored. Drmies is talking about what you removed, which just happens to be something you don't want to accept, that the Russians interfered in the election. There was no justification for you to remove that content. None at all. They were not "POV edits". They were properly-sourced facts you don't like, so you removed them, with the source. That's an egregious NPOV violation. You allowed your personal fringe POV dictate the fate of properly-sourced content. Shame on you. BTW, that content was restored and is still part of the article, as it should be. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent my edit. I asked for more neutral wording, and said I was okay with inclusion of the Mueller Report. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, "dropping the stick" isn't exactly the right description of what you've done. You stabbed SPECIFICO and stabbed me, then you escalated the matter (repeatedly restabbed and twisted the knives). By refusing to withdraw your personal attacks, you have just left the knives in place, and only you can remove them.

Please do so by either providing evidence of our wrongdoing (repetitions of your objections above is not evidence) or by publically withdrawing your accusations. Right now you have just made them again, instead of withdrawing them. Do the right thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"stabbed me", "repeatedly restabbed and twisted the knives": Such violent metaphors! I didn't stab anyone. I suggest you move on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I find Bishonen's and Drmies' commentary here to be highly partisan, if not dishonest. As admins you might expect them to intervene in defense of this biography of a living person, per our very clear policies at Wikipedia and protections for the subjects of those biographies. BullRangifer has stated plainly that Assange has committed a crime [9]:

It is a fact that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime.

SPECIFICO has stated that the GRU were Assange's "accomplices" [10][11]:

The prosecution of his accomplices is entirely suitable for a brief lead mention.

In this context Thucydides411 is of course wholly correct to complain about Assange being described as a criminal, since he was accused in a court of law, and the accusation was dismissed with prejudice [12]:

The ruling terminated the DNC’s claims against... the document disclosure group WikiLeaks and its leader Julian Assange for releasing material stolen by the Russian hackers. [Judge] Koetl said the Constitution’s First Amendment protects those defendants from such a civil legal claim, just as it protects “press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained, so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place.” Koetl dismissed the lawsuit, which was filed in April 2018, “with prejudice,” which bars the DNS from bringing the same claims against the defendants in another suit.

Without getting into details about Assange, Drmies has implied that SPECIFICO and Bullrangifer's opinions about Assange are correct [13][14]:

Sorry, but how is that controversial?

They're controversial because the Judge ruled that Assange did not commit a crime. Drmies can be forgiven for not reading the news. However as wallyfromdilbert and PackMecEng point out, it's hypocritical for Bullrangifer and Guy [15] to ask to sanction Thucydides411 for raising the issue at WP:BLPN right after Drmies told Thucydides411 to go there [16]:

you should consider BLPN.

There are strong indications that the very admins commenting here are not acting to enforce legitimate BLP concerns at Talk:Julian Assange and are instead encouraging departures from sources and policies. For instance JzG wrote recently at Talk:Julian Assange that

the Assange cult has promoted this letter of ocncern, but that it is just one letter of concern, a single incident in the news blizzard around Assange that is driven by an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more. There's no actual evidence that Assange was treated any differently form anyone similarly situated.

This kind of incoherent and unsourced language would be considered inappropriate from any editor on a BLP, but JzG is the most active admin on the page, having placed DS sanctions there. The sources editors were discussing in that case (including famous German investigative journalists and politicians, Die Welt, the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) would be surprised to learn that their activities and reporting were being promoted, according to a Wikipedia administrator active at Julian Assange, by "an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more." Moreover, numerous American and international human rights groups have described Assange's treatment as extraordinary, directly contradicting JzG's assertion. For example here is the United Nations special rapporteur's recent description of Assange's treatment in the UK [17]:

[In the UK Assange] was suddenly dragged out and convicted within hours and without any preparation for a bail violation that consisted of him having received diplomatic asylum from another UN member state on the basis of political persecution, just as international law intends and just as countless Chinese, Russian and other dissidents have done in Western embassies. It is obvious that what we are dealing with here is political persecution. In Britain, bail violations seldom lead to prison sentences – they are generally subject only to fines. Assange, by contrast, was sentenced in summary proceedings to 50 weeks in a maximum-security prison – clearly a disproportionate penalty that had only a single purpose: Holding Assange long enough for the U.S. to prepare their espionage case against him.

As for Bishonen, they were quick to block Jtbobwaysf [18] for their 1RR violation at Julian Assange just days ago, and are quick to appear here threatening a topic ban against Thucydides411. However they said they would not block Calton for a similar, DS violation at Julian Assange introducing a long opinion piece quote against him without in-text attribution [19], and apparently believe that calling Assange a criminal or criminal accomplice is not a BLP problem, even if a US federal judge has ruled that Assange's actions and similar actions by news organizations are protected by the first amendment. -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, that's the wrong case. That was the DNC's civil case. I have always been referring to Mueller's criminal case against the 12 GRU agents who committed crimes where Mueller found that Assange was an accomplice in the illegal dissemination of their stolen documents and emails. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet (and Thucydides411) object to what Darouet words as "calling Assange a criminal or criminal accomplice". They see that as a BLP violation. Maybe or maybe not, but I have not said that. I have not called Assange a "criminal" or a "criminal accomplice". Words matter. Exact quotes matter. I have mentioned the proven facts that crimes were committed and that Assange was involved with GRU agents in the commission of those crimes. That is not the same as using the words above. I did not use those words.

For some reason, both Darouet and Thucydides411 fail to accept what I have repeatedly stated, and that is that it is possible for a person to not know they are involved in the commission of a crime, but that does not make it any less of a crime. Focus on the crime, not the person. That is my focus. It is not a BLP violation to state proven facts.

So far, neither editor has provided any evidence that what SPECIFICO or I have stated are counterfactual or not supported by the many RS used in our articles on these subjects, or the findings in the Mueller Report. This is "sky is blue" stuff, and there should be no objection to stating the facts that crimes were committed and that Assange was an accomplice with GRU agents in the commission of the crimes of disseminating those stolen documents. Mueller clearly proves that Assange coordinated these acts with those agents and lied about it. He didn't even have to know they were Russians. The crimes still happened, and Mueller has indicted 12 GRU agents for those crimes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you write I have not called Assange a "criminal" or a "criminal accomplice". What you said is [20]:

It is a fact that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime.

I understand you don't want to talk about the fact that the DNC accusations against Assange — which you are asking us here to accept as truth, or be topic banned — were thrown out of court in the United States and declared to be false [21]:

“The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place.”

The judge specifically compared Assange and Wikileaks' publication to that of the Pentagon papers:

Citing precedent from the the Pentagon Papers case, Koeltl held that treating WikiLeaks as an accomplice “would render any journalist who publishes an article based on stolen information a co-conspirator in the theft.”

Perhaps User:Newyorkbrad doesn't think your statements about Assange are a BLP violation. That's fine. But if I agree with John G. Koeltl in his finding that Assange is not guilty of a crime for publishing DNC documents, should I be topic banned on Wikipedia?

Lastly, since you write that "Exact quotes matter," contrary to what you write I have not used the term "BLP violation." I have raised BLP concerns: part of our normal editing task if we are trying to improve a BLP. -Darouet (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, I already told you that you are linking to the wrong case. That is the DNC's civil lawsuit. I am talking about Mueller's criminal case against the 12 GRU agents.

Your statement is also misleading. The civil lawsuit was not dismissed because it was "false", but because "the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act foreclosed him [the judge] from holding it liable for the DNC server hack."

The judge even called the actions illegal: "The primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal enterprise is undoubtably the Russian Federation, the first named defendant in the case and the entity that surreptitiously and illegally hacked into the DNC’s computers and thereafter disseminated the results of its theft."

So you're barking up the wrong tree.

As far as your "BLP concerns", what have I written that is factually wrong? Thucydides won't tell me. Will you? If you have such concerns, then you should be able to elucidate them. As I have repeatedly written, if you can show that my statements are false, I will gladly retract/revise them, revise my thinking, and thank you for the enlightenment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: I'm sure I am not the only one surprised to see your words above ..accusations against Assange — which you are asking us here to accept as truth, or be topic banned Topic ban us? Are you expecting to be TBANned along with Thucydides411 here? Are you now acknowledging the tag-teaming that you've long denied? Yes, your repetitious one-two punch in Russia-related threads has worsened the disruption, but my understanding is that this ANI is just about Thucydides411. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS: I've long been active at Julian Assange, am proud of my work there, and will continue to improve the article. Anyone can similarly pull up editor interaction reports for you and plenty of other editors, e.g. a longer list of your interactions with me (100 articles) [22], or BullRangifer (319 articles) [23], or Bishonen (214 articles) [24].

BullRangifer, I'm not misrepresenting the sources. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act prevented the judge, Koetl, from having jurisdiction over Russia or the GRU's actions. On the other hand the judge found no evidence that Assange or Wikileaks participated in any crime including the theft of DNC documents, and is like other media organizations is protected by the first amendment in publishing them. Koetl further ruled that Wikileaks is protected even if they know the documents are stolen, so long as the documents are in the public interest (he ruled they were), and Wikileaks did not commit a crime by stealing the documents themselves (he ruled they didn't).

I have real life work so I'm going to keep this brief, but my objection to your comments re Assange are straightforward. You have said that

It is a fact that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime.

However a US court, without challenging (or at all times necessarily endorsing) the factual basis of the Mueller Report, has unequivocally declared that Assange's receipt and publication of those documents was not a crime and protected by the first amendment.

I don't personally think you should be sanctioned for your statement — and again User:Newyorkbrad is a better expert here than am I — however I do think that your false opinion has an impact on Assange's page. For instance, many editors at Talk:Julian Assange have been arguing that an entire lead paragraph in our biography of Assange, dedicated to the DNC and mentioning the GRU, is undue. If you don't acknowledge the ruling that Assange's publication is protected by the first amendment [25], that will contribute to your desire to give undue and misleading attention to this issue in the lead of his article. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, I have never said or implied that Assange or Wikileaks participated in the theft of DNC documents, or that WikiLeaks committed a crime by stealing the documents themselves. The theft of the documents was a crime committed by the GRU, and Assange was involved in coordinating how to use those documents. Trafficking in stolen documents is generally considered a crime, but courts waffle on that one and won't always convict. Since his coordination with the GRU involved much deception by Assange (read the Mueller Report), he might end up getting indicted and convicted for that. Time will tell. His statements to the public were obviously deceptive, but are likely not actionable.

BTW, I used to be sympathetic to Assange's efforts when he acted like a journalist, and journalists do need protection. When he started acting in a partisan manner by selectively releasing only content that hurt America, DNC, and Clinton, and not releasing the documents he had which could hurt the GOP and Russia, he started to act as a Russian asset who does not deserve protection or respect.

Now please explain what part of what I have said (from before the beginning of this thread at AN/I) that is not factual. Thucydides won't tell me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait a second: you're accusing me of not accepting established facts, but here you are trying to argue that Judge Koetl's ruling is incorrect and somehow amounts to "waffl[ing]". Do you understand the law better than the judge? Who's really denying facts here? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I did not say that their ruling was incorrect. Courts deal differently with issues that might, in some way or another, touch on First Amendment issues. The case is complicated, and one judge might focus on one aspect of the facts and acquit, and another judge might focus on a different aspect of the same set of facts and convict. That's the way it works. Again, I did not say what you claim I said. Words matter.

This was also a civil case, not the situation I have been referring to the whole time.

Now explain what was so factually wrong with the statements I had made that made you attack me at BLP/N? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: on the 29th of February you directly stated that the GRU helped Assange commit a crime [26]:

It is a fact that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime.

Do you acknowledge that you made this statement at BLPN?

United States federal judge John G. Koeltl clearly ruled that Assange and Wikileaks, per clear precedent established in many cases including those surrounding the Pentagon Papers, did not commit a crime [27][28]:

Koeltl ruled that the U.S. Constitution protected them from liability related to disseminating stolen emails. “The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place,” the 81-page opinion states. Citing precedent from the the Pentagon Papers case, Koeltl held that treating WikiLeaks as an accomplice “would render any journalist who publishes an article based on stolen information a co-conspirator in the theft.”

Do you acknowledge that Koeltl ruled in this way, and that his ruling directly contradicts your assertion quoted above? Or, do you retract your statement and acknowledge you were incorrect, as you have repeatedly stated you would be willing to do? It's unclear what else you're looking for. -Darouet (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, I want to thank you so much for finally being the one to actually explain this, rather than like Thucydides411, who falsely asserted that SPECIFICO and I claimed "that Assange criminally conspired with GRU agents". That false claim still lingers at BLP/N.

But now, YOU are the one who has done the right thing, stepped up to the plate, and actually explained your exact concern(s), and for that I am very grateful. You have done the honorable thing. Why didn't Thucydides411 do this a long time ago? They were the one making all the accusations and implying that Assange is somehow innocent of any wrongdoing. Assange isn't innocent of wrongdoing. He did many bad things. Mike Pompeo said it well: "It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia." Assange is not a whistleblower or a journalist. He's a witting or unwitting Russian asset. the end result is the same.

My focus has always been the commission of proven hacking and theft crimes by the GRU (which Mueller has charged them with), and since Assange was then involved in the planning, coordination, receipt, and distribution of those stolen documents, and lied about it, that Assange's actions were (tangentially) involved in that crime, with the distribution being HIS crime, even if he did not commit the hacking crime itself. It was always in that sense my statements should be interpreted. The statement above is indeed my statement, and I can now, in the light of the judge's reasoning for throwing out the case, see what you mean. It does look like an overstep on my part, and I apologize for that. I see what you mean about how this civil ruling can relate to that, as the judge has applied the First Amendment to Assange's distribution of the stolen documents. A different judge might have ruled differently, but we do have this case, which was tossed, rather than tried. I wonder what would have happened if there had been an actual trial, a criminal one, rather than civil one?

I'd like to go back and look at my statements to see which ones should be stricken/altered. Will you help me by pointing to exact statements (with diffs)? I'd really appreciate that. I need your perspective to see it. I'm too close to the subject! Help me fix this. We should probably do this on my talk page, and then I'll go to BLP/N and fix whatever needs fixing. Fair enough? Thanks again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Please topic ban Thucydides411 from subjects related to Russia. I completely agree with the assessment by Guy. Thucydides411 does POV-pushing on pages like Useful idiot, Assange and some other pages related to Russia. He usually removes well-sourced information and edit-war in a "team" with user Darouet, who just commented above. For example,

1. removal of sourced info by T.,
2. removal by D.,
3. removal by another user (who is a Russian SPI [29], possibly a sockpuppet account, and again), then
4. removal by D.,
5. removal by IP (who was blocked), and
6. removal by well known user Altenmann.

Since then, I never edit this page, and I also stay away of page Assange after massive reverts of well sourced info by Darouet (he removes large section "Timeline of Julian Assange involvement in the United States elections"). Needless to say, discussing anything with Thucydides411 is nearly impossible. In my opinion, he should not edit anything related to Russia (like Assange). My very best wishes (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

MVBW, When you tried to add a massive timeline to the Assange article, four editors commented on talk [30]: JFG and Jack Upland and myself all opposed your addition. Your comment here suggests I was POV-pushing, when consensus roundly rejected your addition.

Similarly, at Useful idiot, dozens of editors have commented there over time, per the NYT [31] and Oxford U press [32] supporting the view that attribution to Lenin is false.

So having lost both content disputes, now you'd like to ban Thucydides411 for having both sources and consensus on their side? -Darouet (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions this seems like a content dispute. I did some check to these diffs and I think Thucydides411 didn't do something sanctionable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is strange. I was watching the Useful idiots page since 2005. Suddenly in 2017, a massive debate erupted, ostensibly about etymology, with editors like SPECIFICO arguing that the Oxford English Dictionary was not a RS. There were hints that the real issue was the Trump-Putin nexus, but I could never see the relevant. When Assange was dragged out of the embassy I started watching his page, and found the same groups of editors fighting each other: Thucydides411 and Darouet vs SPECIFICO and BullRangifer and My very best wishes. I think Assange has had a diverse life, and I don't think the 2016 election is the most important issue. I don't think JzG's intervention is helpful. I can see no sign of men's rights activists editing the page. Incidentally, Guy recently used the phrase "useful idiots" on the Assange page. However, it does seem that editors are using various articles as battlegrounds to fight over issues I don't understand.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Jack that's a pretty shoddy misrepresentation of the discussion at Useful Idiot. You started an RfC relating to whether a particular bit of article text should be cited to Oxford English Dictionary. Your misrepresentation of my view that I claimed OED is not a RS is just false, and in fact the RfC was closed as no consensus to cite fact to OED without attribution, as it related to the proposed article text. Don't misrepresent other editors' views, particularly in an ANI thread. Do better, especially when you refer to an article in which you participated so heavily. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  I think editors can look at the "useful idiot" discussion and judge for themselves. It is clear that on 12 December 2017 you said "No", the OED was not a RS. No one was arguing we should cite the OED without attribution. I do think there is a WP:BATTLE going on here, where improving the articles is unimportant, where factions are warring over multiple articles only tangentially related to their cause, and where editors espouse completely irrational opinions, such as that the OED is not an RS, merely because they believe it supports their cause. Are these warriors are here to build an encyclopedia? However, my previous post was misleading, as I implied that this battle was raging at the Assange page in April last year. In fact, it has developed over time, and BullRangifer has only joined in recently.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Formal proposal

For being a single purpose POV account intent on obscuring the well-established fact that Russia interfered with the 2016 Presidential Election of the United States, and thereby making Wikipedia less factual and informative, Thucydides411 is indefinitely topic-banned from all subjects related to any Russian involvement in American politics, very broadly construed, including anything remotely related to Julian Assange. This topic ban can be appealed at WP:AN after a period of six months from its imposition has elapsed.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• BMK, please consider changing the proposed wording per the comments of Creffpublic and Jayron32 below or changing to an AP2 TBAN, which is unambiguous and with much precedent. Editors can then revise their !votes if they wish, or by default just let them stand as currently posted. @Jayron32 and Beyond My Ken: SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing personal in this -- I don't know the editor from a hole in the ground. It simply seems to me to be a well-focused solution to the problem presented. If others have alternate proposals, they are free to suggest them in separate sections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• What is this proposal based on? You can't propose topic banning someone without any diffs showing any misbehavior. This proposal is transparently politically motivated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• The proposal is based on the evidence presented above. The politically-motivated behavior here is clearly yours, and we don't need it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose POV-pushing ≠ disagreeing with my point of view. Examining the diffs, none of them proves that the editor is POV pushing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There's a lot of editors here who only focus on political topics and have a particular POV. If they follow the policies they are perfectly entitled to edit where they want. This proposal does not document any diffs to back up what the proposer says. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a rediculous proposal. The account in question was opened in 2006. Are we to assume they were a Russian sleeper account? A lot of the back and forth here looks like a case of editors using ANI to try to deal with content disputes. If there is a real issue here it needs to be made in a clear and concise way else this topic should be closed. Springee (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support I interacted with Thucydides411 on several occasions, and it was impossible to agree with him about anything. Hence I decided not to edit any pages that he edited. Please also see my comment with supporting diffs above. His behavior has nothing to do with using good sources or consensus building. Quite the opposite. He removes well sourced and relevant information and does not work towards building consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. We have enough trouble in this area without single-purpose accounts. Oppose opinions above frame this as a difference of opinion. It's not. The facts are well-established. It would be equally bad if he were advancing any other conspiracy theory beloved of the left, such as the idea that GMOs cause cancer. Guy (help!) 20:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What facts am I denying? There's an ongoing RfC about our current content dispute at Julian Assange - the one that motivated you to come here and try to get me banned. The plurality of editors currently agree with my proposed content in that RfC. Only a minority agree with your vote there. But if you're losing the content dispute because uninvolved editors find your arguments less persuasive than mine, I guess you can run to ANI and try to get me banned. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Request rewording - we don't need a thesis statement in the topic ban or the emphatic "very broadly construed" bits. Suggest cutting it down to "Thucydides411 is indefinitely topic-banned from Russian involvement in American politics and Julian Assange, both broadly construed. This topic ban can be appealed at WP:AN after a period of six months from its imposition has elapsed." That shouldn't change the meaning and is more neutrally phrased. Alternatively, could change this to a standard AP2 topic ban, since everything here seems to be a subset of AP2. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. As a note of order, user Thucydides411 has been previously banned on AE from all edits and pages related to US-Russia relations for three months. Please note his response: "@GoldenRing: What do I care?..." and so on. He was also previously discussed on ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not seeing anything much worse than the people pushing for sanctions. MVBW gives diffs from a content dispute two years ago where several people disagreed is reason for a sanction? No. Heck JzG is pretty much forbidden from acting in American politics because of their bias so maybe not the best choice on dealing with bias in American politics. BullRangifer is basically a SPA at this point with anything to do with Russia. This is all just getting a little out of hand and silly. PackMecEng (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this sanction as written. It seems personal and vindictive as written. Please propose something simpler and less attacky. Creffpublic has a better idea, IMHO. --Jayron32 20:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is a bitter, baseless, politically-driven proposal. - DoubleCross (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support First off, remember that Thucydides411 was already TBANned for this Russia-related disruption as an Arbcom Enforcement action. So it's all the worse that he still appears to be incapable of constructive interaction and discussion on articles or talk pages. He puts up walls of text, mostly devoid of meaning but full of insistence. He introduces personal disparagement and attacks, e.g. at @MrX: here or various Admins on the recent BLPN thread. Instead of responding to the views of other editors he repeats his own personal opinions over and over. And over. See e.g. that BLPN thread or the related thread earlier on Drmies' talk page. Typical of POV pushers, he often insists on cherrypicked, fringe, WP:RECENT or primary sources. A few editors have said they do not see any single diff that warrants a ban, but the problem is the hundreds of repetitions, disparagements, and WP:IDHT disruption on every article he edits, e.g. when he was promoting denial of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (see his nearly 100 posts in Talk Archive 8). I think it's actually broader than the Russia-related content. Please, see this thread. 76 repetitive, adversarial, and dismissive posts in a 9 day period. (Scroll down} apparently related to Marxist sensitivity over Critical Race Theory - the Russia thing again, maybe. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to see you voting here, given that you've been stalking me for years now on Wikipedia. By that, I mean periodically looking through my contributions and reverting my edits. How else can you explain that you showed up at Near-Earth Object Camera, an article completely outside your normal editing area, to revert my contribution there? You've also followed me to Casualties of the Iraq War, Useful idiot and Alliance for Securing Democracy.

Despite how you describe my contributions, the consensus often ends up supporting my proposals, as opposed to yours. This is what happened at Useful Idiot, where you attempted to remove the Oxford English Dictionary as an etymological source; at Casualties of the Iraq War, where you attempted to downplay the most rigorous peer-reviewed research (the Lancet papers) on the subject; and is now occurring at Julian Assange, where you are arguing to exclude well-sourced material that I introduced, against what appears to be a forming consensus in favor of inclusion. If I'm such a fringe POV-pusher who uses weak sourcing, why do uninvolved editors so often back my views against yours? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this so-called "stalking" supports my point about WP:BATTLE. These people are warring over multiple article, and I think that is a concern.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support a TBAN from AP2, as his influence everywhere has consistently tended toward denial of Russian interference, which is contrary to the facts. The Russians did interfere, and Assange was a key player:

"The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process."

He's basically an Assange SPA who blocks progress on that topic, guarding the Assange article with extreme zeal so that it's hard to make any improvements if they show Assange in a negative light. (He deleted the quote above, and it still needs to be restored.) His deletions of such content are often later restored and become part of the article, showing that he was on the wrong side of RS, consensus, and history. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as Thucydides411 (with Darouet's help) actually deserves commendation for staying polite and sticking to facts while being pounded like this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, here is what had happened just a couple of days ago. In this edit, Thucydides411 removes the following info:

The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process.

This is correct, very important and well sourced view. However, Thucydides411 goes to AE to block a contributor who included this information. I do not think WP community should endorse such behavior. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

May as well notify that contributor, @Calton:, now that you've mentioned that matter here. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)'

• Oppose This looks like nothing more than a content disagreement about politics. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

  Jauerback, it's not. It's a WP:SPA who is WP:OWNing articles to push a WP:FRINGE view. Guy (help!) 07:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But it matters what view, exactly. He cries "BLP violation" on pages like Assange and Maria Butina [33], and makes misleading comments in the process. For example, no one removed the fact that Butina founded "Right to Bear Arms.", etc. Same misleading claims about editing of "Useful idiot" where he just removed content of the subject sourced to highest quality sources like books by Yale University Press, etc. [34]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the book published by Yale University Press was that it didn't mention the phrase "Useful idiot". The paragraph you added to Useful idiot that cited this source was synthesis: [35]. You used two unrelated quotes that the book discusses to make your own argument about the phrase "useful idiot", which the book does not mention.

Sloppy use of or disregard for sources was a recurring problem at Useful idiot. SPECIFICO created a talk page section titled, "Screw Saffire", in which they called William Safire a "NYTimes token Nixonite" and argued for disregarding Safire's article on the origins of the phrase "useful idiot". Just so that editors here understand, William Safire wrote the most in-depth article on the etymology of the phrase "useful idiot" that any of us editors was able to locate. The reason SPECIFICO wanted to "Screw Saffire" was that Safire came to the conclusion that there is no evidence linking the phrase to Lenin.

For anyone who finds all this back-and-forth bickering difficult to parse (I wouldn't blame you), I strongly recommend just taking a read through the talk archive of Useful idiot. Uninvolved editors can then form their own opinions on who reads sources carefully, who conducts themselves within the rules of Wikipedia, who tries to remain civil and reasonable and who doesn't. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No, this and all other sources you removed were very clearly on the subject of the page [36]. But it is meaningless to discuss anything here because any such disagreement will be regarded as a "content dispute". The only thing I can do is to stop editing any pages frequented by contributors like you (there are also a couple of others), and that is what I generally do. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per DoubleCross – bitter, baseless, politically-driven proposal. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I havent seen anything out of the normal for this. I think unfair to call him a SPA. Assuming arugendo that he is a SPA I dont think a TBAN is acceptable unless TE or disruptive editing is shown, and I haven't seen either. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Well, have you looked at the threads at Assange, Drmies talk, and BLPN? Do you think that the purported BLP violation, personal disparagement, etc. were all about to be validated up to the last of those dozens of accusations, repetitions, and equivocations? If no, that is what's called disruptive and actionable, as JzG has explained. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Further, I happened to see a link to a similar thread of Thucydides411 abusing BLPN at this link.

And this thread, in which an RfC was posted to resolve Thucydides411's denials of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. As soon as a few editors rejected his view, Thucydides launches personal aspersions against several other editors.

Here he is scolding @MelanieN:, again over Russian interference. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Whatever the rights and wrongs of his actions this proposal reads way to personal and politically motivated for me to support.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - the more cases I see about content disputes, the more convinced I am that an AP3 is needed. Perhaps it is time for a fresh start in that topic area - wipe the slate clean, and hopefully get ArbCom to more closely review the issues that DS have created, not to mention unilateral actions and the imposition of tailor-made sanctions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The claimed 'facts' are not facts as such, but a disputed narrative. It'll be interesting in the long run to see, in retrospect, which editors turn out to be the heroes and villains.     ←   ZScarpia   16:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • ZScarpia, contrary to your claim that this is "a disputed narrative", there is no disagreement among RS. We document that there are those who dispute the fact that it was Russia, not Ukraine, that interfered in the elections, but we do not give any weight to fringe conspiracy theories and false claims, where deceptive propaganda is substituted for the contrary facts. You should read this section and its sources: Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal#Adoption by Trump. There we document the factual narrative, the one backed by RS. It is important to not engage in forbidden advocacy of fringe claims and repeat the conspiracy theories documented in that article as if they were fact. They are not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    • BullRangifer, incorrect. We have one narrative that is made by the U.S. government's own investigation and it is denied by the Russian government. We don't have a UN investigation. That's what reliable sources say. They attribute what they say to the Robert Mueller report. You seem to be pushing one side POV.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
      • User:SharabSalam, if you somehow think that the Mueller report is a "narrative" that is one way or another endorsed by the US government, you are seriously, seriously misunderstanding how the US government works. If anything, the report proved there is no (single) US government. Do you need to be reminded that president Trump claimed the Mueller report was just a hoax? (Which also, of course, he said exculpated him--a strange contradiction only Trump could entertain.) This "both sides" kind of equivocation is detrimental to...well everything. I don't subscribe to many conspiracy theories, but the facts laid out in the Mueller report, the information uncovered by other intelligence services (including the Dutch), they make this clear enough. That the Russian government denies this is par for the course; that the US executive branch doesn't act on it is a. a denial of your "narrative" theory and b. sad. At some point, "the sky is blue" is not a POV anymore. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • SharabSalam, please read what I wrote more carefully. RS, as in "the RS used at the English Wikipedia," (somewhat different than the Russian Wikipedia!!) are not in doubt about who interfered. Both Russian intelligence and Western intelligence agencies cannot be right. One side has to be lying, and our RS say that Russia is lying to us, and Trump sides with them and repeats their lies. Dutch intelligence literally filmed and recorded Russian hackers as they did it. Western intelligence actually found the stolen emails on Russian intelligence servers. They were then passed to Russian cutouts Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, and from them to WikiLeaks/Assange.

I suggest you read these articles and their sources:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal#Adoption by Trump

Editors should be familiar with those sources and that narrative. That is the narrative of the RS used at the English Wikipedia. If an editor doesn't agree with that narrative, they can still edit here, as long as they don't advocate the fringe ("wrong") narrative and oppose the information from our RS. We/Wikipedia don't "take sides" in the usual sense, but we do side with RS, so we side with the narrative of those RS. We also side with RS when the narrative changes, even if it ends up changing the narrative completely. Anything less would mean we abandon dependence on RS now (thus betraying our duty as editors) in favor of a hoped for, and later, confirmation of currently held "fringe beliefs." ("Fringe beliefs" here means "POV contrary to RS", IOW beliefs based on unreliable sources.) Editors who hold fringe beliefs and depend on unreliable sources should find other topics to edit, topics where they can comfortably depend on the RS we use here at the English Wikipedia for those topics. Otherwise, they would probably feel more comfortable editing these AP2 subjects at the Russian Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a good thing that whoever closes this will not just be counting votes. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Of course Thucydides should be TBANNED for being a disinformation SPA, and I wonder what facts ZScarpia thinks are up for debate? The reality of Russian meddling in US elections? Can we just TBAN all the accounts that would dispute that here? The sourcing leaves no doubt about this reality, anyone that would try to debate that here is being disruptive. I don't care if your "politics," which I take to mean, your personal politics, are different, here we follow sourcing. Going against that is sanctionable. Geogene (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The reality of Russian meddling in US elections? Can we just TBAN all the accounts that would dispute that here?

This comment above shows that the issue is not Thucydides but content disputes with editors who are trying to silence other editors who they dispute with through ANI reports.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Thucydides411 pushes WP:FRINGE POVs with filibusters and disparagement of other editors. Those are behavioral disruptions, not content disputes, and when necessary, we block and ban editors to allow the community to get on with its work. Please read the links to evidence that have been provided in this matter. Yes, it's a huge amount to read, but that only reflects the monumental and longstanding extent of Thucydides411's misconduct. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The U.S meddling is only confirmed by the U.S. government, not by the Russian government. The U.S. government is not a source of "undisputed facts", in fact, every time we mention their allegations we should attribute, like we shouldn't say it in Wikivoice but in attribution to the U.S. Meuller report. The fact that we have editors calling for Tban for those who they dispute with is astonishing and disruptive. The editor in the comment above has admittedly said that he thinks all editors should be Tbanned because of content disagreements, "[t]he reality of Russian meddling in US elections? Can we just TBAN all the accounts that would dispute that here?"--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That's your fringe personal opinion. Reliable sources accept that the meddling took place, and editors that try to argue otherwise are POV-pushers. That's sanctionable. Geogene (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not my personal view. That's the other side view, Russia and other countries who don't trust the U.S. investigation. Also, your view is the U.S. view, it's one sided. This has nothing to with fringe views. The only confirmation for the Russia meddling comes from one side, the U.S. side. The issue here is your comment calling for a Tban for other editors who disagree with your government point of view/allegations against Russia (assuming that you are American). You said "[t]he reality of Russian meddling in US elections? Can we just TBAN all the accounts that would dispute that here?" This sounds like something that should raise concern here.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course Russia disputes that they meddled in the election. Reliable sources don't care about that, so neither do we. By the way, why are you indefinitely blocked in Arabic Wikipedia? 22:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talk • contribs)

Reliable sources do say that the Russian government denies the U.S. allegations. Reliable sources say that this is the U.S. allegation. You have called for a Tban to all editors who present any dispute to the U.S. allegations, you said, Can we just TBAN all the accounts that would dispute that here?. Also my Arabic account isn't related to this discussion, don't try to change the subject here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware that Russia denies meddling. What is your point? Reliable sources say that the meddling took place. Also, there's a chance your indefinite ban from Arabic might just be relevant to your advocacy of POV-pushing here. Geogene (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You have literally called for a Tban to all editors who disagree with your point of view, who is POV-pushing here? Your words speak for themselves "Can we just TBAN all the accounts that would dispute that here?". Also, RSs say that this is what the U.S. own investigation says. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

RS's say that Russia meddled, you are POV pushing, and I look forward to the day that that TBAN comes down on you. Geogene (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

RSs say that this is what the U.S. own investigation says, the Mueller report is the result of the U.S. investigation. The U.S. is not a neutral actor here. Russia says that it's investigation says it didn't meddle in the U.S. election and said that they are welcome to evidences. There is no investigation by a neutral actor. Think of it the other way around, if in the Russian election, Russia said that the U.S. meddled in its election and that the Russian version of the Mueller report concluded that the U.S. was meddling in their election, should we Tban those who disagree with Russia as fringe POV-pushers? This is how you sound to me. Your comment, "I look forward to the day that that TBAN comes down on you." shows exactly what this ANI report is for. Content dispute/disagreements.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You're just full of IDHT, aren't you? Geogene (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm going to lay this little egg right here as it demonstrates the ambiguities and uncertainties we're dealing with regarding this content. Read it carefully. The criticism against this editor is clearly centered on what content should/should not be included. We have 2 equal forces, "push & resist", debating each other and neither belong here. RfCs determine consensus, not ANI. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Atsme for the good source. User:SharabSalam, both sides cannot be right. I think you'll agree that one has to be lying. The controversy isn't just some "misunderstanding". I suggest you read Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, the sources in it, and the articles listed in its "See also" section. The conflict described above isn't about personal POV, but about one's attitude toward RS, but, of course, the sources we use form our personal POV, so indirectly our personal POV can end up becoming disruptive if it constantly wars with what RS say.

On the Russian Wikipedia, their evaluation of RS is likely quite different than here, and your views might be in line with their policies and not disruptive there. By contrast, at the English Wikipedia, your views are directly against our RS policy and the content and RS in myriad articles here, so please study the subject at the English Wikipedia and bring your thinking, or at least your public statements, into line with the sources we use and the articles we write. It is entirely possible for an editor to privately/secretly disagree with the content in our articles without it causing them any problems here, but if they publicly and persistently advocate fringe POV (=POV against RS and consensus) in their discussions, that becomes problematic. I know this is a huge and complex subject, so I wish you well in your research of the subject. Feel free to come to my talk page if you have questions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps both sides cannot both be right, but both sides can most certainly be wrong. And even if one side was wrong, that does not mean that they must be lying. There are many, many disputes which have boiled down to two sides looking at primary and secondary sources and coming to different conclusions; that is the very definition of a content dispute. In addition, I'll note that others have said this account is SPA towards certain topics, and this proposal bans the user from topics - therefore it behaves like a sitewide ban. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We TBAN single purpose accounts. Please review WP:SPA. SPECIFICO talk 07:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to review policies rather than an essay. SPAs aren't banned for being SPAs, they're banned because of conflicts of interest, advocacy or non-neutral editing. I would say that it's not clear who the guilty party or parties are, as far as pushing points of view goes. Various references above to 'truth' should be ringing alarm bells.     ←   ZScarpia   09:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not say that we ban them merely for being an SPA. I should have been more clear. We do not give special dispensations to disruptive accounts because they are SPAs. Thucydides411's disruptive behavior is evident in the diffs, talkpage, and noticeboard threads cited in this ANI. We don't allow that kind of behavior merely because it's in a single topic area. In fact, the disruption, NOTHERE, and SPA profiles frequently overlap in editors whom we ban. At some point, this one will be banned. Maybe now, maybe later. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at your edit history, SPECIFICO.You have over 1300 edits to Talk:Donald Trump and over 1000 edits to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I'm not sure how you get to accuse someone of being a single-purpose account by looking at your recent edit history which is nearly all on Trump, Bloomberg, Hunter Biden, etc. Also on this comment: "at some point, this one will be banned" - I'm not sure what your point is. That we just ban now? As an aside, you were topic banned because of your behavior; you seem to be equally incivil here, in this editor's humble opinion. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Oppose Proposal throws around a lot of accusations/labels without any specifics, thread indicates content disputes. A proposal for one of the harshest available sanctions shouldn't pass muster without convincing evidence, which is lacking here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang Question

I think there are WP:BOOMERANG issues that need to be looked at here. It appears me that Guy JzG (talk · contribs) is too close to this Assange issue (or maybe AP2?). Is he using admin privileges to frame an already battleground ridden article, or simply acting as an impartial admin? He warned me on my talk page with this warning which I felt was unusual. I felt it would be normal for an uninvolved editor or admin, but for an involved admin, I felt it was a bit much. Thoughts? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think JzG (talk · contribs) is subject to WP:BOOMERANG? 207.38.146.86 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• What actions has Guy taken in this issue as an admin? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

All of them, possibly. An admin’s status affects the wikiteurs around them, with a very few honorable exceptions. The recent debacle with Kudpung underlines this. Persons in authority are often quite clueless about the power imbalance spilling over to unrelated things. Qwirkle (talk)

But that's not Guy; that's other people. As long as admin—any admin—doesn't misuse their tools, it's up to other people how they react. ——SN54129 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this, I think. Any case of power imbalance leaves the person on the lower side more conscious of it than the one on top, and that’s a common problem here.

While i’d disagree strenuously that there is something worth a boomerang here, that has nothing to do with actual use of admin tools. Qwirkle (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I heartilly agree with you about power imablance, and I'm certainly not saying it does not exist—far from it. But a lot of the time editors perceive (operative word) admins as more "powerful" than they actually are. Anyway. Happy Saturday! ——SN54129 20:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, 2 of the last 3 arb desysop cases demonstrated no misuse of tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We're talking about how people react to admins, not arbcom judgmenets which are (thankfully) two very different things. ——SN54129 20:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Basically, the argument appears to be that JzG is respected as an admin and therefore his editing of articles should be limited because respected editors hold too much sway. So, we should limit admin editing (and perhaps any editor that is respected) and make admin recruitment more difficult. O3000 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that argument would be your strawman. Mine differs on three points. First, this isn’t about this particular admin, but a generalization about them, or a perception of them, as a group.

Next, it has nothing to do with respect, but with power.

Finally, it says nothing about restricting scope of writing, but that those in power should be taking care not only to not abuse one’s powers, but to be seen as not doing so. Qwirkle (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Admins don't use their tools on articles in which they are involved. O3000 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Admins aren’t supposed to use their tools on articles in which they are involved, a substantial difference. Qwirkle (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have had very few limited interaction with this admin but he makes inflammatory comments and he does that with the intention to be provocative.

• My first interaction with this admin was in this deletion discussion the admin made many comments saying "oranges" instead of origins just to mock Trump, here is some examples, an editor says it is POV fork, Guy response with POV fork of what, exactly? I mean, I know the "oranges" theory is a POV fork of reality, but of which Wikipedia article is this a POV fork?
• My second interaction with this admin was in this ANI thread here he calls other editors OK, so the RT fanclub is out for Philip Cross' blood again. Cool, cool. [37] totally provocative comment only just to provoke.
• My third interaction was yesterday, the editor made a totally uneutral invitation to an RfC in WP:FTN, you can see the discussion, I have explained there how it is uneutral invitation while the admin didnt respond and ignored what I am saying.

Note, this is just with the limited interaction, imagine if I was an editor who has to deal with this provocation all the time. Recently many admins were reported in AE and their adminship was removed and I feel that what they did was nothing comparing to this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ironic to see all this Wiki-identity politics chat -- what might be called "Admin privilege". As cited, one of Thucydides411's many disruptions is on the White privilege article, in which he has bludgeoned the talk page with 76 posts on the current version, including Marxist and other denials of the phenomenon. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe its time for special DS for all material related to Assange. No edits with out consensus, 1 edit per day period, Zero PA's (even of the mildest kind, in fact no commenting on users period), and a zero tolerance approach, one infraction and its a TBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, seems like a sensible idea. Guy (help!) 23:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

All the, ahem, productive discussion above Slater's comment should be hatted, and a new section opened to discuss instituting GS for Assange along the the lines Slater suggests. We can get that done here and now. Separately, someone should launch an RFC about whether we do or do not say in Wikivoice that Russia meddled in elections (if that RFC hasn't been run already). That way, editors not editing in compliance with the RFC could be sanctioned under GS. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, that RfC is an excellent suggestion. Whenever it happens, a notification should be placed at the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article (and the myriad related articles).

BTW, do you mean DS where you write GS, or am I forgetting something? -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I thought WP:AC/DS can only be instituted by Arbcom, but WP:GS can be instituted by the community. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative links. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A better idea would just be to move this complaint to AE, where we have a more orderly process and Admins do their best to decide based on policies and guidelines. Guy, I think you could make that move as OP. I don't think we want to have as many sets of page restrictions as there are topics. It's too complicated, and we already have plenty of policies against TE, FRINGE, PA, and other relevant behaviors. 1 edit a day? I've never seen that. Sounds like it would lead to thousand word posts on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is enforcement. There are already several Arbcom motions and site policies that require a block or TBAN for Thucydides and possibly others. Additional complex or unusual restrictions are not going to make enforcement more likely. The current case needs to be resolved conclusively one way or the other. AE will provide a resolution. Nobody's going to be able to read this ANI thread, discount the POV and unsupported !votes, and arrive at a resolution all editors recognize as correct. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We have nothing but baseless accusations here against Guy, and odd statements like "An admin’s status affects the wikiteurs around them" does not add up to anything. For one thing, I don't know what Guy's "status" is (I think his is comparable to mine--we haven't gotten a raise in years, and I see him outside the chair's office often enough to know he's in as much trouble as I am), nor do I know what a "wikiteur" is. And I really don't need to have that explained: my brain is full. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, That is a masterful summary. Guy (help!) 15:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended DS

t has been requested that this be discussed as a new section, so here goes.

On articles related to Julian Assange DS are extended to include No edits with out consensus, 1 edit per day per user, no commenting on users in any way, and a zero tolerance approach, one infraction and its a TBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this suggestion be proposed at AE or perhaps AN since it involves DS that need to be imposed by an admin at their discretion? ANI is for incidents and it appears to me the above portion of this discussion should be closed before opening yet another. I have seen far more controversial reports get closed within a day of opening, yet this one lingers on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this might only confuse the ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is ANI ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

.

Atsme, I agree with you, although I thought ARCA might be the better choice. At any rate, in the case of Thucydides411, his behavior was blockable without any DS. We don't tolerate incivility, disruption, etc. on such an extensive and egregious scale. His POV pushing, and fringe cherrypicking, etc. is just what motivates him. When an account behaves that badly for that long, on that many articles, it shouldn't require special rulemaking to let the rest of us get on with our work. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you know I like you, so I’ll just give it to you straight: I think you’ve said enough here. One of your main complaints about our Athenian friend is how they’ve a tendency to comment frequently. I think by now all of us get your point. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh gee thanks, Ernie. Yes, you and I are pals. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Weird attack

I don't know what this editor is doing or what they are on about, but it seems like it might be intended as an unhinged and pointless personal attack on myself and another editor from Doncram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Warrowen_massacre#Nyah Perhaps they are having a mental health issue? Or someone has hijacked their account? Either way it's wierd, especially from an experienced editor. I don't really know what to make of it. Bacondrum (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It is weird but I don't think I'd call it an attack. It seems more like what I call "editing Wikipedia when one should be sleeping". It is sometimes revealing to consider what time zone the editor is working in...it could be the middle of the night. That's my polite interpretation from years of interacting with editors from all over the globe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I recently contacted Doncram about other problematic AfD edits they made, including attacking other editors[38]. They disagreed, but if they now start mocking people because an AfD ended with his prefered keep instead of delete, then it seems that the problems continue. Looking at e.g. this from today, containing gems like " If others support a good resolution of this AFD, please join into the edit war on the side of keeping some definition there! ", it seems like there really is a continuing problem with Doncram's comments at AfD and AfD talk. Fram (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• To Bacondrum's suggestion, I am not seeing any indication that this matter needs to be handled with reference to Doncram's mental health, let along as a mental health emergency. Should I have missed something, I would ask users to immediately contact the Arbitration Committee which is a better vehicle for intervention than ANI. AGK ■ 08:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• If I had a dollar for every time some keep !voter was gloaty and obnoxious I'd be able to host my own encyclopedia on my own servers. The higher your keep percentage at AfD, the more exempt you are from WP:CIVIL. This is a double standards issue, not a mental health one. Reyk _YO! 09:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that I don't think this should be considered in the purview of mental health issue. But I would say that this is not a preferable or even necessarily acceptable level of decorum between editors. It's a mild WP:CIVIL breach but not a sanctionable one. Just something to make a note of and keep for later if another issue ever arises with this editor. WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• I will note, regardless of whether or not we do anything about it, that this is not a new nor unexpected behavior for this user. A check of the blocklog going back almost a decade shows a clear pattern of tendentious, disruptive, incivil, and combative behavior. Whether or not we, as a community, want to keep encouraging such behavior is perhaps up for discussion, but this is NOT out of character, and fits in exactly in with the kind of behavior this user has exhibited continuously and without remit for pretty much their entire history here at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 14:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• What Jayron32 said. Doncram's obsession with the idea that he's infallible, and consequently if other people disagree with him it's evidence that they're disruptive and consequently deserve to be punished, has gone on literally for years. (His current talkpage from this point onwards is a decent example of his typical "throw a tantrum until everyone else gives in just to shut him up" approach.) This is definitely not a compromised account or out of character; what would raise eyebrows would be if he wasn't being disruptive. ‑ Iridescent 14:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Sounds like Doncram should be blocked. Those 24 and 48 hour jobs don't seem to have worked though. ——SN54129 14:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Even a six-month block didn't have any effect; because he genuinely believes that he's perfect and all the rest of us are engaged in a conspiracy to bully him into submission, he just interprets any block or any other sanction as proof of the bullying. Since blocks don't have any effect (other than giving the rest of us a brief respite) and "civility parole" never works since civility is such a nebulous concept, only an indefinite block would have any effect, and although it could be reasonably justified given that Doncram is basically a one-man chilling effect, it would be extremely controversial and almost certainly end up at Arbcom. ‑ Iridescent 14:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  I hate to think that a Super Wario effect exists for repeat offenders, in that an offense has to rise to the grievous threshold indicative of an indef, before they can be blocked. But you're right, that's where we are; this seems to be something where the community simply cannot resolve the issue and this has to go to Arbcom. Blech. That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.--WaltCip (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  On the contrary (and I've argued this for years!) because the cornerstone of the blocking policy is "blocks are preventative, not punitive", all blocks should be indefinite and contingent upon the blocked user giving proper recognition of the problem that got them blocked, and proper assurances to change their behavior. A time-limited block on a registered account is, at its core and without any distinction from, a pure punishment. Since it self-expires, there is no motivation for the blocked user to self-correct or to learn how to be better, instead it is just putting someone in Wikijail for a short while. That serves no preventative measure beyond punishing the user and hoping the punishment makes them learn their lesson. Time-limited blocks should be reserved for IP addresses which may change after a time. If a registered account does something worthy of being blocked, they should have to establish that they intend to fix the problems that led to the block, that would emphasize the preventative nature of the block. --Jayron32 18:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree; there are plenty of occasions where "have an enforced few hours off to calm down/sober up/avoid saying something that would get you in more trouble" is a perfectly sensible move. The trouble with indefinite-until-appeal is that it then leads to a back and forth between supporters and opposers of the block, which ends up making what began as a straightforward dispute turn into a full-scale multi-party flareup. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Doncram is one of the hardest working, most experienced, and active editors on the project. In my opinion, it would be very problematic to indefinitely block him solely because he is sometimes intemperate and often long winded. I understand that many people find interacting with him to be annoying but no one can question his commitment to the project and the sheer breadth and depth of his contributions, including his yeoman's work at AFD, DYK, and other areas that are critical to the project. None of that makes him immune to rules, of course, but he should not be hounded off the project either. Michepman (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

So, instead we should allow him to hound everyone else off the project? How many good editors have to wander off not wanting to deal with his crap before his "good contributions" become a net negative? I'm not saying we should block him, but the "cut him some slack, he's produced a lot of good content" argument is a non-starter. Other editors produce good content too, and they should not be bullied out of the project by this kind of intractable rudeness. --Jayron32 18:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand where you are coming from. To be clear, I am not saying that nothing should be done to address the issues you laid out, I am just encouraging caution before going to the extreme step of an indefinite block. While I agree with you that the block policy should be reformed, from what i have seen indefinite blocks are not really better than time blocks; they just appear to. Before taking that heavy step I think more effort should be made to resolve the issue using less restrictive means than either time limited or indefinite blocks. Michepman (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What exactly did you have in mind that hasn't been tried before? To reiterate, we're not talking about a generally-good editor who's having a bad day; we're talking about a straightforward long term abuse case who intersperses his disruption with the occasional period of adequate editing (although in my experience, even his non-abusive edits tend to be a mess that end up needing to be cleaned up by someone else). If you think you can persuade him that "rules are only for the little people and don't apply to me" isn't actually true, feel free to give it a go, but this is the adminstrators' noticeboard not a general chatroom, and since the administrators are the ones who've spent the past decade+ trying to clean up after Doncram you'll I hope forgive us for not sharing your optimism. ‑ Iridescent 19:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Given his last PA block was in 2011 IMHO a stern warning should given although others above know his behaviour better than I do, I'm lost on the dickish reply on the AFD considering it was closed in his favour..... –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) He's had 5 blocks since 2011. His last block was two months ago for disruptive editing. (post EC comment). Since you've clarified, how is a warning useful? Are we presuming he was never informed of the civility policy? That he somehow had no way of knowing that he shouldn't behave this way?--Jayron32 20:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  • As he's not been blocked for anything PA related for 9 years I feel blocking would be overkill ..... if this was a repeated issue over and over again then I'd agree with blocking but I can't support blocking someone for a dickish comment or 2 when no blocks have been issued for 9 years, (When I say over and over again I mean on a weekly/montly/yearly basis). –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

    • @Davey2010, you may want to have a read of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Doncram and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139#Doncram before you go any further. It may technically be true that he hasn't been blocked for PAs for nine years, but that's because he was hauled off to Arbcom instead and restricted from editing in any of the areas in which he'd been attacking people, not because he'd turned over a new leaf and stopped launching random attacks on anyone who happened to disagree with him. ‑ Iridescent 07:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Iridescent for that, Interesting read, Given those I have to agree blocking would indeed be appropriate here. –Davey2010^Talk 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• • • • @Iridescent: thanks for the reply above also. So it seems that Arbcom is the way forward for Doncram; it seesm to have helped them in the past. ——SN54129 13:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
        • I'd just like to point out that from the long winded comment below, Domcram clearly doesn't see how this behavior is uncollegial (and obnoxious). Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Hey, this is a surprise and seems to me unwarranted as an ANI issue. This is about my making a silly comment at a Talk page, after a couple editors had completely dismissed me in an AFD. In my silly comment, i even self-identified it as being silly. In this AFD, it happens I was the first in the AFD to argue for "Keep", based at first on my instinct and sense of the matter as developed in the AFD, informed by my particular life experience. In many other AFDs that way, I have gone on to do heavy work and find sources and otherwise make a convincing argument that carried the day. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Bagh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of caves of Maryland are two that I find in my history. In this AFD, it was others who did the work, but it happened my sense of the matter arguably was borne out, and the article was Kept. In many other AFDs my early or late arguments for Keep or otherwise have carried the day, and in many others they have not. Many times I have been convinced by others arguments and eventually reversed my !vote. I don't see anything wrong with any of this so far. I could confess that I don't like to be completely dismissed, either, whether in AFDs or in an ANI proceeding. In this AFD i was written off as having "bad reasoning" in a series of comments by the two editors; it wasn't especially insulting, either, but a bit randomly I happened to choose to say "nyah" this time, pushing back a wee bit that maybe my reasoning/judgment was not so bad. It is not usual for me to do anything like this; I don't recall ever commenting at an AFD talk page this way before. But I think most people probably don't like to be dismissed completely, or criticized as has gone on here.

Here in this ANI there are a lot of personal attacks ("Unhinged", "mental health", assertions that I was attacking other editors, "Doncram's obsession with the idea that he's infallible, and consequently if other people disagree with him it's evidence that they're disruptive and consequently deserve to be punished", and more) which I rather completely disagree with. It is absolutely not true that I think I am infallible; I often have made mistakes and I do not deny that, and I often make apologies. I do things like setting up notes sheets at wp:NRHPHELP and other places explicitly to help me and others remember how to do various things purely because I know that I am fallible, that I often don't remember how to do lots of things. I don't see how others who actually know me could think that I think that I am superior, or anything like that. There are perhaps a few technical things that I do know about, but I certainly did not and do not assert that I actually know more about 1800s Australian history (the subject of this AFD) than others.

I don't read my own recent comment as representing a personal attack (it would be a stretch to call it even a mild rebuke, certainly not containing anything amounting to a personal attack, certainly not on the level of comments against me here). Certainly it didn't count as an insult, or abusive, or in any way a legal threat, or derogatory, or comparing anyone to terrorists, or using "someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their view", or any of the other kinds of things listed as types of personal attacks at wp:NPA. The bottom line at wp:NPA is saying that even if something is not included in the list of examples there, that if it is nonetheless "insulting or disparaging an editor" it is a personal attack. I don't see how my comment was either insulting or disparaging, do you? About my mental health or 'hingedness', well, thank you for your concern? I don't know where the policy statement is, but aren't suggestions/accusations about mental health specifically regarded as horrible personal attacks or otherwise verboten?

Overall, what is the point here, do Bacondrum and Drovers' Wife seriously feel injured, or unable to personally handle a mild silly comment, which could hardly be construed as a serious rebuke or even a criticism at all? It was just a silly statement "Nyah nyah", which in expanded form would be a comment that "Gee, it turns out that my early sense of the merits of this AFD happened to be borne out", which I think would be a fair comment to make. It was on an obscure Talk page. If the two editors feel seriously injured by what was said there, surely they and others are making it far worse for themselves by raising this to a very public level. To those editors, if you do feel seriously hurt by me, or insulted or disparaged, please do let me know, perhaps by private emails, and if I can come to understand how or why you feel injured I surely would want to apologize or make amends privately or publicly (though I don't currently think that is happening, I rather do not believe they are feeling hurt at all). And sure, if others can explain better, perhaps privately, what I might have done that has rubbed some people the wrong way, I think I would like hear/learn about that. But this forum is probably not the right place for that, and I probably will not want to reply further here. If there is some big policy reason why the Talk page of an AFD cannot be used after the AFD is closed, or anything similar, please do let me know. --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with sanctions that will go toward better collaborative behavior from Doncram. I ran into my own issues with Doncram and their walls of texts and constant redirects of legitimate articles. A small sample would be the Bachelor Lake AfD and Doncram's subsequent redirects of every lake in Brown County Minnesota. The above wall of text is an example of how they respond to every entry from !voters at AfDs. I found their behavior maddening and tendentious. Lightburst (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram: Your comment can reasonably be understood as taunting and was improper. If you ever do anything like this again, I will block you for a substantial length of time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

IP editor using multiple IPs for vandalism

IP from Hungary keeps removing "present" from people's current relationships on the infobox in several articles without any explanation. They get reverted, warned and come back with a new IP the next day. I've found 15 IPs so far. They're also removing sourced portions of the article[39] and adding past boyfriends to the infobox, which is not allowed.[40][41][42]

In December, another editor warned one of the IPs (2A02:2F07:D60D:7300:8CE7:8E3C:4941:8907) to not use multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia,[43] and they got blocked for 72 hours for persistent vandalism on December 22, 2019,[44] so they may be using more IPs than these 15 listed below.

IPs:

• 178.164.217.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A02:2F07:D60D:7300:8CE7:8E3C:4941:8907 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:E38:6D79:9025:D012:AA04 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:8820:A155:D4A0:E784:B075 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2A38:B1C6:F75B:95AF:5C4C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:49B:191F:BAA6:3238:D772 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:879D:B485:7AC5:8221:73D4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 37.76.111.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 37.76.45.94 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2A38:4CDA:3856:AB7E:6422 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2031:95CB:93E4:73F2:9D69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2031:B1A6:A3ED:9764:438E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2037:640C:AA56:98CB:2C45 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2037:3C97:EDD:4ABD:FD2E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:E38:F84D:FD37:F670:DE7E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=929455705&oldid=928175499
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=prev&oldid=932010888
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=932010888&oldid=931865085
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=937336919&oldid=937335261
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=943580145&oldid=943505147
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=943325968&oldid=943311890
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=943215660&oldid=943171533
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=943071472&oldid=942916154
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=940010164&oldid=939814044
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=939703062&oldid=939050102
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=938712049&oldid=937688254
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=937529614&oldid=937365853
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renée_Zellweger&diff=prev&oldid=929505294
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ren%C3%A9e_Zellweger&diff=941676039&oldid=941633009
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ren%C3%A9e_Zellweger&diff=943579994&oldid=943405760
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ren%C3%A9e_Zellweger&diff=943859906&oldid=943679071
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jenna_Dewan&diff=prev&oldid=943860086
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_McAdams&diff=prev&oldid=943864112
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enrique_Iglesias&diff=prev&oldid=943863306
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brenda_Song&diff=prev&oldid=943859448
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_McAdams&diff=943864112&oldid=943313527
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_McAdams&diff=943071320&oldid=942732838
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Kruger&diff=943580491&oldid=943313377
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Kruger&diff=941145528&oldid=940496640
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Kruger&diff=940496433&oldid=940341136
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Kruger&diff=prev&oldid=940010530
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eva_Mendes&diff=943580608&oldid=943313234
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eva_Mendes&diff=941674552&oldid=941298959
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eva_Mendes&diff=prev&oldid=940010643
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goldie_Hawn&diff=prev&oldid=932010571
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Russell&diff=prev&oldid=932010669
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norman_Reedus&diff=prev&oldid=940010399
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guillaume_Canet&diff=943580403&oldid=943313477
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guillaume_Canet&diff=941145898&oldid=940948248
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Courteney_Cox&diff=prev&oldid=940497389

Zoolver (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I have looked through the diffs and the links in your statement. I am not seeing vandalism. I am seeing a formatting issue. Regarding removing sourced material, you link to one instance - that is a content issue which should be discussed on the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Zoolver: If you want any action taken here, you're going to have to present this in a simpler way. First, create ranges of IPs, not singles, and make sure that those ranges are all doing similar activity, meaning no collateral damage if the range is blocked. Second, at least some of the IPs in a range must have edited recently. I don't care about edits that occurred last month, let alone last year, but I'm willing to consider blocking a range for longer if the activity is recent and has been going on for some period of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• What else is necessary for you people to consider something as vandalism and block several IPs from the same editor doing the same thing for months after being warned several times by different editors and refusing to stop? First I reported it for sockpuppetry but you guys said that there was no sockpuppetry and suggested that I should take it here, now there's no vandalism, so what should I try next? @Bbb23: Did you even check the damn diffs and 15 IPs listed here? there are diffs from this week on that list. If that wasn't clear, the first diffs showed how it started last year and were followed by the most recent edits from this week showing the same pattern. No wonder Wikipedia is this mess when the admins aren't willing to resolve such an obvious vandalism and expect regular editors to be experts and do their job for them. @Lightburst: nobody is checking those talk pages, let alone the IP editor who started it all and got warned to stop it several times. They won't stop, that's why I took it straight to ANI instead of taking it to 50 talk pages and wait for an admin to check it someday when they feel like it, but now I see that it was useless anyway. Zoolver (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Hey EEng, I can't find what MOS says about the desirability of "2007–present" vs. "2007–" (diff). Wasn't that talked about recently ... somewhere? Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  MOS:TOPRESENT. I don't recall any recent discussion on this and a lazy look at MOS and MOSNUM archives didn't find anything either. EEng 02:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, that confirms that the IP is wrong and style is "2007–present" while omitting "present" is wrong. Persistently unhelpful edits waste good editor's time. I'll try to have a look later. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 contributions of the IPs listed above are covered by Special:Contributions/2A01:36D:119:0:0:0:0:0/48 and it looks like it's one person. Their last edit was 08:23, 5 March 2020 which is a bit long ago for a block. @Zoolver: Please monitor the /48 link and let me know if it continues. An attempt should be made to engage them on their talk (not a warning but a friendly 'please stop removing "present" from infoboxes because the manual of style (MOS:TOPRESENT) requires "present"') but there's no point doing that unless using the talk page of a recently active IP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: They came back today.[45] [46][47] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoolver (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Zoolver: I left a message at User talk:2A01:36D:119:879D:893E:2073:9FA:3B43 in the hope that they will discuss the issue or at least stop removing "present". Please notify me again if you see more. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: They keep removing "present" with a new IP: Special:Contributions/37.76.2.69/20: [48], [49], [50]. Zoolver (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear that "2007-present" is a good thing to have in an article. It would certainly not do for a person's lifespan, for example. It also implies that if the qualified item expires it will be updated immediately, whereas "2007-" is clearer that it's a time of writing statement. In prose it could be cast "Foo started in 2007,, and was coninuting as of 2020" (wiht or without {{As of}}.

Having said that if there is consensus that this is vandalism, or even just undesireable, the place to look for help may be WP:Edit filters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 20:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

ANI Report for Graeme Bartlett and Ncmvocalist

• Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I did nothing wrong here. There were no consensus passed for these changes which lead me reverting the change back to original. 1

Ncmvocalist

Ncmvocalist did not review issue before pressing the final button to warn me for edit war. Basically jumped the gun. 1 Action i seek here is clearing of that specific warning and review Ncmvoclist actions. Regice2020 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The warning Ncmvocalist issued looks to be entirely justified because at the time Regice2020 had reverted the reversion of his change three times. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I actually reviewed the "issue" before I warned you, Regice2020; you did the wrong thing by edit-warring - particularly when you (nearly) broke the 3 revert rule with repeated reversions at 04:19, 8 March 2020, 05:52, 8 March 2020, 06:52, 8 March 2020 and 08:05, 8 March 2020. Instead of taking a step back and reviewing the policies in the warning against your edits, you "jumped the gun" by demanding that the warning be retracted and submitting this report. Your behaviour and the way in which you are editing needs to change as it is not constructive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett

Graeme Bartlett claimed a edit change was passed on talk page, but it was not. Despite WP:CON was never passed. I cant find any history of it. The user went on being disruptive to move forward with unapproved changes. Telling me i going be in violation in 3RR? 1 Regice2020 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020 has been edit warring introducing his change several times. However it was a mistake, as he was changing the title for the Diamond Princess to International conveyance. However the row with that only included the statistics for Diamond Princess. See ([51] [52] [53] [54]) for Regice2020 getting up to 3 reverts of the change he put in. All the warnings on his talk page are justified. My plan was to report to the edit warring notice board for a block if there were any more reverts from Regice2020. There is discussion on Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data‎ about how to deal with the Grand Princess statistics and other ships. instead of WP:BRD, Regice2020 has been involved in a BRRRRRRR. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing that violates the assumption of good faith in warning you about edit warring when you have been edit warring. That is wrong even when your edit is correct, but is especially wrong when the edit introduces factual errors, as in this case. I would suggest that you withdraw this report before the inevitable WP:BOOMERANG comes your way. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Phil Bridger; the disruptive editing by Regice2020 as OP. There is no merit to the complaint against Graeme Bartlett. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Regice2020 had violated 3RR on Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data.

• 15:56, 7 March 2020‎ Dying talk contribs‎ 26,134 bytes -9‎ edit link for diamond princess

1. 04:19, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ m 26,598 bytes -4‎ Does not make sense to say Diamond Princess count as Grand Princess on the table of cases/deaths/recovered.
2. 05:52, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ m 27,016 bytes -5‎ Diamond Princess does not represent all others - No question askes undothank
3. 06:52, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ m 27,515 bytes +9‎ Reverting a minor change due to no WP:CON
4. 08:05, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ 22,985 bytes +9‎ Reverting a minor change due to no WP:CON

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Pure WP:IDHT behaviour at their talk-page and at this thread (in combination with edit-warring). Further behaviour along these lines will result in much longer sanctions, I'm afraid. --qedk (t 心 c) 18:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment A topic ban may be in order since this is at least the second time in recent weeks that Regice2020 has been involved in a thread at ANI relating to SARS2/COVID-19. 2600:1003:B86E:82FF:A9E8:7CF0:E2DB:6FFF (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: ^ Blatant sock. Sleath56 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: Of who? --qedk (t 心 c) 23:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Close Who cares? Regice2020 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: Haven't the foggiest, but a fresh IP whose first contrib is advocating disciplinary measures on AN/I is pretty WP:DUCK material. Sleath56 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Close @Sleath56: The person maybe from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. The ip suddenly typed "topic ban", and exactly know how to type "ANI" instead of referring as to the full name (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) like the person been here before. I do not know man. That COVID-19 outbreak Wikipedia article attracted more than 500K views and strange individuals. Regice2020 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Close Sleath56 The ip information. This is so sudden the first edit somehow finds its way to ANI. 04:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Regice2020 (talk)

Revert warring at Lee Ka-eun

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

---

The article about a pop singer was redirected to the band last year following AfD discussion, based on assessment of insufficient individual notability. Coolbruh123 has since continuously tried to reinstate it against consensus because notability is "obvious", and has been reverted by half a dozen editors who disagree [55]. They apparently don't intend to stop despite the discussion not going their way, talk page warnings,[56], and Rosguill laying out the situation for them quite clearly.[57] Would someone please consider putting a stop to this, be it by way of a more strongly worded warning, a short block, or similar. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No LOL.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbruh123 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Given the trolling above and the repeated edit warring, I've blocked Coolbruh123 for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Terry Christian

Please lock this and rev/delete the defamatory crap. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The article has been protected. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Terrific. Now, short of me copying the link or quoting the offensive content, perhaps we can have the defamation expunged. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually the problem goes back at least to February 1, if not longer ago. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Make that at least 20 June 2017. Narky Blert (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not still in the article. Most articles get vandalised I assumed this was about long standing inaccuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It is part of the edit history. Defamatory and libelous content may--must--be permanently reverted and deleted from articles and edit summaries. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

In UK. call a stranger by the names in my diff, and brace yourself for a punch in the face followed by a good kicking. They aren't banter, and IMO have no place in edit history. Narky Blert (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That's my point, Narky Blert. It wasn't clear to me that Slatersteven understood that whether the offending material is in article space, talk page or edit summary, it has to be removed permanently from public view. It's sometimes difficult to get administrative attention on the matter. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It's completely bizarre that, while we're sitting around discussing it, the material is still in the blooming article. Wot gives? ——SN54129 18:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Amen, Serial Number 54129. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

CD63, exactly. What is jocular abuse, or even innocuous, in some circumstances or in some places can be wholly unacceptable elsewhere. It should be revdeled. Narky Blert (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert (et al), before my own RfA I had quite a few conversations with different admins about the threshold for what could fairly be described as grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material, and the impression I built up was that it depends. I wouldn't hesitate to revdel unsourced sex abuse allegations, or edit summaries with racist abuse in them or similar - but, going only on the diff presented above, I don't think it's routine to do it for the addition of insults such as 'twat' to an article. Happy to be corrected by me learnèd colleagues if they feel differently. I haven't been through the article history though, so if there's something more serious in there, you can fire diffs over to the admin's IRC channel. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: There is actually no point at all in even joining a converation about BLP violations in an article history if in your own words you haven't been through the article history. ——SN54129 18:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I didn't have time to read through three years of article history (since NB said it went back all the way to June 2017). I understand why CD63 didn't want to present diffs here, so I was suggesting an alternative channel (I don't know whether or not they were aware of that option already). That's perhaps not the most helpful thing I could have done, but I thought it was better than just ignoring the request entirely. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll let someone close this before I have to point out that the most egregious was less than 24-hours old. Oops. Close, please. ——SN54129 19:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, brilliant. If I'd known that, I'd have looked. I saw NB's comment, thought I don't have time to sit sorting through years of vandalism working out which revisions needed revdel, and suggested another channel they could use to report the relevant diffs. Sorry for misreading the situation. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Zzuuzz. ——SN54129 18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. People complaining about lack of admin action need to consider we are a limited number of volunteers on a Sunday looking at a huge noticeboard among many other problems. About the revisions, I've removed what I've spotted of some clear BLP violations. When it comes to other edits, like the word 'twat', I am not so persuaded. I will have to have a think about it and revisit, so the response, if it comes at all, may be slower. I won't get into the technicalities of whether it's libellous or grossly offensive, but I quite like the definition mentioned by Narky Blert above - whether it would normally get you a swift punch in the face. Can we write that into policy? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, joking aside, I'd like policy to be a bit clearer on what ought/ought not to be revdelled - it seems very subjective. I remember being embarrassed a few times when I reported stuff that I thought was grossly offensive (certainly a lot worse than 'twat') on IRC only to be told that it didn't meet the threshold. Some sort of community discussion to arrive at a more helpful set of guidelines would be a good thing, in my view. The punch in the face test might be a good place to start... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think, now, that you've both been very reasonable about it, and from my earlier run through the history what's been caught was the most important. Many thanks. On a lighter note, I'm not sure I'd run with "what gets you a punch on the nose" being a good starting point—in my local that sometimes doesn't have to be much more than a raise of the eyebrow in the wrong direction  ;) Happy Sunday all. ——SN54129 20:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. And I do understand that there are times when fewer volunteers are at the keyboard. Sometimes that results in issues sitting for so long that they're overtaken by newer threads. As for whether or not 'twat' merits the rev/deletion treatment, I'd venture that it does. Not from any sense of priggishness, but because it's reasonable to make a case that any aspersion that likens a subject to genitalia doesn't have much place in the edit history. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, Terry Christian's entire recent career largely consistes of calling himself "a twat" (e.g. here, in which not only does he self-describe as "a twat" but a sympathetic profile nonetheless describes him as "the most hated man in television"; this is a reasonable reflection of his current reputation. By all means remove actual libel like the most recent diff, but if his biography isn't mentioning how widely disliked he is, something is wrong somewhere. We manage to handle it for other famous-for-being-disliked figures like Piers Morgan without too much difficulty. ‑ Iridescent 20:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

My "punch in the face test" was a rhetorical point made in argument, but it could be the basis for a rule-of-thumb guideline. Girth Summit: in which city would you feel it safer calling a stranger in a pub "a jessie"? (a) New York (b) York (c) Glasgow.

If someone self-describes, or is RS described, using a slur, either they (a) have a sense of humour or (b) deserve whatever's coming to them. Narky Blert (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, sorry if I'm being dim, but I don't understand the point you're making - where do the word jessie, or these different cities, come into this? I know what the word means in Glasgow, and while I might use it to a friend in jest, I wouldn't use it to a stranger; I haven't heard anyone use it in York or New York, so don't know it there is a difference in meaning that I should be picking up on? GirthSummit _(blether) 21:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: My point was only that offensive terms can be regional or national. "Queer" now seems to be acceptable in North America; IMO, it remains barely acceptable or unacceptable in UK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Girth Summit, I assume it's an elliptical way of saying (correctly) that slang doesn't travel and the word "twat" has different meanings in different places. I remember a very confused David Cameron having to apologise for saying it in an interview back when he was PM; in the South of England it's pretty much exclusively used in its a term of abuse: a contemptible or obnoxious person; a person who behaves stupidly; a fool, an idiot&nbsp… implying that a persons's behaviour, appearance, etc., is stupid or idiotic, with little or no greater force than 'twit' (OED) sense. ‑ Iridescent 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, Narky Blert OK, understood. Yes, I agree that levels of offensiveness aren't universal - which I think brings us back to a case by case analysis. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's case-by-case. In at least parts of the Midlands, "twat" is only slightly less offensive than the c-word. Narky Blert (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a history of promotional edits to the article as well. By all means add something about his public reception, so long as it isn't undue or rely on blogs or sources like 'The Poke.' But his being referred to by anatomical pejoratives in public discourse does not mean we accept it here. If someone drops an edit into Donald Trump's bio calling him a cunt, we revert it. Given the likelihood that it reflects the thoughts of millions, do we then leave it in the edit history? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd have to check the history of that specific article, but I expect that yes, we probably do. Revdel is uncontroversially used for libel and hate speech; generic rude words and insults, not so much. Worth considering that a general policy of revdelling words like twat would probably double the overall admin workload. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Many new accounts replacing articles with redirects

I've noticed many accounts that were created very recently are replacing various articles with redirects, with claims that they are "non-notable" or similar. I'm not sure whether the articles actually are non-notable or not, but I feel something is off with so many new accounts doing the same kind of thing, and if I remember correctly, there should generally be discussion before replacing an article with a redirect. Examples below. Diamond Blizzard talk 18:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

[58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]

• I've looked at the first five of these and they're all completely reasonable redirects - non-notable people / albums in their own right, some unsourced BLPs, but for who a redirect to their "parent" article (usually a band or a relative) is perfectly OK. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay then. I was just wondering why there were so many new accounts doing the same thing, but I guess if the redirects are fine, it's okay. Diamond Blizzard talk 19:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's a bit weird, but I've been through them all now and can't really see any issues. Indeed, I've PRODded a couple because they didn't even have reasonable redirect targets. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• I looked at six accounts in Diamond Blizzard's diffs. They were all created today, within minutes of each other, and the redirects were their first edits. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

List of accounts with similar redirects:

Some of the accounts have been locked. I also noticed two, not mentioned here, that haven't redirected but have removed content, so I don't know if these are related. Peter James (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Not all. There's definitely a pattern, accounts with two edits (including redirecting the talk page...) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This looks like someone going through the older Category:Articles lacking sources categories and redirecting them as a backdoor deletion method. I don't know why this would be necessary, a lot of these articles are unlikely to survive AfD. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have now reverted most of these, with the exception of some albums that were redirected and a couple of BLPs that were redirected to sensible locations. The rest made little sense so I have restored unreferenced BLPs in a few cases. Deletion is preferable to hiding them within a redirect to an unrelated topic. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I've just posted on your talk page - basically you've just restored a pile of unsourced BLPs (not to mention stuff only sourced to IMDB etc). Yes, deletion is preferable, so why haven't you nominated them for deletion? Really, that's not good at all. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hi. These accounts are made by my peers for a classwork our teacher told us to take on. We were asked to redirect unsourced articles to a proper target. He did not open a WikiEdu project because he thought there wouldn't be an issue. If there is an issue I could ask my teacher to make a comment here. Spanishgirlswantmypesos (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Spanishgirlswantmypesos, yes, please open a WikiEdu project and/or have your teacher comment here - we're happy to have you all help, but we need to make sure everyone's on the same page with regard to policies and procedures. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Creffett, just note that not all of these were done right. Monstove redirected Averatec, a manufacturer of laptops that has gone out of business, to a specific model of a laptop made by another company that Averatec apparently rebranded. Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  Mr. Vernon, sure, I didn't mean to suggest that their actions were correct, just that we welcome well-intentioned new users (probably could have made that clearer - re-reading it, I can see that the way I wrote it could suggest that what they were doing was okay). AGF and all that. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User:HumbleOctopus has been blocked for block evasion. This might be worth careful review to ensure we are not inadvertantly being bitey. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 20:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

This set of users seems to be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zawl. Whether this is an intersection, subset, or two similar groups with different motivation but similar patterns I don't know. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 20:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

I was just going to point out the similarity to Veganlover1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); see the SPI/sock category and behavior of some of the accounts. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I've had little time for Wikipedia lately aside from monitoring selected things on my watchlist. I just wanted to note that I saw an instance occur with stubs on geographic places which are exclusively or primarily sourced to GNIS. The edit summary I saw in one case of a stub conversion to a redirect claimed that the entry failed WP:GEOLAND, which is contrary to the outcome of multiple AFDs I've directly participated in within the past several years. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Repeated bogus OR accusations

IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs)

This editor has accused me of "original research" on multiple occasions, most recently here, but also here, here, here, here, here and here. I actually warned him that if he kept it up I would request he be blocked back in November, and had forgotten about it before he picked it up again last week -- after an admin had explicitly said (twice) that what he was talking about was not original research. (Indeed, I think I pointed it out to him, but can't seem to find where I did, that the first paragraph of WP:NOR actually explicitly clarifies the point.) I issued a second "final warning" before scrolling up on the page and noticing that it was the second time -- he responded by claiming that it was his "opinion" to which he is "entitled" that I was violating our NOR policy and claiming obstinately that Wugapodes hadn't explicitly said he was wrong, so here I am.

I'm not sure what there is to do at this point; he seems to be ignoring all attempts to explain the policy to him, either because he is incapable of understanding the difference between WP:EDITDISC and WP:OR, or because he already understands the difference but is pretending not to in order to have an excuse to keep needling me. Either one probably merits a block of some kind so that he is forced to get the message, but a further investigation of his activities elsewhere on the project might be warranted to see if he has done the same elsewhere.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - IvoryTower's points were not wrong. It looks like Hijiri88 has very frequently needed to have his claims corrected by other users all throughout the talk page of the article, but he usually just gets angry when other people try to help him with his editing. It would be better if he would take fair criticism on board instead. This ANI thread is just an overreaction to reasonable problems with his editing. Ahiroy (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ahiroy: IvoryTower's points were not wrong. Yes, they are. I wouldn't have come here if policy weren't explicitly on my side and every single impartial user on the talk page hadn't already agreed with me on that point. It looks like Hijiri88 has very frequently needed to have his claims corrected by other users all throughout the talk page Are you getting me confused with someone else? This ANI thread is just an overreaction to reasonable problems with his editing. Umm... I have been accused, in bad faith, of violating one of our core content policies, well over a dozen times over the last four months. An admin finally stepped in and put it to a stop, and one editor has refused to stop. I also issued multiple warnings, and attempts to politely explain our policy, over said four months. How is any of this an overreaction.

I have been editing Wikipedia for over ten years, and have more than 30,000 edits to my name -- I know what "original research" means; the ones on the talk page who have accused me of OR are all either sockpuppets or extremely new users by comparison -- as, it might be pointed out, are you. If you also do not understand how our "No Original Research" policy works, then you really need to read it before weighing in on discussions like this one. Moreover, it might be pointed out that this is super-creepy. You seem to only come to ANI to harass me specifically -- would you mind explaining what your beef with me is?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal from Martinthewriter

In addition to IvoryTower123, four other editors have also argued that many of Hijiri88's edits in the article of mottainai are original research.[77][78][79][80] The fact that five editors have expressed the same concern means that it's obviously a legitimate content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page, not at ANI.

The above thread needs to be seen in the context of the intimidation tactics Hijiri88 is using to force through his edits. This is indicative of a battleground mentality, such as in this post where Hijiri88 argues that ALL six people who disagreed with him in the last RFC should be banned.[81] Just look at a few of the threats he has made against those who disagreed with him.

• Myself – "I could ask for you to be blocked for the blatant trolling", "I will be requesting that you be blocked"
• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) - "I will be requesting that your previous one-year block be reinstated, this time indefinitely", "this affair will not end well for you"
• Krow750 (talk · contribs) - "I will have to request that you be blocked", "Doubling down could potentially subject you to other editors monitoring your behaviour"
• IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs) - "I will ask you to take this last chance to demonstrate your good faith by retracting your !vote", "I will ask that you be blocked"

Hijiri88 also canvassed for support with a non-neutral message on the reliable sources noticeboard.[82] He has made personal attacks on talk pages[83][84][85][86] and in edit summaries.[87][88]

Hijiri88 has also been bludgeoning the talk page. The edit history of the mottainai talk page shows that Hijiri88 has edited it 221 times in the last 4 months, far more than anyone else.

Much of this recent bludgeoning is just more personal attacks and threats. In the latest RFC, Hijiri88 has made these comments to 5 different editors: "The above is a bad-faith comment", "more likely, you came here because of the on-wiki agenda", "You have a history of showing poor judgement" "I will request that those making them be blocked", "you need to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia"

Therefore, I propose that Hijiri88 be page-banned from the article mottainai.

• Support as proposer.Martinthewriter (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Martinthewriter: What does any of that have to do with the subject of this thread? Are you just trying to derail this in order to get revenge on me or something? Are you saying that, despite what the closing admin said at the end of the first RFC, what I have been doing is OR and Ivorytower123 shouldn't be sanctioned for saying that it is? The fact that some other editors said as much before last week's RFC closure is irrelevant (if they also continued to do so, they would be here too); the fact that you have now done so here means that yes, perhaps whatever happens to Ivorytower123 should also happen to you.

New editors not understanding our editing policies is theoretically acceptable; new editors repeatedly harassing established editors and talking down to them about our editing policies when they themselves are the ones who are getting the policies wrong is a sanctionable issue.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would ask that you refrain from taking quotes out of context on ANI. Most admins and other experienced editors will know better than to block me or otherwise blindly support your proposal without actually clicking on the diffs and seeing what I actually said, but it is nevertheless unacceptable for you to do this again after having been told off for it back in December. The paragraph beginning Much of this recent bludgeoning... is, needless to say, very misleading on its face. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I caught wind of this dispute when I closed a previous RfC, was asked to clarify the close, and asked about the appropriateness of a subsequent RfC that seems to have led to this current thread. I feel that additional comments from uninvolved administrators would be helpful in resolving this dispute. I don't know the full history among these editors, but Hijiri has raised concerns about wikihounding which should be taken seriously. The diffs that Martin provides should at least be read in that context. As for the original post, I don't really understand the hang-up on OR. Editors are routinely asked to evaluate the reliability of sources and determine due weight, so I don't see how OR plays much of a role in these discussions. Personally, I've struggled to resolve this issue, and would welcome help from others who are better at handling conduct disputes like this. Something should be done here, and wider input would be helpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify two minor issues in case anyone thinks I was being deliberately misleading:

(i) I don't think Martin is technically "hounding" me. In November, he showed up on a page I had edited almost two years earlier, and reverted most of my work on it. His edits don't appear to show a good-faith interest in the topic (since any honest reading of the sources would lead to the opposite conclusion he has reached), and he appears to be more interested in haranguing me than in improving the article. It is not clear whether or not he would continue to follow me to other pages and try the same thing if he were page-banned. I can provide evidence of all of this in the form of diffs, but since I am not actively seeking any sanctions against him, I don't want to waste time doing so. (I have already wasted dozens if not hundreds of hours on what should have been a cut-and-dry issue.)

(ii) This ANI report, which has nothing directly to do with Martin, was not prompted by the recent RFC, but by one of the participants therein repeatedly accusing me of "original research". This problem (including my saying that I would seek administrative assistance in resolving it) also goes back to November, as the diffs I presented show.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I mean I oppose any sort of "page ban" on Hijiri. The page mottainai is a terrible mess, WP at its worst; most is a section nominally called "etymology etc", but actually a ragbag of argument-from-etymology claims of a distinctly nihonjinron flavour, and the latest spat relates to the inclusion of a scraping from a Jungian psychologist, who (not surprisingly, since it's an axiom of the Jungian quasi-religion) thinks that "mottainai" is "connected" (meaning unclear) to anima mundi, which looks like the Shinto animism idea. I think most Japan specialist editors will have given up on this page; apart from Hijiri's contributions, almost all input is formulaic, legalistic recitations of rules about "sources". While I think that a less confrontational approach from Hijiri himself would doubtless help, it is hard to see his critics as disinterested contributors to the content of WP. For example, the user IvoryTower123 mentined at the beginning seems to have made many edits, for which I see no reason not to assume good faith, but apart from a comment on Talk:Constitution of Japan (mostly procedural), has made just one other Japan-related edit, creating a user page containing a Japanese language level 3 claim, and no other content. This does seem bizarre. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Creation of Page - Dr. K. Hari Prasad

I have been trying to create a page for Dr. K. Hari Prasad - President - Apollo Group of Hospitals.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not an incident requiring administrative attention. At the top, "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Contesting or complaining about an AFD result is not one of those problems. Your contributions related to Prasad have been getting deleted for six years now. This is largely related to your inability to comprehend the reasons for deletion, which is badly compounded by the fact you do not appear to have ever taken the opportunity to have a meaningful discussion about why the article is being deleted, instead simply repeating the same points endlessly, and then trying again months or years later. If anything, there appears to be an issue with you. I will leave by reminding you that this board does not exist to discuss the merits of any article. If you reply to me on this board with an argument for why Prasad should have an article, I will ignore it. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you are welcome to ask on my user talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Wikiasian2408: I agree with Someguy1221's first sentence (I have not read the rest, as I had drafted this before he posted his comment). ANI is not the appropriate forum for your request. Looking at your edit history, I was able to establish that you are talking about an article that was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Hari Prasad (3rd nomination) and that you have previously been in contact with User:Ritchie333 about the matter. If you sincerely believe that the sources you have linked to provide significant, independent coverage of the person in question, then the correct forum of discussion (and instructions about how to use it) can be found at WP:DRV. I hope this helps! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Scott Piercy

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

---

Article needs to be protected. And I'm revisiting the question of whether the defamatory accusations meet the level of rev/deletion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Semi-protected. I'm going to rev-delete, although I'm equivocal on whether they rise to that level. Of course, a properly sourced addition of the incident to which the vandalism refers would be completely acceptable, as long as it was not WP:UNDUE. Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Looks widely reported. I'm thinking two sentences, including apology and sponsor withdrawals, with multiple sources. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Without having heard of this guy or knowing what this is about, a simple web search found this right away. Might still be UNDUE. Revdel probably was overkill though. 2601:640:108:A5F5:F823:7F80:84B2:C54D (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Deisenbe relies on the WP has no rules and ignores key policies

In this conversation, the user said:

• Original research — of course I'm doing original research. I wasn't going to mention it, but since it has come up, I was Distinguished Research Professor at Florida State University

• I'm arguably doing original research on the present topic of sending free blacks places other than Liberia. I don't see the harm in publishing the result in WP, as opposed to some small journal I could probably place an article in. I'm not interested in formal publication any more, and then having a few dozen readers as compared with the hundreds or thousands my writing gets in WP.

They have submitted several articles for GA, but not participated in improving the articles based upon the reviewer's remarks, which I summarized in this thread:

• Excessive use of quotes - which becomes a copyright violation if they are long. See Quotation of non-free text
• What appears to be original research.
• Not citing all the content
• Need to rely more on secondary sources that are current

The reviews have included (but there are many more affected articles):

• The GA review of Greenwood, New York, insurrection of 1882 and discussion that they would not fix any of the issues
• GA Review of Union Literary Institute
• GA review of James Bradley (former slave), in which the user is researching with a primary source and relying on that information and the slave narrative over any other secondary sources. As I understand, the user would like the only cited sources to be the slave narrative and remove newspapers and other reliable secondary sources.
• There are also DYK that have the same outcome, after someone has taken the time to do the review, like one

The ultimate best case is that the user becomes aware of what is needed to Build an encyclopedia, but it seems that they rely on their knowledge as a scholar above researching with secondary sources. In the meantime, they are creating and editing articles with uncited content, based on their personal knowledge. Their latest comment from this thread is that

Wikipedia has no firm rules

At this point, all I am asking for is a warning that it's not ok to rely on primary sources and perform original research. And, that there are some policies and guidelines that are important, like copy vio issues with cutting and pasting a number of quotes into an article, using secondary sources, etc. And, to get guidance about how to manage their patterns of editing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I am unaware of any copyright violations. If these are called to my attention, I will correct them.

Carolhenson and I have an unresolved disagreement about whether certain secondary sources are reliable.

The talk quote above has been taken out of context. It is from Wikipedia:Five pillars.

I was unaware that there were suggestions of reviewers that I had not acted on. I assume I was notified but don't remember it. I will review these and see what improvements I can make based on them.

My only intent has always been to help build an encyclopedia.

I have never said nor do I believe WP has no policies or that policies can be disregarded.

I will stop doing original research.

deisenbe (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I am really glad to read this, Deisenbe, I think you have a lot to offer! The copyright violations are from copying big blocks of quotes into articles. They have been mentioned in the GA reviews. And, if I can help, I will continue to do so. Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalizing User Investigation Required

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

---

• Gradoved (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Listen, this guy Gradoved is ruining my progress and harming my edits as a contributor to my edits. I clearly use accurate and reliable sources and I try to reason with him but it's no use. He denies anything I post, deletes my accurate edits and vandalizes the quality information for the public to us. People have even threatened me for my edits and it's injustice and intolerable, I highly request that you investigate this user and impose a penalty for his false actions. It is very possible that they might try and sock puppet to preserve their own work which is not tolerated according to the Wikipedia guidelines. I ensured everyone my sources are good and I keep my word on it, as a contributor of this community, i'm so angry that I couldn't even get an administrators help. It's so hurtful that I am trying to do the right thing by giving back to the Wikipedia articles and only to have everything mocked, erased, harassed and even claimed against me.. This despicable action towards me must stop and these claims against me should follow suite, please investigate this user and help me protect the valuable information I give on this website and not have it tarnished by others.(e.g. vandalised past 4th warning). IntercontinentalEmpire (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  IntercontinentalEmpire, you are required to notify an editor on their talk page when you open a discussion about them on AN/I. I will do this for you. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Or SharabSalam could beat me to it, I suppose. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Please don't accuse people of vandalism when this is simply a content dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

What should I do in the meantime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntercontinentalEmpire (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, IMO I'd suggest formulating a good argument for why you yourself should not be blocked for disruptive editing, or at the very least topic-banned from Russia. Going back to at least February, Talk:Russia#Population_Dispute, you have been waging a 1-against-everyone war to get your way on topics, and thus far no one is agreeing with your positions, be it maps regarding the illegal Crimean annexation, or the Russian population decline. ValarianB (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You know what, that's it, I'm done with this community. All I get is accused of everything for no reason. I guess trying to do the right things is not something to do and it's disgusting. Since i'm such a large target for people, good, see you never and you can take these lies and spread them. I'm done with Wikipedia, you people have shunned me for the last time, GOOD DAY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntercontinentalEmpire (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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

I Nyoman Gede Anila reported by Migsmigss

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Ayu Maulida: actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account; account is being used only for promotional purposes.

Persistent inclusion of erroneous/false information using sources that do no include such information, such as the subject attending a Harvard-organized event in Singapore; when source is checked, there is no mention of such event or related information. Removing references and editing/changing subject's height details without valid explanation or accompanying new RS. Edits are leaning on non-neutral POV, seemingly describing the subject in promotional manner, "bloated" or unnecessarily "elevated" way beyond facts and references Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks. Migsmigss (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing references and editing/changing subject's height details without valid explanation or accompanying new RS >> about this one I'm just uploading the 4 legitimate sources (prior mentioned on National newspaper such as Jawa Pos on March 9, 2020), supporting the information of ayu Maulida height Here's the proof, don't make this as an unreasonable case. Second one, about this >>> the subject attending a Harvard-organized event in Singapore it's been mentioned on the bahasa indonesia article that has been found and mentioned that she has a model-exchange as a university of airlangga student to Korea for doing charity fund. The other things that based on my investigation about your account, You don't have to act selfishly by reverting and deleting all of the edits by wikipedian users on Ayu Maulida page (not only happened to my edits, but you also deleted and reverted other users edits and marking them as the vandalism perpetrators, as if you were "the only person" who could "only contribute" to the Ayu Maulida biopgraphy page, then the other users cannot contribute to Ayu Maulida page). You also need to know the policy on wikipedia that each user must contribute to one another instead of edit war as like you do, by deleting and reverting all user edits just because you DO NOT AGREE and DISAGREE with the legitimate information that based on legitimate sourced mentioned. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh ya the other things beside your "edit war habit", You look like you "ONLY JUST" left a mark [Please need help for more reliable sources (RS) on article] without giving any contribution such as completing the references. Then as you can check, I'm the one that contributing by providing legitimate sources on Ayu Maulida page, rather than you just only marking and left the page without any contributing meaningfully at all, Which is "Zero contribution" to the in the wikipedia encyclopedia. And your barbaric "edit war" habit.I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Just being wise, in wikipedia policy has been mentioned that "You should not accuse people of vandalism, when this is just simply a content dispute", thats very unwise of you Migsmigss.I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ~ ToBeFree. I take what user I Nyoman Gede Anila said of me as personal attacks:

Calling me:

1. Selfish - "You don't have to act selfishly"
2. Barbaric - "your barbaric 'edit war' habit"

As I've shown previously, the said account did not include a valid source when it added that the subject attended a Harvard-organized event in Singapore; when source is inspected, there is no mention of such event or related information.

The account also removed references and edited/changed the subject's height details, without new references. It's only now that this has been brought up that the account supplemented needed references.

Since this account has attacked me personally, by saying those things above, please help me proceed: Should I make another report on this account engaging on personal attacks, or could we resolve it here? I am not taking these personal attacks lightly, and no editor should. I'm asking for admins' attention on this matter. CC ST47 and Materialscientist, hope you could help me on this. Thanks.

Thanks.

11:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Migsmigss (talk)

I have a feeling this discussion may have unnecessarily escalated. Regarding personal attacks, "vandal" isn't a nice one either. I'm really unsure what to do here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ~ ToBeFree. First of all, I wont give any longer explaination above, if that user won't attack me first. He/She's being very rude and personal attacks me on my talkpage even more than once and acussing me doing something that I didnt. Then I should take what user Migsmigss said of me as personal attacks on the "FIRST HAND":

Calling me:

1. "calling my account is vandalism-only account; account is being used only for promotional purposes" --- While the "ACTUAL FACT" is I'm the one that giving my hand to help Ayu Maulida page that appear with the [Request for Help mark], by providing the legitimate references, fixing wrong-linking page, dead link and wrong sentences.
2. "attacked my talk page account with SPAM warning, threatened to block me from editing and accuse me of vandalism with very "UNREASONABLE" things"] --- while she/he is the one that begging for help by giving Request for Help mark on Ayu Maulida, so I give a hand to help, but she/he's ATTACKING me on barbaric way like NO GRATITUTE at all on [My Talkpage], just because she/he DOESN'T LIKE and DISAGREE with the legitimate information that based on legitimate references mentioned.

For ~ ToBeFree, isn't it sounds funny that she/he are the one who attacked me first hand on my talkpage and also here with very unreasonable fact, but here come she/he is acting like a victim now, and planning to reporting me again and again. I come with a very good intention to help Ayu Maulida page, to be calm and behave politely here, but how If she/he's keep on attacking me like that? Which I take this as a very rude action and very disturbing the peace between every Wikipedia contributor here. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 1:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry not sorry Migsmigss, in Wikipedia we learn and grow how to cooperate and discuss in a "GOOD WAY" between every user that contributing for such an important information, to give as the best encyclopedia pages as we can. "NOT by reporting and accuse someone with unreasonable proof and doing a edit war as you always do". As I mention above, in Wikipedia policy has been mentioned that "You should not accuse people of vandalism, when this is just simply a content dispute". I'm the one here that help providing a good legitimate references for the article, while you are attacking me on my talkpage with unreasonable. You shouldn't deleting and reverting all wikipedian users edits just because you DO NOT AGREE and DISAGREE with the legitimate information that based on legitimate references mentioned.

So I have a question back, if not because of the "contributor like me", then Who give a hand to help provides a legitimate references??? then Who cares with your [Request for Help, Please need help for more reliable sources (RS) on article]????? Please next time be wise before you clicked, coorporate in a good way, Stop reporting with nonsense reason and please calm-down your emotion, all want to give the best for Wikipedia but don't go around on your own, Wikipedia has their own regulation and policies. Once again "Be Wise with your account❣" discuss first behavely, instead of being a "Complaint Queen" by reporting and reporting with nonsense issues. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 1:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, please read above.

I reported said account for vandalism, simply because it did vandalize: Again, As I've shown previously, the said account did not include a valid source when it added that the subject attended a Harvard-organized event in Singapore; when source is inspected, there is no mention of such event or related information. There were false information included, under the pretense that it came with a source, yet when checked, source did not contain any of the information included in content. Please check source and edit history. (You may use online translator, as I did, since the source is in Indonesian.)

I also stand by everything I have previously stated.

I rest my case.

Hope you guys could attend to this. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed resolution:

• Migsmigss is reminded that even insistent introduction of incorrect information is not "vandalism", as long as the person who does so actually believes in its accuracy. Vandalism is intentional damage to the encyclopedia; there is no evidence of malice here.
• I Nyoman Gede Anila is warned that further personal attacks like "Complaint Queen" will lead to a block, likely without further warning.
• I Nyoman Gede Anila is warned that edit warring is prohibited, and that edit warring about the height of a person is completely unnecessary. If such irrelevant information in a biography of a living person is disputed, it should be removed. It should only be re-introduced if there is consensus for doing so. A discussion about this topic needs to be held on the talk page of the article, not at WP:AIV, not at WP:ANI, and not on user talk pages.
• This section is closed by an uninvolved reader, as an unnecessary escalation of a content dispute. Ideas for dealing with content disputes properly, including disengaging from the topic, are described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, ToBeFree. Everything is noted. :)

Migsmigss (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree. Finally it's all clear, main mistake revealed above. Thanks❣

I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 3:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

GDX420, take 2

• GDX420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A month ago this same user was taken to ANI and blocked over their bad behavior - which included bad faith accusations and general trolling. It appears they're not willing to drop the stick as all of their edits appear to be a continuation of the same, baseless accusations which don't appear to have ever been substantiated. I am struggling to find a single edit that would demonstrate this user is anything but a net negative. All of their edits from the start have been inciting drama and even outright trolling editors. Enough is enough. Oh and see this frivolous COIN report as well.Praxidicae (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh and in case it isn't clear, I'd suggest an indefinite block. Praxidicae (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A block would prevent this casting of WP:ASPERSIONS. This edit is bumping into WP:NLT territory. MarnetteD|Talk 20:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I must admit that I ignored the comment about indictments because it was so bizarre that I didn't take it seriously and thought they meant bans (of the alleged paid editors). But they did write "indictments", and so maybe a ban (of the editor idly yelling about paid editing) may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The community has urged WMF to take more aggressive action against abuse and this is the sort of case where millions of dollars in profit could be used to make an example of bad actors like GDX420. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I would support a formal warning for this user. I am not seeing the need for an indefinite ban... it seems rather draconian since the editor is discussing matters and using the proper venues to report COIN. The disruption to the encyclopedia is not to that point. We cannot divine the intentions of the editor, but the problematic/accusatory behavior can likely be stopped with a formal administrator warning. Wm335td (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

you mean the three he already received, plus the one at the last ani and the block wasn’t warning enough? They’re making absurd claims about good faith editors with no such evidence. Praxidicae (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have at least two comments.

1. User:Llemiles has been templating User:GDX420 with increasingly severe warnings for vandalism. What GDX420 is doing is not vandalism. Not all disruptive editing is vandalism. The actions to which Llemiles took exception included a questionable, possibly bad-faith PROD and a questionable, possibly bad-faith AFD, and the latter was snow closed; but bad-faith deletion tagging is not vandalism. I understand that Llemiles was angered and insulted by the edits, but they were not vandalism, and idly yelling vandalism weakens the ability of Wikipedia to contain real vandalism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

2. User:SlimVirgin and I have assisted User:GDX420 in setting up the ability to send and receive email, and GDX420 wants to send me off-wiki evidence of paid editing. To whom should they instead send any evidence of paid editing? It should preferably be an admin or group that can if appropriate return the boomerang. We should provide an opportunity for editors to provide real evidence of paid editing, and we should strongly discourage idle accusations of paid editing.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Supportive of a ban - GDX420 seems to consider himself a lone saviour trying to take out paid editing and malpractice on Wikipedia. His contributions show he is not interested in the nuance, discussion, and fair practice that Wikipedia requires. I worry that Robert McClenon's comments severely understate the bad faith and abuse of process demonstrated by him. Firstly, I'm pretty sure deletion of content from articles is vandalism, so I fail to see how that is different to (seeking to) delete entire articles from Wikipedia. Secondly, if the vandalism template was not appropriate I apologise, but clearly a template of some order was required on a number of occasions.

User:Llemiles - I think that a disruptive editing template was in order for the content removal. The usual approach to bad deletion nominations is to topic-ban the editor, which is in order if they are not site-banned.

I seriously question his judgement and ability to make reasoned accusations - he accused me of editing the article Starling Bank despite the fact I had never even made an edit to that page. He then decided my articles, including one about a not for profit wildlife centre, were also paid edits. If he, after an initial ban, is continuing to make baseless accusations against editors, I can't see how we can continue other than to make a longer/permanent ban. Regarding his evidence, I would be very cautious. He uploaded one example onto Wiki Commons which was nothing more than a corporate Google Doc with talking/messaging points and with no names or usernames. If there is substantive evidence then it should be heard, but I am not confident that GDX420 can do so without intimidating and falsely accusing editors in his profane manner. At his worst, he could make libellous accusations against well-financed companies with good legal teams. Llemiles (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You should not be encouraging them to send PII to anyone but arbcom. I can't believe that needs to be explained. I'm not sure where the support for this editor is coming from either considering they've made exactly 0 positive edits and came here swinging right from the start. Praxidicae (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, Robert McClenon you appear to be misunderstanding Llemiles role in any of this. I don't see any mis-templating and every edit GDX has made, has been an attack, trolling or pointy. Praxidicae (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Praxidicae - Thank you for answering where to send the supposed evidence to, as being ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Praxidicae - Llemiles applied three vandalism templates to User talk:GDX420. Two of them were for bad deletion nominations, which were either stupid or trolling (I do not know which), and were disruptive, but not vandalism. One was a content removal that, in my opinion, was not vandalism, because it was accompanied by a superficially plausible but invalid reason. I simply do not like to use the term vandalism for disruptive editing that is not intended to harm the encyclopedia. The problem is in this case that GDX420's idea of what is good and bad for the encyclopedia may be absurd. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Alexa Megan Curtis Unblock page creation

Unless there is something I don’t know about, I have an article in draft form for this topic, and it seems notable with close to two dozen reliable sources... Again if I have missed something please let me know, but otherwise I request this page be unblocked and allowed to be created. Thank you! Integritas888 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

As a WP:PAID editor, aren't your new articles required to go through WP:AFC? The AfC reviewer will take care of it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok, thank you! Integritas888 (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for MER-C, who just deleted this article under the title of Alexa M. Curtis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not me! I was just posting more disclosures on my user page lol. Integritas888 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, when I follow the steps of Articles for Creation, I still arrive at the blocked page, so I have no where to post the draft for review. Where do I put the draft when the article is blocked? Thank you... Integritas888 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Integritas888 - Create the draft in a sandbox and submit it for review with a comment to the reviewer that the title is on the Title blacklist. Of course, a reviewer will then review the draft skeptically, which is appropriate, and the reviewer can decide whether to request to edit the title blacklist to allow the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Integritas888 - I am reviewing User:Integritas888/sandbox4, which is the draft about which you are asking, but am not promising whether I will complete the review within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I moved the sandbox to Draft:Alexa M. Curtis, and it has been reviewed and declined by another reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man and User:190.233.207.10

• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
• 190.233.207.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The Rambling Man is clearly proxying for the sock of the blocked IP cluster 190.233.207. The block of one of the IPs is good through at least mid-March. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

No, as discussed at length with Rubin, the rambling guy is not "clearly proxying for the sock", he's actually trying to make articles better by including decent images and requesting Rubin to stop making fake edit summaries such as "bad images" en masse. To be accused of "proxying for a sock" is deeply offensive and I demand an apology and perhaps some remuneration for my time. Let's call it £5,000. To whom do I send my invoice? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for block evasion. But policy says that anyone can restore the sock's edits if they want to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I could be wrong. It seems possible that The Rambling Man is editing in good faith. However, he has, in the past, reverted my edits for no apparent reason, other than that I made them. That would be even worse than proxying for the sock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The IP-evading sock hasn't actually uploaded those images and certainly in the case of File:General Marcos Evangelista Pérez Jiménez, Venezuela.jpg, for example which was uploaded by a regular Commons contributor, the image is indeed far better. You need to look at TRM's edits and say "is this an improvement?" and if it is, then there's no issue here. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin is actively working in bad faith here. We discussed this on his talk page and he said if I didn't review each image he would report me. So I reviewed each image, and he still reported me, and then accused me of being a proxy for a banned editor. I am disgusted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there a diff in our future here about any of your accusations? If not, I suggest you review WP:NPA or otherwise, perhaps, expect a boomerang heading your way. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(ec) And while we're here, please Arthur Rubin show me the edits that back up your casting of aspersions that I simply revert your for no apparent reason, other than that I made them. Making such an accusation without evidence is a personal attack and we need to get that sorted straight away. People making such assertions are routinely blocked if there is no evidence to support such accusations. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man is clearly proxying for the sock of the blocked IP cluster 190.233.207. this is the kind of crap which leads to disharmony and upset here. Seriously. After 15 years? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

disharmony and upset? Them's fightin' words! PackMecEng (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

And now this harassment which states among other ramblings, And you have, in the past, either proxied for blocked editors or reverted my edits for no apparent reason. Please could someone ask Arthur Rubin to either substantiate these accusations or remove them with an apology, or block him for a bright-line violation of NPA. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• OK, I've looked at the rest of the images and indeed, TRM appears to be correct. Apart from the one I've mentioned above, this isn't a "bad image", it's a better and correctly licensed one. Ditto this one, and this one, etc, etc. Arthur needs to back up pretty quickly here. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  He has now repeated the unfounded accusations on my talk page. I'm sick of this, please could someone do something about this? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: unfounded aspersions being hurled at the Rambling Man. Perhaps an apology is in order. If not.. a boomerang. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you Lightburst but I think we're beyond just a simple retraction/apology now. Arthur Rubin has been desysopped for not providing evidence for his accusations in the past, and this just seems like more of the same. I think the ongoing unfounded accusations need more attention and probably some kind of restriction going forward. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 01:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  I provided evidence in the past that The Rambling Man was following me around and reverting my edits. However, with only one exception among the edits of mine he reverted on this round, the last time I checked, the edit The Rambling Man reinstalled is no worse than what had been there before, so I now believe he is editing is in good faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  So you brought him here...on the basis of one edit? Which you now believe to have been made in good faith? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  I brought him here on the basis of 5 edits, all but one of which I can now see as being an improvement or one of equivalent quality. That one, I still think is replacing an image by one of lesser quality, but, due to the compression algorithm, the images in the file appear comparable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Arthur Rubin: I'd withdraw this report if I were you. It is at a stage were it can only turn negative against you and stir up unproductive drama. I say this as neither a friend of TRM nor you. With 1 out of 5 edits not being improvements, your odds of seeing any sanctions occuring are slim-to-none with a 20% chance of a boomerang instead. Practically every single commentator here has disagreed with your assessment on this matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Arthur Rubin: Please provide a link to "evidence that you have provided in the past". Stephen 02:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, but more importantly please retract your bad faith accusations that have become a timesink here and apologise for your edit warring. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Seems to me that Rubin is just using ANI as an open forum to air his long-held grievances against TRM. Waste of administrative resources, and thus at best this should be closed. At worst -- well, I think Lightburst put it better than I could.--WaltCip (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - it's no secret that I sometimes butt heads with TRM, but I highly doubt he's socking, he's an important member of Wikipedi and has been here for many years. The accusation reeks of personal attack. --Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 16:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Treatment of IPs

Looking at the above, and ignoring (for this section) the TRM / Arthur Rubin issues, the main issue seems to be a GF IP editor getting blocked over and over again for making good faith, correct, but not optimal edits. Yes, this means that by now they are block evading, which is a handy excuse to block people. But looking back, I see an awful lot of warnings and blocks of the IP for what are basically correct edits. Evidence of this are not just the image improvements leading to the above discussion, but also things like:

• [89] is a series of correct but unsourced additions of TV series ending on the date indicated by the IP edit. This is not sensitive BLP material or anything else that needs to be immediately sourced, but material that can be sourced by others or tagged as unsourced if necessary. Still, it lead to a "final warning before a block" warnnig[90]
• [91] a final vandalism warning by Arthur Rubin, for these 3 edits: the edits were not even reverted, and contain no vandalism Ariel Winter is an actress and voice actress, and the two image changes replace other (acceptable) pictures with the pictures actually in the infoboxes of the articles.
• For this edit, the IP got another vandalism warning from Arthur Rubin[92]. The IP added Jay Moloney to the deaths in 1999, on the date 14 November. As the article on Moloney makes clear, he was born on 1 November 1964 and died 16 November 1999, so the IP made an understandable minor error here. But such an addition is not vandalism and should never get a vandalism warning.
• Another vandalism warning by Rubin for this, because the IP editor added images of two people with an entry in the list. Vandalism???

Were other warnings (and perhaps blocks) justified? Could well be, there are too many to check them all. But if one adds unjustified or totally wrong warnings as well, then you get some nasty effects:

• the talk page looks like a sea of warnings, indicating some terrible editor who needs long blocks, instead of having a much shorter list of justified warnings (or warnings with the correct tag)
• the IP editor involved will be more likely to ignore warnings and blocks, as they are not based on reality anyway and just are typical "bullying" editors and admins which either drive editors away and give enwiki a bad name, or cause GF editors to sock

Never mind that attempts to actually discuss the issues with the IP seem to be missing as well. Can we at least get some guidance for Arthur Rubin (and others if necessary) about what is and what isn't vandalism? Fram (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

All things being equal, it's kind of odd that an editor of >14 years tenure and ~130K edits really needs guidance in something so...pretty much at the heart of what we do here. ——SN54129 15:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"I have been here >14 years and have ~130K edits" may be part of the problem. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely with what Fram says here. I'm not sure what we can actually do with Arthur Rubin aside from indef blocking, which is kind of like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I always want to put over-aggressive wiki "police" under revert restrictions. Maybe that could work here. 73.93.154.97 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

While I like the idea here, the problem is that subject to the usual exceptions would mean reverting vandalism would not be covered, and here we have an editor that, at least judging by past behavior, seems to be under the false impression that's exactly what they've been doing, so I'm not sure this would fix things. I do agree that while an indef would be a definite overreaction, I don't think shrugging is the best response either, a formal warning may be in order however. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I'd suggest that misleading edit summaries, personal attacks, casting aspersions, editing in bad faith, edit warring and the general treatment of these IPs is very much worthy of investigating how to deal with Rubin going forward. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

And as noted by Fram below, the problematic behaviour continues as Rubin makes more such edits while refusing to redact the personal attacks and evidence-free accusations. Something needs to be done about this user. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You have a point, I only checked the diffs provided above earlier, but the fact that this behavior is continuing while it is under discussion at ANI is very concerning. A short term clue-block may be in order, or perhaps a partial-block from mainspace to encourage participation in this thread. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, today, Arthur Rubin is reverting good edits from a non-blocked I editor "per WP:EVADE": [93] (typo correction), [94] (changing an acceptable image to the image actually used in the infobox of the article) [95] (adding a birth entry to 1920, for a person whose death is included in the 1967 article since at least 1 January 2020 and perhaps a lot longer).

Looking at his older reverts: the "evade" reason may be correct, but the end result is that as far as I can tell, nothing vandalistic is reverted, only a lot of good edits and some which Arthur Rubin (and perhaps others) disagree with, but which are a case of editor consensus (which names to include in a list, whether to "U.S." (the IP) or "United States" (Arthur Rubin), ...), which should be discussed with the IP. By not discussing these issues, but giving them in the past incorrect vandalism warnings instead, Arthur Rubin can now revert the IP and get them blocked without any problem, without having to deal with the actual merits of the edits.

It looks to me that by doing this, Arthur Rubin is actively making enwiki worse, not better. These are all not major issues, but in each case the IP version was better than the Arthur Rubin version: [96],(why the easter egg on Disney Channel, by the way?), [97], [98] (the end date for the client is right with the IP, and wrong in AR version), a president of Brazil seems important enough to include in a year list, ... Fram (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the history of 2001. Oh my word. Can somebody explain to me why I shouldn't block Arthur Rubin for persistent edit warring and assuming bad faith? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:. No. No such reason can ye be given or hope to receive. ——SN54129 11:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, support block. It's clear there are serious issues here and Rubin needs to mend his ways or face an indef block, because this conduct is incompatible with the goals of the project.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

May be someone can propose a topic ban on reverting all IP edits with the exception of obvious vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Except judging by the warnings being handed out by Rubin, they incorrectly believe they are reverting obvious vandalism. The appearance judging by the evidence presented so far, and there is no nice way to put this, is of serious and ongoing WP:DE and WP:CIR issues. I would prefer to hear back from them and allow an opportunity for a defense before advocating for a long-term/indef block. The preferred option should always be to cut some slack and forgive, the key thing is that the community have confidence that disruption will cease, sanctions after all should only ever be preventive and not punitive. But it's very difficult to have that confidence when an editor refuses to acknowledge that a problem even exists. Also @Arthur Rubin: I humbly advise you to stop editing in mainspace and focus your efforts on engaging here until this thread is resolved. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

In 2001, I couldn't see the difference. If someone says he added a space which belonged there, I believe it. As the IP uses VE, odds are that he doesn't know whether he is adding or removing spaces. I am now checking each of his edits, and will try to revert only those which have errors, although I will still mention WP:EVADE. If consensus is that images used in the article are more appropriate than better images, for the birth and death images, I will comply, but, it seems contrary to guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This still doesn't address the ongoing profoundly offensive personal attacks and accusations of socking which have made in various locations. Nor does it address your abuse of the rollback tool. Not good enough. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:EVADE is specifically listed as an allowed justification of rollback. If you want to suggest editing the rollback guideline, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It also appears I was wrong; the IP isn't using WP:VE; he's using the mobile interface. I've tried to prevent my editing through the mobile interface, because of difficulty in avoiding errors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:AIV way backlogged

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

---

Admin help requested over there. Toddst1 (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Mostly fixed now. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Deletion request

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

---

I am a new user. I have been blocked on fr.wikipedia.org I registered 9 days ago. Unfortunately, I have been blocked permanently by Arcyon37 on fr.wikipedia.org. He decided that I was not contributing "correctly". So, I can not undo anything or ask any help from administrator. However, the english version of Wikipedia allows me to talk to an administrator.

I do not agree with Arcyon37. However, I no longer want to contribute to Wikipedia as I no longer believe in this public encyclopedia. Before stopping everything, I want to delete all my contributions of the last 9 days. Change my username and park my account, until it is deleted.

Can an administrator delete all my contribution on the fr.wikipedia.org? Or, unblock me so I can do it myself?

After, I will just change the username of my account and park it with the mention "delete". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlainPainchaud (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. You'll need to discuss on French WP. Praxidicae (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Mapsfly disruptive editing

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

---

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

This user repeatedly added unsourced information to Josh Norman here, here, and here before finally adding a source here while warning that my next reversion will lead to a report at 3RR. The source added to the article cites an anonymous source, which is not good enough per WP:RSBREAKING and long-standing consensus at WP:NFL player articles. I posted on the talk page here and instead of discussing the edits with me, they attempted to change the guideline I cited and tried to block me. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that non admins are not able to place blocks, so even if you had done anything wrong it would have still been improper for them to use that template claiming to have blocked you for 31 hours. I think this is clear cut WP:TROLLING and not a good faith content dispute Michepman (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they placed the block template on my talk page thinking (hoping?) it would actually block me from editing. I don't think it's trolling, but I agree there isn't much good faith on their part here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This editor adds his own opinions to articles freely (see 1 and 2) but removes any opinion he dislikes (see 1 and 2), is worried that Wikipedia could be responsibie for the death of someone who uses a Ouija board in a cemetery, is concerned that we're not giving enough attention to the theory that UFOs are seeding life on this planet, thinks InfoWars is a legit news website, etc. I'm seriously considering a WP:NOTHERE block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This above response is a very obvious political disagreement at most and is not even the issue at hand, stay on topic--Mapsfly (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on the nonsensical comment above, NRP’s diffs above and Mapsfly’s behavior at RSN, I’ve placed a NOTHERE block. Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

J. Johnson using WP:INCIVIL language despite repeated requests to stop

J. Johnson has been warned several times for escalatory incivil language and has been told to comment on content instead of contributors, both recently and in the past.

Here is the most recent incident at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake#"Ceased to exist" and Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake#RfC on "Ceased to exist" over the course of the past two weeks.

Repeated abuse at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake

Please note that all of the bolding below is what MarkH21 has added to show the passages he complains of. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Please do not delete my comment, which was in place before you added the following line. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC) The note about bolding was in the post from the beginning above your comment before you made it, and now you’ve moved it below. Redundant. — MarkH21talk 23:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC) The bolding in the following quotes (except for the quote about blindness) is mine to emphasize the precise comments that are incivil or about the contributor as opposed to content. Initial comments on contributors The second half of this comment by J. Johnson's is very strange, but their reaction in the discussion afterwards demonstrates that they have a very narrow definition of commenting on contributors: I don't what you mean by "more standard neutral wording", other than utterly bloodless. I imagine that for most residents the experience was F...ING DEVASTATING!, and a plain statement of cessation seems quite bland, and even colorless. You seem to be most opposed re dramatic, but that seems like a personal feeling that you just don't like it. Perhaps (to the extent this is historical writing) you have always thought history is boring, and therefore WP must be boring? Sorry, I don't agree. — 00:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC) My initial reaction to the comment: It's not a personal feeling and I don't understand where you're drawing these bizarre and incorrect personal inferrals. — MH21 00:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC) J. Johnson's response about me characterizing it as bizarre: Incidentally, it is not helpful to characterize my explanation as "bizarre", or "ceased to exist" as a "cheap idiom"... The concept of WP:I just don't like it is where you have opinions, but can't base them on any standards or polices or such. Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor? — JJ 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC) My explanation that both are comments on contributors and first warning: What is "bizarre" was your inferral that I personally find history and WP boring because I find the wording overly dramatic, idiomatic, and non-encyclopedic... That, plus your quip "Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?" are commenting on the contributor instead of commenting on the content. Stop. — (MH21 07:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)) J. Johnson's's denial that it is a comment about the contributor and tries to play off the Why am I having to explain this to an experience editor? comment as a genuine non-rhetorical question: I made no "inferral" of your beliefs; I only questioned whether you might have a certain belief or attitude (about history), which might in turn explain your view. If you don't have such a belief, fine, just say so (a simple "no" would suffice). My "quip" is a straight-forward question of why we don't seem to be on the same wave-length; it is your "inferral" that this is a comment about the contributor (distinct from the contributor's behavior).}} — JJ 00:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC) My response and second warning: Your comment about "whether you might have a certain belief or attitude (about history)" is literally a comment about the contributor and not the content. The possible belief or attitude of a contributor is a property of the contributor. That and the other comment are both inappropriate. — JJ 01:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Continuation in RfC In the RfC, J. Johnson continues to comment on contributors instead of on the content: But if "entity" is not in your vocabulary I suppose we could replace it with "city". Is that clearer? — JJ 23:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC) I followed this with the third warning: Your inclination to comment on contributors, what you think they like, what you think they find boring, and what you think is in their vocabulary is grossly inappropriate. Cut it out, you’ve been warned multiple times now. — MH21 23:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC) J. Johnson's response mocks the earlier protest about commenting on contributors instead of content, tries again to play off the Why am I having to explain this to an experience editor? comment as a genuine non-rhetorical question, and is dismissive of any complaints as petty squabbling: In the second instance ("Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?", @ 21:25, 1 Mar), that seems to be a very reasonable question, given that we seem to have a disconnect in our understandings of basic WP concepts. At any rate, it seems that you have missed that I allow this could be as much a misunderstanding on my part as anything to do with you. That in both instances you have claimed these as comments about you seems to me to indicate a failure of WP:AGF. I could as well complain that in your comments at 02:45, 29 Feb. ("Can you see what I mean here?", bolding added) and 00:50, 1 Mar. ("Do you not see...", ditto) you are saying that I am blind. (GAWK! A PERSONAL COMMENT!!!) Can you see why such a complaint would be just petty squabbling? — JJ 22:43, 5 March 2020 I respond with the fourth warning: Your comment Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor? comes off far stronger as a pointed vent of frustration at me than a genuine question. Do you really expect anyone to interpret it as a genuine question and to somehow answer with a oh you have to explain it to me despite my experience because I don't understand WP policies like you do! It's a pointed comment about another editor that doesn't help anyone. I never pointed to AGF, but I pointed out that those two comments, in addition the comment my vocabulary, are about contributors and not content. These don't help anyone. If you can't acknowledge that, you should still stop making such comments because you'd be hard-pressed to find an editor to whom those comments are useful. — MH21 23:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Final warning and continued incivility J. Johnson has described me several times in the discussion as disputatious several times. At first, I did not react to avoid making it more heated than it already is, but I found it particularly insulting when combined with obtusely / obtuse: That you are so inconsequentially disputatious is totally unuseful. — JJ 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Because of your disputatiousness I am disinclined to discuss this any further with you — JJ 00:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC) All very disputatious — JJ 00:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Since you are so obtusely disputatious — JJ 23:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC) My last warning: Again, tone down your aggressive language. "Obtusely disputatious" is language for escalation and is not helping resolve anything. It's WP:INCIVIL and inappropriate. This is your last warning from me. — MH21 21:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC) I called for a cessation of incivility several times and gave five warnings to J. Johnson over the course of two weeks. However, after I pointed out that J. Johnson previously said that I am rather neutral, so any continued heated debate is an unproductive use of both your time and my time (21:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)). But J. Johnson continued and doubled-down by calling all of the unproductiveness a result of me being disputatious and obtuse. 5. I attribute the unproductivity here to your many mis-interpretations and "inferrals", and general tendency to disputation... Your rejection of the engineering interpretation as being inferred and not explicit does seem obtuse — JJ 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

General trend of incivility

J. Johnson has made far too many incivil comments about me over the course of two weeks despite five explicitly worded requests to stop. This isn't the first time that J. Johnson has been brought to ANI over incivility over articles relating to earthquake prediction (JJ was nearly topic banned twice in 2014, and had another incident in 2013, all of which were for WP:INCIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and WP:OWNERSHIP) or otherwise warned for incivility (trouted just last month by Femkemilene for escalating another discussion by calling RCraig09's comments here as your weasely bitching), twice warned by NewsAndEventsGuy in September 2019 and August 2019, and warned by Dmcq for making threats in June 2019). To my awareness, J. Johnson has not accepted that they have overstepped boundaries, apologized, nor retracted the offending statements in any of the non-ANI warnings linked above, which are only just scratching the surface.

The latest incidents at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake do not really rise to the level of personal attacks, but demonstrates a clear tendency to speculatively comment on contributors and dismiss requests to stop even after 5 warnings there alone.

Despite J. Johnson's portfolio of positive contributions to the project, it's overwhelmingly clear that there is a greater long-term trend of J. Johnson not being aware when they're stepping over boundaries of WP:CIVIL and reacting negatively, dismissively, or with greater fervor when confronted about it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC); penultimate paragraph added 05:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC); link third old ANI discussion in third-to-last paragraph 05:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• This complaint seems ridiculously overblown. I see no substantive incivility on J. Johnson's part. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Because calling someone's comments your weasely bitching or saying that another editor is so obtusely disputatious is civil language?
    How about the threat And you're starting to annoy me enough that if someone were to suggest changes I'd be more likely to support them. Your interests would likely be better served if you just drop this discussion.?
    Maybe why are you being such a jerk? here followed by yes, you are a jerk here is civil?
    There are so many examples from JJ over the past several months, like the above and Bullshit. Perhaps you should put on your reading glasses when you read. (here), that are rude, offensive, belittling, etc. and have no place here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• I disagree with Carrite here. J. Johnson's odd hostility and excessive markup thatbolds and emphasizes words to be LOUD is rather disruptive and uncivil. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

MJL: Please note that all that bolding in the comments MarkH21 provided are his augmentations, and do not correctly reflect the tenor of my original comments. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: [Thank you for the ping] I'm referring to comments like the one in the diff I provided.
No offense to MarkH21, but I skipped over most of the report and just looked at the talk page sections in question myself.
To your credit though, you didn't begin the discussion with WP:SHOUTing, but you started to only after you lost your temper but to the detriment of following that talk. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MJL was clearly talking about JJ's markup in the diff that he they linked, wherein you italicized/emphasized 8 words and bolded 11 words. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: I use they/them pronouns btw. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Sorry! Slip of the mind. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with MarkH21 that many of JJ's contributions are useful and appreciated. Unfortunatly, I also echo the perception of incivility. While most of the incidents are not grave, I do think they form a consistent pattern that may make it less attractive for other editors to participate in discussions. I find that very worrisome especially in the article space I'm most active, climate change, where neutrality and quality are best achieved with a larger set of contributors. Some smaller examples spring to mind; [99] In this diff J. Johnson alleged that other people are unwilling to consider their proposal, after three people had given an argumented response already, while not responding to the arguments. Here J. Johnson accuses me and quite a big group of editors of bad faith, claiming that we had changed global warming in scope (instead of merely thouroughly updated). And here JJ dismisses a newer user by saying they should 'start a blog', because JJ assumes they are activist. Each of the incidents smaller than MarkH21's examples, but pointing to the same problem; JJ asserting things about the editor which deteriorates the atmosphere. As such, I think the editing would improve if J. Johnson wasn't allowed to comment on other people's behaviour or beliefs any more, but only on content. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would not comment if the worst occurrences were mere breaches of etiquette. However, J Johnson's perennial hair-trigger incivility is reflects deeper problematic attitudes and habits that frustrate others' attempts at amicable collaboration in a complex subject area. I concur with MarkH's characterizations and Femke Nijsse's observations, but I think the underlying problem can't be solved merely by improvements in language and etiquette. Some history:

→ JJ "introduced" himself to me by sending me straight to ANI—without prior discussion—asking someone else to investigate his suspicions re supposed "linkspamming" in the then-new Warming stripes article. (diff of closer, 2 July 2019)

→ After I had spent an hour or two trying to understand one of his suggestions and I cited references and asked for clarification/confirmation of what he meant, JJ responded with "Get a better grip". (diff of 22 Jan 2020) (His suggestion was not adopted.)

→ Even a cursory review of Talk:Global warming#Second discussion on titles for potential move request (which followed a now-archived month-long Preliminary Discussion,) will show numerous of JJ's needlessly verbose tangential lectures. These discussions followed his claim that the Move/Renaming discussion for Talk:Climate change (general concept) (implemented Oct 2019 after ten full days and 14 laptop-screenfuls of discussion, and after extensive preliminary discussions there), were supposedly closed "prematurely": see Femke Nijsse's link, above, re JJ's claim that the year's-long trajectory of this family of articles was made in "bad faith".

→ JJ's comments show a difficulty grasping the context of others' arguments. Example: when I cited references (a NASA page, and the vice-president of Associated Press Media Relations) to prove that "global warming" and "climate change" are often used interchangeably by the public and press, JJ responded, with typical sarcasm "AP Stylebook applies to AP staff, and (hopefully this is not too simple for you) we are not AP staff" (italics added re sarcasm, boldface in original). (diff of 19 Jan 2020) — Same post as JJ's "weasely bitching" retort that MarkH quotes above.

→ Similarly, JJ went to great length (citing five references saying "global warming" and "climate change" are scientifically distinct terms—which no one had disputed), in his refutation of an argument that was never made (classic strawman argument). He later sarcastically refers to his five references "did you perhaps miss that big, grey box just above?".

→ Likewise, JJ posted a claim that "This entire debate on name and naming criteria" was based on {an argument JJ manufactured: See diff of 7 Jan 2020} for which he has provided zero examples—a classic strawman. Yet he has accused me of not WP:HEARing: 13 Jan 2020 diff: "do you have a hearing problem?"

In summary, whereas JJ has contributed to low-level tasks such as citation formats and arrangement of blocks in a block diagram, his inability to grasp complex or subtle arguments and reconcile different points of view, will not likely improve though admonishment over his use of language. Any corrective action should deal with deeper issues that energize JJ's incivility. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply

It should be noted right off that Mark has misrepresented my comments: all that bolding in the box is entirely what he has added, without attribution.

I have previously been reproached (by Femke) that I could speak more gently, and I allow there is something to that. But in the present case I think the more significant factor is that MarkH21 tends to misinterpret things. In particular he has been quicker to take offense based on his understanding of my language than to inquire whether the offense is in my language, or in his understanding if it. In that respect he has failed to assume good-faith. And I would note that his own comments are not without fault.

A problem with Mark's complaint is that he has not provided the full story. E.g., what he complains of actually arose on 28 Feb., where I said:

Your view of continued existence seems to be based on having some fragment of the city's physical fabric surving intact, while Dr. Housner's view was that it no longer existed as a functional, living entity. This would be clearer if you would read the source (your "even if" suggests you have not), where he describes the failure of practically all city services.

He replied: "I'm not sure why you think I didn't read the Housner & He source..." (02:45, 29 Feb.), to which I replied that his use of "even if" came across to me "as questioning whether Housner wrote that" (which I view as entirely indubitable). My comment was not intended to be uncivil, but to clarify whether we were (literally) "on the same page". I then suggested that perhaps "despite" better resolved what he meant to say with my understanding, and at that point I thought the matter was resolved. Even on a parallel issue (regarding "ceased to exist"), where I proposed a way of dealing with a concern of his, I thought we were close to a resolution. But in his following comment (00:50, 1 Mar.) he wants to argue that he is right regarding his use of "even if" (which I regard as immaterial). At that point the situation goes down hill, especially when he states (threatens?) that "If you refuse to consider any proposals or alternatives, we can just go to RfC", when I had not refused to consider any proposals or alternatives, and which I consider a very uncivil insinuation. This is where I deem him to be warrantably disputatious.

The rest of the affair is pretty much on similar lines. I will elaborate if anyone has questions. My take on this complaint is that MarkH21's broad reach and canvassing of other editors shows how weak his own complaints are. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• J. Johnson clearly favors the passive-aggressive approach to talk page editing, which isn't particularly conducive to cooperation. I completely agree that all comments should be required to be content-based. His belligerent personal attacks don't serve him or anyone else well.Ames86 (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Your accusation that Mark has misrepresented my comments: all that bolding in the box is entirely what he has added, without attribution is plainly false. From the very first posting here:

  The bolding in the following quotes (except for the quote about blindness) is mine to emphasize the precise comments that are incivil or about the contributor as opposed to content.

  — MarkH21 04:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Your accusation of canvassing is plainly false.This ANI is about your general long-term incivility. The editors to whom I gave ANI notices are editors who have given you warnings about your incivility over the past several months and were mentioned in the subsection on your long history of incivility; therefore they are user[s] mentioned in the discussion and editors who have participated in discussions on the same topic both of which fall under appropriate notifications.

Your only response to the demonstrated long-term incivility issues is to 1) deflect onto the issue of whether it was appropriate to open an RfC after you said Because of your disputatiousness I am disinclined to discuss this any further with you and 2) state that you thought the issue was resolved by your comment ending with That you are so inconsequentially disputatious is totally unuseful.

You have nothing to say on whether these are inappropriate?

• your weasely bitching
• you're starting to annoy me enough that if someone were to suggest changes I'd be more likely to support them. Your interests would likely be better served if you just drop this discussion.
• why are you being such a jerk?
• yes, you are a jerk
• you are so obtusely disputatious
• Bullshit. Perhaps you should put on your reading glasses when you read
• Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?
• I attribute the unproductivity here to your many mis-interpretations and "inferrals", and general tendency to disputation
• But if "entity" is not in your vocabulary
• Get a better grip
• (hopefully this is not too simple for you) we are not AP staff
• do you have a hearing problem?

Even after being told that you use incivil language and create an atmosphere of hostility by at least five different editors at least nine times over only the last nine months, do you still only want to deflect the question and focus on others? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention that your quote is another example of you focusing on the other editor; here you repeatedly assert and speculate that I haven't read the source, e.g. This would be clearer if you would read the source as above on 28 Feb & Another reason why I sometimes wonder if you have read any more of the source than the Overview (or perhaps just the Prologue to the Overview) 10 March, to which I have to repeatedly respond that I have read the source. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• @J. Johnson: Whom do you believe Mark canvased here and how? If onwiki, then please provide diffs for context. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @MJL: Here are all of the editors that I notified about this ANI discussion: J. Johnson, Femkemilene, RCraig09, NewsAndEventsGuy, Dmcq, and EdwardLane. I mentioned all of the editors in this list in the original report except EdwardLane, whom I notified because they commented and suggested arbitration at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake in an attempt to find mediation. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @MarkH21: That's a few too many tbh. Imo a ping for any editors you mention in a report is all that's needed (either in the report itself, or in a subsequent comment with an explanation as to why they are being pinged). Otherwise, most editors when they see a notice like that will assume the report is about them. I know that's how I'd feel at least. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • @MJL: Perhaps I take a discussion about an editor and an issue with which you may have been involved (Template:ANI-notice) too literally then, in that they were involved in the same issue recently and are mentioned in the discussion. At least I've seen the notice applied that way sometimes. I'll be happy to adjust this for the future.
        But either way, it's still not canvassing by virtue of WP:APPNOTE with them having given warnings / been involved recently regarding the same issues. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • @MJL: I strongly disagree. If you're going to specifically mention someone in your ANI thread, you should notify them even if your thread is not mainly about them. Pings are not sufficient, the same as always at ANI. Just because you were not criticising their actions doesn't mean someone else won't in the thread. And that person may reasonably assume that the person they are criticising was already notified since their actions were already being discussed. It's hardly uncommon that this happens after all. If you feel editors may misunderstand why they are being notified, there's no harm in offering a clarification as part of the notice. I've done it on occasion. Note also that pinging and notifying people equally raise canvassing concerns, so there's no differences in that regards. If the only reason you mentioned someone seems to be to canvas them, then yes it's a concern whether you pinged or properly notified. If there is a reasonable reason why you mentioned them, then it's fine. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
        • @Nil Einne: Agree to disagree. However, as my friend Wander has pointed out to me, WP:CANVAS actually does not say anything about pings (and it has been argued that they're fair game). Idk, this might be better for my talk page since we're getting a bit off track. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 12:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries by Velvet-twenties

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

---

This turned up via my watchlist. Two summaries in particular, "niggas mad" and "Make an account if you're so gung-ho about this you retard.", strike me as something that should never be happening on WP. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Velvet-twenties: Dude, come on. You've been here for long enough. You know better than to address an editor that way. I don't care if they have an account or not.--WaltCip (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that Velvet-twenties [100] to revert to their preferred version, without any discussion on the article talk page, although at least without the uncivil edit summaries.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone could make the first edit summary cited by ThatMontrealIP and still not be blocked five hours after it was reported, and the second was almost as bad. Where are all the admins? And, on the underlying content issue, I have removed identification of de Mérode's father from the article. It should not be replaced until consensus has been reached on the talk page. I have no idea who her father was, but know that that edit summary is totally unacceptable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Calling the IP a "retard" is clearly offensive, but I don't understand what V-t meant when he said "niggas mad".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Really? Don't you understand that "nigga" is just a misspelling of "nigger"? And that there was either an apostrophe or an "are" missing? And that while admins watching this fail to see the obvious Velvet-twenties is continuing to edit war Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Can someone just do something about this? It has been reported here and at WP:RFPP and now warrants a report at the edit-warring notice board, but I'm buggered if I'm going to look up how to do things there when it was obvious from the start that this editor should have been blocked. Someone do it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

• (edit conflict) I see a lot of people saying the word "nigga" in the movies but they are all from African ancestry. I heard that this word is offensive when someone from European ancestry says it. Velvet-twenties says in his/her user page that he is a native German so that means he is European. That means it was offensive.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Are you implying that there are exactly zero people of African ancestry who were born in Europe? Why are you edit warring to include this ridiculous comment in a closed thread? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• That's beside the point. The word is offensive if it's ever used before a public audience. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Well yeah, and it shouldn't be used on Wikipedia regardless of a user's ancestry. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Alright, I have crossed my comment. I am sorry.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal abuse issue

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

---

An edit was reverted at Seventh Seal in these terms and this message was left on my talk page. A message left on the editor's own talk page was replied to in much the same abusive terms. Is there any sanction against such bigotry? Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Anonymous troll blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent incivility, personal attacks, edit warring and addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content by New York based IP

An editor with access to various NYC-based IP's persistently edit wars and abuses other editors over people's ethnicity on various biographical articles. When pressed they mention the user-generated source ethnicelebs which freely admits on its own page that it is unreliable. Editor appears to be obsessed with whether or not people are Jewish (or "jewish" as he types it). Main IP used by this editor is 72.226.21.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but has also used 100.38.129.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 172.58.228.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 172.58.231.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and probably others. Multiple warnings have been left on main IP's talk page, all of which have been blanked. Editor is recognizable by abusive pattern of behaviour, refusal to capitalise the word "Jewish" and failure to sign talk page edits with tildes. I could give individual diffs but entire editing history really speaks for itself. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

To give just one example, this alone is clearly blockable, especially coming as it does after previous warnings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Some notes:
  • 72.226.21.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems pretty static, so I've blocked it for a year.
  • 172.58.224.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has some collateral, but none that wouldn't be blocked in its own right. Anonblocked for 2 weeks.
  • 100.38.129.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) looks like a one-off, I'm leaving it alone for now.
• The target users on all three IP ranges are technically  Likely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It turns out the 172.58 range was blocked before and recently, so I made it a month instead. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Repeated IP incivility to editors

We have a problem editor contributing to the High Speed 2 article and Talk:High Speed 2. Offending edits come from IP addresses that change daily, but all of the same tenor:

• hostile, confrontational language in talk that violates WP:UNCIVIL
• repeated false accusations of vandalism aimed at other editors that violate WP:GOOD FAITH
• Wikihounding of other editors
• Edit warring
• Incivility and snide remarks in edit summaries

Repeated requests for rational and civil discussion have only been met with more incivility.

IP addresses are geographically identical (North London, UK), including:

• Special:Contributions/2A01:4B00:881D:3700:D9B4:8955:999F:B40F
• Special:Contributions/2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2
• Special:Contributions/2A01:4B00:881D:3700:64CB:78F:152C:D64D

Can anything be done concerning this IP range or are we stuck with him? Cnbrb (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

For the IPv6-challenged in the audience, anything in Special:Contributions/2A01:4B00:881D:3700::/64 is (almost certainly) on the same network. Based on the edit patterns, I think all edits in there over the past couple weeks are the same user, but I'm not certain of that analysis - it's possible that Special:Contributions/‎2a01:4b00:881d:3700:e137:db95:afbf:18d6 is a separate good-faith editor. Suggest just blocking the /64, and if problems continue, semi-protecting High Speed 2. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• CommentI see some content issues, and perhaps some vandalism. Adding unsourced material. Lightburst (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I have ranged blocked 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:0:0:0:0/64 from High Speed 2 and its talk page for 72 hours, to get a bit of breathing space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. That will give us a bit of peace, but I expect he'll be back once the block expires. I'll notify here if we have any more problematic behaviour. Cnbrb (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of racial slur

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

---

Martinevans123 posted a racial slur on a user talk page. I asked about the incident, and Martinevans123 response was that it was used ironically (and included a personal attack You're missing a diagnosis.).

Chinks in my world.^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Enforcement cannot be WP:PUNITIVE. However I do not think we should not tolerate the use of racial slurs in the context of how it was used here and am unsure of what action should be taken. The personal attack is minor but does not help the situation. Kees08 (Talk) 00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Disgusted of Wuhan Wells" in that third diff is a reference to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. Narky Blert (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• absolutely disgusting behavior from anyone much less a tenured editor. Racist jokes aren't funny, they're just racist. Imagine someone making a "joke" of this nature using the n-word. This is no different. Praxidicae (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Trout A joke that missed the mark...badly. I will support a WP:TROUT sent to this editor. Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I looked to see if this has come up for Martinevans123 before, and I suppose it has last been brought to administrative attention four years ago for comments like this. Wow.
  A warning is probably in order since this was not addressed with the last time. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• That's absolutely disgusting. The editor's ethnic slur history doesn't help. There shouldn't be any tolerance for such a comment. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• I don't know what else there is to discuss. He said something offensive and he uses the excuse of joking, which shows his poor judgement. He doesn't think he's done anything wrong, so he's not going to stop doing this, and apparently he's said things like this before. IMO, him not seeing anything wrong with what he said is the bigger problem here. Block him, and if he wants to appeal, he can agree to not use racial slurs. Natureium (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Natureium: Let's not fool ourselves here. The AN/I report I linked to above closed with an endorsement of this statement: I declare this thread be renamed "The ANI sheepshagger fiasco", be closed, deleted, salted and henceforth only recalled with a furrowed brow by the PC brigrade who are actively seeking to excise the freaking soul out of the place. That isn't exactly a warning... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  Some things are so obvious they do not require a warning. Natureium (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Natureium: You would think... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 12:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hearts We cannot legislate what is in the editor's heart. But we can admonish, censure and trout. Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  +1 (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Martinevans123. Please. Don't be flippant about this. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• I searched contributions for 'Chink', which resulted in:
  • July 2019: diff 'I was thinking more of "Chinese whispers" (if one is still allowed to use that phrase without being accused of racism).' (with edit summary "a chink in your grammatical armour")
  • January 2012: diff, later removed for being unsourced

    I will AGF on this one. Kees08 (Talk) 05:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

    • The first one is a distasteful pun on chink. They clearly like to use the word whenever the opportunity to make a joke about anything Chinese arises. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• The search only looks through edit summaries; I do not think there is a way to look through actual contribs. Kees08 (Talk) 05:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• I also searched the contributions for "nigger", which resulted in:
  • June 2018: diff, where a link to a YouTube video for Ace of Spades was removed with the edit summary can't be too careful which was wikilinked to Nigger in the woodpile
• I wanted to establish that this is a pattern and not a first-time thing. Kees08 (Talk) 05:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

As this may not be "all that common" a warning for now, but I also think withing a month we will be back here (or at the least his "fuck you Admins" message on his talk page will lead to the usual chorus of "don't be like that"s until his reactions escalate to a full block).Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Subheader

Just gonna throw this quote out there: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." I don't see where this fits that definition of what this page is for. Valeince (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

So...racial epithets aren't "chronic, intractable behavioral problems"? Good to know where Wikipedians stand on this problem. Praxidicae (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Please inform me how this singular instance of the word being used is "chronic" and where is there any other form of dispute resolution that would qualify this as "intractable". And I really don't appreciate using a strawman argument to try and put words in my mouth. I did not say I was okay with it, I just don't think this belongs here. It's minor. Leave your pearl clutching at home, please. Valeince (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to go through MJL's diffs above which link to a long history of this. Praxidicae (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

All I need is to read "4 years ago" and point to my previous point. Why is this on ANI and not trying to be resolved with the users directly?Valeince (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

As per his response just in the last hour, he doesn't seem to care or see anything wrong with it. Can't discuss with the unwilling. Praxidicae (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This user didn't even try and engage him, they said one comment, got a flippant response and came running to ANI. I don't see that they tried to engage further, just gave up and threw it here. But this is starting to digress, so let's just drop it and see if there's an admin with an appetite to sanction Martin. Valeince (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no point in discussing this with you if you don't see a need to have a community discussion about a long term editor repeatedly using racial slurs. And this isn't just for an admin to waltz in here and unilaterally make a decision. Praxidicae (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about do you? PackMecEng (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Apparently not, PackMecEng, please feel free to point out where I am incorrect. Cheers. Praxidicae (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Apparently I don't either, I indented too far and my comment was in response to Valeince and not you. PackMecEng (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"a long term editor repeatedly using racial slurs" Just throwing around whatever to try and make this seem like a bigger deal than it is, huh? Twice in 4 years is what I can find based on what was posted above. Twice. Valeince (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly how many times can someone use racial slurs before you think it's "too many"?--Jorm (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's two more times than anyone should ever post here, and probably one more time than anyone should be able to do so without being sanctioned for it. Particularly if the editor reacts to questions about the second incident with You're missing a diagnosis and sees nothing wrong whatsoever when faced with objections to using it "in an ironic way". — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. I think you are asking the wrong question, Jorm. I think we should be asking is this instance of using a slur worthy of needing sanctions? Because it all boils down to context yes? If this was a user calling another person "nigger" or "chink", then yes, we should sanction if they don't back down after a warning. But this was being used in an ironic sense to make a point. Is that the same thing? I don't think so. Others my differ but my overall point is that this doesn't belong at ANI. Martin used a word that is offensive in most circumstances. When he was asked about it he responded flippantly but provided a reason for doing so. There was no rebuttal to his point, nor an effort even made. EENG's page was actively being edited by admins and a freaking arb and no one else seemed to have a problem with it. So why is it such a big problem that it needs to be here? Valeince (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Your responses here are absurd. An editor who has a decade of experience and 100k+ edits doesn't need to be hand held into not using racial slurs. If he (or you) want to spit them out so casually, there's a website for that. Praxidicae (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a lot of livestock to eat all that extra straw you're manning over there? Valeince (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Cute, but perhaps you need a dictionary. In order for my argument to be a straw man your argument would have to be substantive of something other than racist drivel. Praxidicae (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Editing a giant page means you condone everything in its history? Natureium (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No one should be expected to engage someone over a hateful comment "I am sorry but he only said Nigger! once, did you try to engage with him", "I am sorry he only said you should be raped ONCE , did you try to engage with him". This is bollocks, we have to have a zero tolerance approach to bullying (and that is what hate speech is even if "its only a joke"). We have a bad rep for inclusiveness, this kind of indulgence will not help that image.Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I've moved this to it's own subsection. I have a feeling it's going to get pretty heated and only tangentially related to the original report. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I am not sure if most people are reacting to what was posted on the user's page, or what is in the edit summary. The edit summary is a racial slur and should be subject to a warning or something. It is absolutely inappropriate and hurtful. It makes me think of the recent incident on a subway train when a person of Asian descent was sprayed. And, it is so clear that I don't think that this is something that needs a lot of discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. There is (somewhat predictably) a lot of people here deciding to take offence on behalf of others. The Twitter fraction of Wikipedia, if you like. Can we all please try and grow up? COVID-19 started in Wuhan, the capital city of China’s Hubei province. It is not a "racial slur" to point that fact out. With regards to the "chink" expression, well it's no longer a word I would use, but people of a certain age would still say it and think it's ok to say as a term of endearment rather than anything more sinister. This, of course, introduces a new comparison: People who are British are frequently referred to as "Brits" by the press without a care in the world and two shits not being given. Why is that acceptable if we are no longer allowed to abbreviate nationalities? Nothing Martin has said has been remotely racist; it was his usual effort in trying to make this place a bit more happier and jovial, if that were possible. Cassianto^Talk 08:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  The word chink is an ethnic slur and extraordinarily inappropriate. It’s not just an abbreviation for Chinese people nor anywhere remotely comparable to Brits.

  People of a certain age and disposition might use nigger to refer to people of African descent; does their age or their belief that it’s an acceptable word make it acceptable? No. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  In you're opinion. For the purposes of debate, I'm going to declare now that I find "Brit" offensive. Does that now make me right and you wrong? Cassianto^Talk 09:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  On this one specific point with no opinion on the broader issue, while "Brit" has completely lost its impact in recent years, to older generations it's an extremely derogatory term that would earn you a punch in the face if you used it in public. (Wiktionary's article on the word correctly notes this.) ‑ Iridescent 10:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)No, it is not just my opinion. Here are several dictionaries that define this usage as derogatory and offensive:

  • noun, offensive: used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a person of Chinese birth or descent – Merriam-Webster]
  • noun, informal offensive: an insulting word for a Chinese person – Cambridge Dictionary
  • noun, offensive: a Chinese person – Lexico (Oxford English Dictionary)
  • noun, taboo slang: a very offensive word for a Chinese person – Oxford Learner’s Dictionary
  • noun, offensive slang: a Chinese person – Collins English Dictionary
  • noun, slang, extremely disparaging and offensive: a contemptuous term used to refer to a Chinese person – Dictionary.com

  I have yet to find a single dictionary that does not describe chink as offensive, pejorative, or derogatory. On the other hand, there isn’t such an overwhelming body of consensus that Brit is similarly offensive. If there was such an overwhelming consensus of Brit being an ethnic slur, then editors shouldn’t use it either. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Iridescent: If that’s the case, then the former offensive connotation has vanished so completely that all of the dictionaries listed above don’t even mention it in their entries on Brit. Interesting fact though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  The very first one I checked (OED) specifically gives 'Do you mean the Japs?’ ‘That word is most offensive to them. How would we like to be called Brits?’ as a usage example, and has no examples pre-1961 of it being used in a non-derogatory sense. ‑ Iridescent 10:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  This whole thread is a giant Whataboutism. Are you seriously defending his usage because other racial slurs exist? This is the Wikipedia equivalent of the American alt-rights "well the Irish were slaves too!" argument. Praxidicae (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  I guess you missed On this one specific point with no opinion on the broader issue.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  Because the targets have said they find it offensive. Because the last time I checked I could walk down a British street (well as of last night, things might have changed) and not get beaten up because they "don’t want your coronavirus in my country.". Much as I hate the term due to its over use and (to my mind) misapplication (as it always impacts poor white people) in this case white privilege raises it ugly head.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  I am so surprised that some people are not getting it, ethnic slurs are hurtful. As Coronavirus Spreads, So Does Xenophobia and Anti-Asian Racism.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto I agree with you that Martin wasn't intending to cause offence, and I don't see anything that makes me think he's a racist; however, there are a few differences between the terms Brit and Chink. First, I've never heard Brit used as a term of abuse; limey, pom, rosbeef etc can all imply a bit of ribbing, but Brit is pretty neutral. Chink can be, and often is, used as a racist insult. Brit is also not really an ethnic term - one can be a black Brit, an Asian Brit etc - I'd liken chink to Paki in that regard, in that it's an abbreviation for the name of a country, but it's more likely to be used to describe someone's ethnicity, and not in a nice way. I think Martin would be well-advised to recognise that the world has changed, and to employ a bit of internal self-censorship when making jokes like that, even if all he's intending to do is to lighten the mood. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  Are we going to seriously entertain someone saying "chink" is just a way to "abbreviate nationalities"? It's not that it CAN be used as a slur, it IS a slur, for the love of god. What the absolute fuck. Parabolist (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (Mostly in response to "certain age" thing, but also a general comment on this ANI thread.) The "racial" element of pointing out that COVID19 emerged in China appears to derive primarily from the fact that European and American media often don't talk about China unless something bad is (or probably isn't, but they say it is) happening, and have been paying a particularly large amount of attention to China in the last few months as a result of this disease outbreak; when I googled my home country's name + coronavirus + racism I quickly found that schoolchildren had apparently started calling it the "China disease" and started shunning and or slagging people of northeast Asian (not necessarily Chinese) ancestry. There is also an unfortunate history of the Californian and US federal governments engaging in unambiguous racial discrimination against "Asians" due to diseases like this.

And yes, my father (who was born in the 1950s) used a word resembling the slur in question (with "-ie" tagged onto the end, and with the definite article) a number of times when I was growing up to refer any of a number of local Chinese takeout restaurants. I don't for a second think that there was any racial malice on his part, not least because I'm pretty sure he has since stopped using the word, now that it is more widely known to be considered an offensive slur. I am sure there are some people of the generation before his who are so set in their ways (and probably consume less media in general) that they would continue to use it unwittingly even now, but those people almost certainly rarely if ever read, let alone edit, Wikipedia.

All that being said, I do think it was an off-colour joke, like much of the EEng's talk page, and should not be sanctioned. Opening an ANI thread was going way overboard. Comparing this to other editors who endure months and months of abuse and force themselves to overlook repeated and flagrant violations of our core policies before finally coming to ANI as an absolute last resort, only to get less attention because their thread isn't as "sexy" as this one... well, it's why so many people have left the project specifically because of ANI not working the way it is supposed to.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I can't fucking believe I'm reading half of this. This isn't an "abbreviation" of anything; it is and always has been a slur. Call a spade a spade or don't bother chiming in. This isn't "jovial", it isn't mere trout material. And as to it being "chronic and intractable", the fact that half of you seem to be defending it shows how chronic and intractable racist behaviour clearly is here. Catch a grip. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 10:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Lets not leave out the reaction to the trout is to in effect make a joke about people being overly sensitive to racism, it shows he does not get it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Distractions

• I'll save you all the trouble of hearing me drone about how enwiki's culture is the real problem here.
  As can be expected with a report of this nature, there are people willing to defend this behavoir. However, despite all that has been written here, the community has not heard from the one person this report is about. Let's stay focused on the matter at hand instead of discussion theoretical arguments made by third parties. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 12:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • We all know that Martin isn't going to come to WP:ANI come hell or high water.--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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

AIV backlogged again

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

---

WP:AIV is severely backlogged once again: there are over 15 reports, some of which are almost 5 hours old. Willing admins, please take a look. ComplexRational (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

ComplexRational, thanks – often, that's fine. See the header and my comment on the talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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

IP editor signing edit in a way that suggests a logged in editor

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

---

This is a "what is the correct action" sort of case. An IP editor !voted in a RfC [[101]]. Normally that is no big deal but the IP editor signed their edit with an unregistered user name [[102]]. DIYeditor, Toa Nidhiki05, and Sdkb cannot agree on the correct way to handle this !vote. Should it be reverted as it included a false signature or should it be kept with a refactored signature line noting the actual IP and edit date? Personally I'm inclined to remove it due to the deliberately falsified signature but I think this is a question for those with better policy knowledge. Springee (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for seeking clarification on this, Springee. I'll copy the comment I just made at the RfC:

• Comment An IP editor with an editing history of a few dozen edits stretching back to May 2017 attempted to !vote in this poll. Their !vote was as follows:

Support both Both of those issues were a part of his presidency and ignoring his policy towards them is a biased view. The_Wizard_of_POZ (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor removed their !vote, noting in edit summary "we can't take an IP editor's word." I reverted, refactoring to correct the malformed parts, since to my understanding, there is no policy blocking IP editors from !voting in an RfC, and per WP:TPO, we should be careful before removing others' talk page comments. Toa Nidhiki05 reverted me, noting in edit summary "There’s no reason to include this." I note that both DIYeditor and Toa Nidhiki05 have expressed views counter to the IP editor on the issue this RfC is about; regardless of intentions, I do not think it comes across as a good look to be removing !votes of editors who express an opinion you disagree with. Sdkb (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the username, others here who have more experience dealing with IPs may have better insight, but my (perhaps overly good faith) interpretation was that the IP editor may have just been trying to mimic the user signatures of signed in editors, not knowing how to create an account themselves. Sdkb (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever an any Wikipedia policy that prevents an IP posting in an RfC (even as their first and only edit), and anyone removing such a post risks being sanctioned. The only action that could possibly be justified in a case like this would be someone adding a note after the post to the effect that the username has not been registered, together with a link to the IP's contribution history. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Just fix the sig. Use {{Unsigned IP}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Black Kite, I think it would be helpful to discuss what policies might or might not apply. I think what the IP did was WP:SIGFORGE and WP:TALKNO, "Do not attempt to impersonate another editor". As such I would argue the comment should be refactored. This single IP editor's reply isn't likely to tip the balance of the RfC but I would still like to know why policy doesn't support removal of the comment. Springee (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• If they were actually impersonating another editor, that would be a different issue; but that user doesn't exist. It isn't unknown for IPs to sign with a name ("Bob 192.168.0.1"), but usually they do it in a way that doesn't suggest they're registered. Since they haven't technically done anything wrong, I (and apparently NinjaRobotPirate above) don't see that we should remove the post. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Someone made a comment. They didn't sign it correctly. Now it's signed correctly. Please just let it go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite, OK, that is the sort of discussion I was hoping for. Sometimes it's it's helpful when editors/admins who are familiar with policies talk the rest of us through the thinking.

NRP, when editors are asking to better understand things it's not helpful to tell them to please just let it go. That's the sort of answer I would hope an admin would never offer in response to a non-bludgeoning, good faith question. Springee (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one who doesn't understand why 1) We're having this discussion, but no one has actually talked to the IP explaining why they shouldn't do that when signing until I did so. 2) No one actually gave the compulsory notification to the IP about this ANI thread until I mentioned it when doing 1? And this is despite the fact, from the IP's history, it's possible this is a sticky IP. Sdkb at least welcomed them and suggested they create an account. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Unethical behavior

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

[103] This phrase by Devlet Geray is quite abusive. Каракорум (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The user should have been indefblocked a long time ago. They are already indefblocked on their former home project, the Russian Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, the name of the page and the name of The user being reported also looks very similler. COI as well? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The subject of the article lived in the 16th century, so no. I see some recent issues with POV and a mild personal attack in response to being hounded, but many constructive contributions prior to this month. Doesn't merit a block in my opinion, and it doesn't matter in my opinion that they're blocked on ruwiki, this is not the Russian Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not know where you see constructive contributions before March. In fact, most of their contributions were reverted. This[ is a representative example of their editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Drawing one edit out of that edit war doesn't help demonstrate anything, and Devlet Geray's contributions in that conflict mostly were not reverted. They had added unsourced information about minors, but they removed it themselves. As for the Daily Mail, it is not common knowledge that we locally forbid it as a reliable source, and the editor conflicting with them made no effort to explain; I mean, we have a WP:DAILYMAIL shortcut for that purpose, but they just kept linking to WP:RS which mentions this only in an inline note. I'm seeing a problem here, but not the one you want me to see. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

That's ok, it was not me who reported this editor, and I do not have any time now to build a full case - and if I had time, I would have gone straight to AE. I can survive if they continue editing for another few months.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, I had a better opinion of you, but nevermind, it's ok because my expectations doesn't worth anything. Besides, it's impolite to talk about a person in the third person in their presence, as you did. You can use my nickname or just "user" --Devlet Geray (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Ivanvector, thank you for you adequate position --Devlet Geray (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, Never mind, im fucking dumb. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(ec) No, I do not think so. The page is about a Middle Age Crimean khan, and the user who is apparently of Crimean Tatar ancestry has just taken this user name. This is not more COI that User:George_Washington editing an article about George Washington. Though of course they feel strongly about some issues, and this is a considerable part of the problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you write "They are already unlocked on their former home project, Russian Wikipedia." I was never blocked there, Devlet Geray was blocked indefinitely for numerous violations. But the point is not that, but that his behavior here is unethical. And it was he who began to haunt me after blocking in the ruviki. He canceled my edits in articles where he had never made edits before. Каракорум (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean Devlet Geray, not you. (They were blocked, not unlocked).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, never mind, im dumb LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a policy on biographies of undead persons? ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, I believe it includes chainsaws. Guy (help!) 15:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)