Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 00:53, 4 July 2020 (Undid revision 965882716 by Calton (talk) — again, please do not add to closed reports). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Disruption by MWise12 and Netoholic at Boogaloo movement

    I thought about opening a report at ANEW because much of this issue revolves around edit warring, but it's a bit less cut-and-dried than issues I usually bring to ANEW.

    There has been continued disruption both from MWise12 and Netoholic over at the page about the Boogaloo movement. Both editors appear to be determined to whitewash the article away from describing the movement as "far right", and are continuously reverting without joining discussions on the talk page, or without gaining new consensus for contentious changes that have already been discussed at length on the talk page.

    MWise12 background

    MWise12 first appeared on the page to first soften the wording identifying the movement as "far right". I reverted, asking them to discuss on the talk page. At this point there had already been discussions about the descriptor on the talk page, largely from bad-faith SPAs but some in good faith; here is a snapshot of the page at the time MWise first made a change. I assumed at that point they hadn't seen the talk page discussions. However, MWise, instead of discussing, edited the page once more to remove the descriptor completely.

    They then tried to introduce WP:OR interpretation into the page regarding the 2020 boogaloo killings, by insisting on including a Facebook post by the alleged perpetrator, and there was a brief edit war:

    • MWise12 introduces the change: [1]
    • GW revert: reverted, summary This has nothing to do with the boogaloo movement. Details about this person/the incident could go at 2020 boogaloo killings, maybe, though I fail to see why the specific memes he posted on Facebook are encyclopedia material
    • MW revert: [2], summary It gives us insight into motive - this was not a "far right" attack.
    • GW revert: [3], summary feel free to draw your own personal conclusions from his memes, but that's absolutely not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:OR

    MWise12 then went over to the 2020 boogaloo killings page to try to insert the change there: [4]. I was growing uncomfortable with the edit warring and did not wish to step over the line, so I started a talk page discussion at Talk:2020 boogaloo killings#Meme, though another editor also found the addition inappropriate and reverted it as I was starting the discussion. In the conversation MWise12 did not appear to see any problem with his WP:OR analysis of the Facebook post.

    Netoholic background

    Netoholic first edited the page on 17 June, in what quickly also became an edit war in which they tried to remove the photograph at the top of the page.

    I will note for full disclosure that Netoholic posted on my talk page (User talk:GorillaWarfare#reverts) to write How many reverts are you up to today at Boogaloo movement?. I hadn't realized, but I had accidentally breached WP:3RR—I had not realized that reverts from the previous day had been within the 24-hour time span. Since then I have been more careful to check if I have reverted too much, and also more hesitant to revert in general

    I will note that Netoholic was rude and WP:ABF in the discussion, writing its sad an arbitrator is so disinterested in doing the right thing here (and is also pinging for backup) when I had suggested a potential compromise, and pinged the others involved in that very same discussion to see if they were okay with the suggestion. Throughout the conversation (see Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive 1#Removal of image), Netoholic moved the goalposts around what would assuage their concerns, making my attempts to come up with a suitable compromise completely impossible. However, my attempts to do so turned out to be unnecessary, as the discussion resulted in a pretty clear consensus to keep the original image in the article. I thought this was the end of it, until Beyond My Ken posted in that discussion: having failed to achieve consensus on this talk page to remove the image from the article, is attempting to subvert the Commons' deletion process to get what he wants, even though there is no policy-based reason for removal of the image there. Sure enough, Netoholic had opened a deletion request on Commons to try to subvert enwiki consensus. Though the discussion appears to be still open, aside from Netoholic it is unanimous that the image is appropriate and should be kept.

    Netoholic hasn't edited the article much besides this image issue and the June 26 issue I'm about to describe, though they have participated here and there in talk page discussions. In a conversation about how the article had received an enormous number of pageviews, Netoholic felt the need to insert the comment: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex. [5] I was surprised to see such a claim made by an experienced editor, who has apparently decided that the sourcing in the page is (at least in part) "fake news". It was also surprising to see this term apparently used in the same way as by Trump, to refer to news with which one disagrees. I suggested that if Netoholic was serious about such a change to the sourcing Wikipedia accepts, they should take it to either RSN or VPP, but it appears the comment was meant more as a snipe at the editors and less as a constructive suggestion of change. Full discussion is partway down the section at Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive_2#Inclusion of a tweet by the DHS.

    June 26 disruption

    In an attempt to keep this from getting even longer than it already is, I will not go into similar detail about the intermediate editing of the page. However I will note that both editors actively participated in talk page discussions throughout this time, and so were aware not only that there had been substantial discussion about the inclusion of "far-right" in the lead but also that those discussions had not resulted in consensus shifting away from using the term.

    Fast forward to yesterday, when MWise12 showed up again to undo a whole slew of work by myself and other editors: (edits between 2:09 and 2:48, 26 June 2020‎). This included, once again, removing the "far-right" descriptor from the lead. They did not initiate a talk page discussion before making this change once more. Another edit war ensued, this time with Netoholic showing up almost immediately after my revert to join in the edit war:

    • MWise12 removal, 02:48, 26 June 2020, summary Changed in light of new information
    • After making the change, MWise12 created a talk page discussion, 03:25, 26 June 2020. Discussion here continued while the edit war went on, see Talk:Boogaloo movement#Department of Homeland Security's statements
    • GorillaWarfare revert, 04:01, 26 June 2020‎, summary not without consensus
    • Netoholic revert, 04:17, 26 June 2020‎, summary far-right is disputed. WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion
    • GorillaWarfare revert, 04:22, 26 June 2020, summary per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". As I stated, there have been multiple conversations about this which have resulted in the descriptor remaining. If you wish to gather new consensus, feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. WP:STATUSQUO
    • Netoholic revert, 04:48, 26 June 2020, summary a lot of sources have come out in the last 10 days. There is no consensus, perhaps an RfC?
    • Britishfinance revert‎, 09:20, 26 June 2020, summary m, per Talk Page discussion, there is as yet no consensus to use this (given that most other sources conflict). thanks. BF
    • Netoholic revert, 12:16, 26 June 2020, summary per current talk discussion and a surprisingly large number of edit requests viewable in Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1, there is clearly controversy around this term. Please open an RfC rather than edit warring.
    • Britishfinance revert, 14:15, 26 June 2020, summary rv per Talk page discussion; there is no consensus for this edit (and evidence it is not appropriate). RfC not needed, just please don't edit war but get consensus on Talk Page. thanks. ~~~~
    • MWise12 revert, 16:14, 26 June 2020, summary Evidence is very appropriate; you have no consensus to keep this out
    • NorthBySouthBaranof revert, 16:20, 26 June 2020, summary return to prior consensus

    Now, I fully accept that it's possible the sourcing may have shifted away from describing the movement as "far-right", and posted earlier today to write that I intend to do a full audit of the sourcing in the page as well as a search through more recently-published coverage to determine if the weight has shifted away from describing the movement as far right. I also believe it is probably time to get formal consensus about the inclusion of the descriptor, though I want to do my audit first to determine if I still support it being used.

    However, I wanted to start this discussion around the behavior of MWise12 and Netoholic first, because the edit warring and disruption from the two of them is really getting in the way of constructive collaboration on the page. The refusal to discuss before making controversial edits, and the continuation of edit wars while discussion is occurring, is getting extremely disruptive. I will also note to any reviewing admins that the page is covered by the American politics discretionary sanctions, if that is useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    In regards to the editing vs discussing, I apologize for being too quick to edit before discussing and will make sure to fix that in the future. However, I will point out that I didn't even come close to breaking the 3RR. I also disagree that we ever reached a valid consensus to keep "far right" in the lead. Just because I was too busy to continue debating for a few days does not mean I accepted your position. MWise12 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your description of your behavior regarding Carrillo's Facebook post appears to continue to misunderstand WP:OR, a policy which begins by stating (emphasis mine) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Including this content to try to make claims about Carrillo's political affiliations, when the sources made no such statements, is OR.
      As I stated on the talk page, it's fine if you're too busy to continue a conversation. But the conversation was not just between you and I, there were other editors involved. Furthermore, if you believed consensus had not been achieved, you could have re-opened the discussion at any point rather than edit-warring your preferred version of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reject the characterization of any of these edits as "disruption" - GorillaWarfare is simply using language priming to poison the well. GorillaWarfare has above admitted to violations of 3RR and cannot possibly characterize only one side of this as "edit warring" while trying to escape the same label. In fact, when content is disputed, the WP:ONUS is clearly on those seeking inclusion, and so any reverts seeking removal of disputed content are implicitly -less- "disruptive" than the reverts pushing the material back into the article. WP:BOOMERANG should be deployed and GorillaWarfare given a ban from the Boogaloo topic area for her disruption, edit warring, and misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I honestly could not have asked for a better example of the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that Netoholic has been exhibiting, which makes collaborating them extremely difficult. In this short paragraph they manage to:
      • completely sidestep any discussion of their own behavior
      • call for an unwarranted boomerang ban against me from the page
      • characterize my use of the extremely commonly-used term in dispute resolution, "disruption", as "using language priming to poison the well"
      • inaccurately state that I've admitted to multiple violations of 3RR — I did acknowledge a singular breach of 3RR that was not only accidental but only a violation in the strictest interpretation of the policy: nearly 24 hours had elapsed and it was a completely different day, and the reverts were on completely different edits to the page
      • incomprehensibly accuse me of "trying to escape" the label of edit warring—I listed my own edits in the groups of edits I described as an "edit war"
      • once again misuse WP:ONUS; I've already pointed out to them that that consensus was achieved, and now they've shown up ten days later to unilaterally state that there was no consensus. They could have reopened the conversation or started a formal consensus-gathering discussion, but instead they chose to edit war while also handwaving at "lots of sources" and claiming that somehow ten days elapsing rendered the previous consensus stale ([6])
      • falsely claim that repeatedly removing the content is somehow less disruptive, in contravention of WP:STATUSQUO ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo")
      • baselessly accuse me of "misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC" — I was already quite clear on the talk page that I intended to fully review the sources and then, assuming the weight of the sourcing still supports the "far-right" label, start an RfC. I started this ANI discussion because MWise12 and Netoholic were continuing the edit war (which I will note I stepped out of yesterday) while I was trying to urge everyone to discuss the issue like we're supposed to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verbosity does not equate to legitimacy. You've made your claims, and are certainly welcome to try and defend your actions, but how about you stop WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:FILIBUSTERING. You are not the arbiter of this situation - your determinations are subject to the views of others. -- Netoholic @ 19:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) It's a truism, I think, that muddying the waters tends to dirty one's own shoes as well... ——Serial # 19:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are going to make false claims against me, I am going to correct them. That is not bludgeoning. As for verbosity, well, that I am guilty of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, that was Netoholic, fighting over that caption a while ago? I remember seeing that. And now they're edit warring over "far-right" and that DHS statement? The evidence for "far-right" is so overwhelming (I mean, in Military Times?) that these edits are simply ridiculous. The argument for that Facebook post is ridiculous as well, and suggests CIR. I think both should be topic-banned from the AP2 topic area, and I'd do it myself if I hadn't just scolded Netoholic for some disruption pertaining to the Dixie Chicks. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it really time to show Netoholic the door with a site ban, after years of these convoluted extreme disruptions on a wide array of articles, talk pages, and noticeboards? SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if it's that bad, SPECIFICO; I mean, I've seen, on occasion, some weird POV edits made from that account, but if you want a site ban you'll have to come up with a strong case. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies: Understood. I do not have the time these days to gather diffs, but many of those who watch this page will remember the histories of his many previous sanctions and dramatics. The first one I knew was when he tried to edit an absurd definition of "philosopher" into our article Philosopher so that, among other POV nonsense, he could call far-right blogger Stefan Molyneux a philosopher in the first sentence. Fortunatey he got a TBAN and the article now says "Molyneux ...is a far-right, white nationalist podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views." I mean, if anyone is inclined to post the evidence here, there would be no doubt what to do. Sorry, I will drop out now. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies - "weird POV edits"? C'mon, that's so baseless its barely even an WP:ASPERSION. In the specific case of the article being discussed here, its clear from the current talk page discussion that the situation is not so cut-and-dry, and that there are valid points on either side. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shit, SPECIFICO, you're right, and I remember that Molyneux nonsense. And I looked through the history (where I didn't find myself, not in that dispute), and that's like a time sink of 1500 edits. For the record, I closed a tiny discussion, see Talk page, Archive 8, not involving Netoholic. Yeah, I support an AP2 ban, at the very least. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope that also will cover things like "bias of Wikipedia" and race and gender issues. Those are the only article page areas in which I've encountered him. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Netoholic challenged the label "right-wing" on boogaloos and the photo of Hawaiian shirts with military garb and guns. Both of these are very well documented. Back in 2014, the diff SPECIFICO was looking for was this one where Netoholic gives a right-wing racist his own platform to define himself in a friendly manner as a philosopher. These sorts of edits make me conclude that Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence. How low must he go before we ban him? I think we're there already. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No idea why you pulled a random single edit diff out to make your point when you should have linked to the full RfC on use of "philosopher" which, by the way was -not- a landslide, but resulted in not using it - a decision I disagreed with and yet have upheld as consensus to this day. That is the -same- as I did for the issue about the Boogaloo image, and what I would do for the use of "far-right" in that article if an RfC later shows that consensus. My god, get some perspective - not everyone who is skeptical of strong terms being stated in WP:VOICE is "defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence". Holy cow - is this what political rhetoric has become? No quarter given, everyone is the worst extreme? This is not acceptable behavior, Binks - its BATTLEGROUND and I reject it. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, no, that's not the same as you did with the boogaloo image at all. When that discussion turned out in favor of the image being kept, you went to Commons to circumvent the outcome by trying to get it deleted there. This is the permalink to the discussion at the time when you started the Commons deletion discussion; it shows that you only initiated the discussion after the discussion here on enwiki had ended with agreement that the image should be retained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have had a few interactions with this editor that have been unnecessarily uncivil and ended with both parties edit warring. I think a history of combative, acerbic and uncivil editing is evident when looking at Netoholic's history. They rarely discuss issues at talk pages and when they do it's rarely civil. I feel like they are disruptive and unwilling to change, at least in regards to subjects relating to right wing politics. They are uncivil, frequently accuse other editors of acting in bad faith and regularly involved in edit wars.Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah here they all come. Since Bacondrum is casting ASPERSIONS without links, I'll have to contradict him. The ONLY article we've closely interacted was recently at Virtue signalling after he'd first nuked the content then submitted a ridiculous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtue signalling which SNOW-failed. Things didn't go his way - that's the only reason he's piling on here. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And right on cue for the vitriol. Case in point - doesn't listen, doesn't want to change, not interested in being civil. A disruptive editor. Have a short look through their edit history, the combative and uncivil nature of this editors interactions with other users becomes clear very quickly. It's not Netoholic's fault they are being "piled on", it has nothing to do with their own behavior, it's everyone else's fault that they are constantly engaged in edit wars and other argy-bargy.Bacondrum (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just look at some of the bad faith accusations directed at GorillaWarfare above. Anyone who has interacted with GorillaWarfare knows those are unreasonable and unfounded accusations. Bacondrum (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah here they all come. I think that this outlook basically shows the problem. Yes, of course the AP2 topic area is contentious, but it's precisely because of that that we have to try and maintain at least some degree of civility and WP:AGF-attude towards each other, even when we strenuously disagree on matters of sourcing, weight, interpretation, and how to summarize these things; sometimes people with differing outlooks on the world can legitimately disagree on even the entirely-encyclopedic way to handle a contentious topic. You have consistently refused to extend that faith towards the people you disagree with on political topics. See eg. here, here, here + here, and here, just for some recent ones. --Aquillion (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The diff-less accusations against me in this thread are what is uncivil and wildly-lacking of AGF (did you see "Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence" above?), yet you don't comment on them. You had to go back a month to find 4 diffs in my history (of which none are uncivil and, in fact, one is openly compassionate), some others are trying to go back 6 years. Is it possible that this thread, like happens too often elsewhere in AP2, piling-on and double standards are being used in order to just attempt to take a chess piece off the board? -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm I've seen a whole bunch of diffs by now, and I don't think the chess analogy is very helpful here. You're badgering every single person here--there are better metaphors to use. You're not so much a chess piece as a big concrete block in the middle of a busy sidewalk. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I were silent, you'd say I had no defense or take it as a tacit admission of guilt; and the impartial readers would not know the context of why people might be piling on. I have the right to respond. Whats disappointing is that your analogy characterizes me as an immovable object which is simple 'in the way' - is that really fair? Is that how you AGF and treat me civilly? -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The very fact that we are here, and I am giving reasons for why I think you should be banned from this topic area, means I have given up your good faith. Isn't that obvious? I believe you have a right-wing POV, at the very least, that renders you incapable of editing our articles neutrally, of following our policies, of participating in a collaborative project which aims to write quality encyclopedic articles. I don't know what's uncivil about that, by the way. I haven't called you names, although maybe you can guess what I think about people who abuse Wikipedia in order to whitewash articles on right-wing, far-right, white supremacist topics. So yes, I think you are in the way. In hindsight, the Molyneux business six years ago should have led to a (topic) ban. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: Just for discussion, is there anyone in this thread that you believe has a left-wing POV? And BTW, I am not right-wing - I simply think that strong POV language (sometimes anti-right, sometimes anti-left) in our articles should be tempered from extremes where evidence is not there to support it in our WP:VOICE. Even in regards to the original purpose of this ANI report, GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" - not even a majority - so our objections to its inclusion are at least reasonably valid (we'll see how the RfC turns out). I do nothing here on WP based dogmatically on my personal POV - hell, my interests are wildly esoteric and I don't even focus on political topics... unlike some editors in this thread that seem to dedicate themselves to that area daily. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You could always acknowledge that you have been uncivil and disruptive and try to do better in the future. Refusing to see the problem isn't helping. Civility and collaboration are cornerstones of Wikipedia, they are not optional. You make it really unpleasant for everyone else when you make acerbic comments and edit war, and it's not necessary. Bacondrum (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely getting this many other editors noses out of joint should make you question how you are conducting yourself here? Bacondrum (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remember butting heads with Neto last year over the Women-in-Red AFD thing, the NPROF thing, the WikiProject Men thing, and the Chairman/Chairperson move, among others. Neto was blocked in July 2019 for edit warring and after that, the account's activity was significantly reduced until March 2020. Plenty of good edits in March and April, but once they come into conflict, forget-about-it, back to the same old. Edit warring at Magdalene Visaggio and bludgeoning Talk:Magdalene Visaggio#Birth name; at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Edit war; at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, and see various threads on that talk page; improper use of SYNTH tag and edit warring over it at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery (1 2 3); plus, the edit warring described above in the OP.
      Neto's first block for edit warring was 15 years ago. Admittedly, their block log isn't actually as bad as it looks at first (I guess we didn't have rules about wheel warring before 2006), but it seems whenever they actively edit, they actively edit war. Three edit warring blocks in the roughly one year between June 2018 and July 2019, and since their return to full editing in March 2020, it's quickly become a repeat of the same edit warring behavior. And it doesn't seem limited to AP2. I think a sitewide 1RR restriction would help reduce disruption. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to or in place of an AP2 topic ban? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to, I guess. My concern is if it's just an AP2 tban, Neto will change their topic area but not their underlying approach. For example, the stuff last May through Nov was gender stuff, not AP2, e.g. [7], [8] (discussing [9]), [10], [11] (suggesting, for lead image of Woman, [12] and [13]), [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Now it's AP2. What'll be next? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those links are just discussions. Do you think my particular viewpoint on those discussions is what makes me deserve a sanction? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you really not see how your general approach is uncivil and combative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)
    @Netoholic: No, I don't. Do you see any problem with your edits that are listed in the OP? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A while back, I too had experiences like this with respect to pages dealing with the political views of college professors, and in particular, with the POV that US academia has been taken over by leftists. (Or maybe taken over by Drmies and me.) It's worth looking at Talk:Political views of American academics, and particularly Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC about HERI survey and Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC on inclusion of HERI data chart, where Netoholic tried to push such a POV, and his position was soundly rejected by the RfC respondents. There are similar discussions at Talk:Passing on the Right, about a book that takes a minority view among secondary sources, and at Talk:Neil Gross, a BLP about a respected scholar of academic politics, where I had concerns about BLP violations intended to discredit the page subject. Assuming that WP:ACDS#Awareness has been satisfied, it seems to me that an uninvolved admin should consider using DS under AmPol here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, all those links just show me participating in discussions and expressing various viewpoints that at best turned out to be non-majority in the RfCs, but hardly radical. "US academia has been taken over by leftists" is YOUR words, not mine - I've never said anything like that. I have to ask - do you disagree with the ample literature that shows that the population of left-wing academics far outnumbers right-wing? The scholarly data that shows that its a widely-held, majority view. But since you have identified yourself and Drmies as being left-wing academics, I have to ask, are you seeking sanction on me just to WP:USTHEM? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said anything of the sort about either Drmies or myself in that parenthetical joke. And I never called you radical. My concern has always been your failure to adhere to NPOV (whether you profess to see it, or not). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Netoholic Look, I think all most of us want from you is to tone down the bad faith accusations and stop leaving acerbic edit summaries, basically tone it down, be civil - we can disagree without the nastiness. And don't edit war, if you disagree, take it to talk and have a civil discussion. If you can agree to tone down the combativeness I think everyone would accept that in good faith and move on without further action needed. Believe me as someone who can also get carried away (as we both did recently), it's better to try and keep things friendly. We are not piling on, we are asking you to reign in the combativeness. Bacondrum (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have as an individual Arbitration Enforcement action placed Boogaloo movement under indefinite 1RR. I have also topic banned Netoholic from the topic for 3 months and placed them on indefinite 1RR in that topic area. The community can, of course, choose to impose other sanctions. I have no comments at this time on Mwise or Gorilla Warfare. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but having been away, am only seeing this now. I have edited on this article with GW, and concur with the evidence posted by GW above. Both editors demonstrated a sustained desire to whitewash this article regardless of any factbase (or even consensus), put forward, including:

    • The forum-shopping regarding the attempt to delete photograph showed an extreme determination, which even the Wikicommons community objected to here.
    • Bad faith statements noted by GW above that: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex, despite the good referencing in the article.
    • Repeated attempts to re-insert a controversial DHS tweet into the lede, despite having no consensus for it, that it conflicted with a large number of references from WP:RS/P sources, and despite referenced concerns put forward them it was politically movitived (As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement).
    • The statement above GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" (i.e. as if every source has to call the movement far-right for it to be valid) is another example of an extreme determination to dismiss all evidence in favour of their own agenda (bordering on sealioning behaviour).

    I cannot see how such conduct is appropriate in the already difficut areas of AP2 editing. WP works when a discussion is had over references with a good faith desire to chronicle what they say – take away that good faith, and it collapses. GW is a strong editor, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to prove the obvious to these editors; I am not sure other editors (myself included), would have done that, particularly given the significant amount of IPs/SPAs that this article attracted all trying to whitewash it (eight most viewed page on the entire project) Britishfinance (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Britishfinance, wow. "fake news industrial complex" is way out there into WP:CIR territory - it's a complete repudiation of WP:RS. Guy (help!) 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Britishfinance, thank you for that note. Your comment on "22 out of 59" supports something bigger than the narrow topic ban just instituted by Barkeep49 (though I appreciate it, Barkeep--it's a good start). Yes, that's one of those things where you can't decided if it's incompetence or POV-pushing, but I disagree with JzG--that's not just CIR territory, it's irredeemable POV pushing. I just ran into another example of this, small but telling: the proposal (which is getting overwhelming support) to move "Dixie Chicks", which Netoholic calls "a fanatic rush". No, we need a larger topic ban here, per AP2, on all the political and cultural material. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that the "22 of 59" thing is bizarre—Netoholic has repeated it in several places now, despite me having pointed out that, like many articles, this article includes sources that are somewhat tangential and don't describe the movement directly. In this case that includes sources that describe: the meme but not the movement, the phrasal pattern "____ 2: Electric Boogaloo", and the 2020 boogaloo killings (which were originally not known to have any boogaloo connection). Additionally, NorthBySouthBaranof pointed out that I took a conservative view to counting the sources. A deeper dive into this is perhaps more appropriate for the RfC than here (link to the RfC, where I've addressed it in more detail), but it does seem to be a bad-faith attempt to portray extremely solid sourcing as a minority view based on numbers alone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh ... Netoholic continually exhibits WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed that after Netoholic failed to achieve consensus on enwiki to remove the lead image at Boogaloo movement (discussion), and after they failed to gain consensus on Commons to have the file deleted (discussion), two days ago they then cropped the already-cropped image on Commons to a point where it barely illustrates the subject: commons:File:Virginia_2nd_Amendment_Rally_(2020_Jan)_-_49416109936_(cropped).jpg (see the file history section). I'll note that they edited the image directly rather than creating a new file, presumably so the image change would not be noticed on enwiki. This seems to be a clear example of tendentious editing, especially given users had already expressed to Netoholic their disapproval that Netoholic had tried to circumvent the enwiki decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I think Netoholic feigning innocence and claiming he is simply being piled on is gas-lighting. This editor has never acknowledged their frequent incivility or edit warring. Now there are apparant efforts to game the system being brought to light, at this point I think they are here simply to battle and push a right-wing agenda calling Wikipedia "part in the fake news industrial complex". After reading that comment and looking at the editors attempts to get around guidelines regarding images, I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks GW. I had not seen that. An(other) extreme action to take after being turned down at two fora. Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare, that's outrageous. Guy (help!) 16:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just slap a WP:NOTHERE block on Netoholic and just get it over with. MiasmaEternalTALK 00:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • One last comment re claims by Netoholic that GorillaWarfare should be sanctioned for edit warring. I believe GW's history on Wikipedia speaks for itself, a diligent and high quality editor. If they have been edit warring it is for the same reason many people end up in edit wars with Netoholic - they've been goaded by a disruptive and uncivil editor who appears to be gaming the system. Bacondrum (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair to Netoholic, I actually believe the case in which I exceeded 3RR was primarily due to reverts of MWise12, not Netoholic. I did not pay close enough attention to how many reverts I was making in the time period, which was a failure on my part, and the responsibility for it is mine and not the other parties in the edit war.
      I understand Netoholic wishes to see me sanctioned for it (see their talk page), and I suppose that is a decision for reviewing admins to make. It does seem retaliatory on Netoholic's part, given they have only seen fit to pursue a sanction ten days after the incident now that they themselves have been sanctioned, and not closer to the incident when they could at least have argued such a sanction would be preventative. I've already said that I have been much more careful since that incident to watch 3RR and more hesitant to revert in general. I think this is evident in the June 26 edit war, where I stepped away after two reverts despite it leaving the page in a state that did not reflect the established consensus for several hours, and instead discussed the issue on the talk page for quite some time, eventually culminating in my doing an enormous review of the sourcing and starting an RfC to re-establish the consensus on the wording of the lead. If a reviewing admin wishes to discuss the incident more I'm happy to, otherwise I'll leave it at that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barkeep's tban of Netoholic is good but insufficient. Netoholic isn't here to write an encyclopaedia; his agenda is to make the fringe seem mainstream. Tolerance of his behaviour is disrespectful to the people who're here to inform and educate the public in a NPOV way. Permablock please.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the pattern of behaviour outlined on this thread, I would support an AP2 Tban at the very least. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      K.e.coffman, that should probably go to WP:AE, for optimum transparency and fairness. Guy (help!) 10:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette by User:Beyond_My_Ken

    This incident began with an editor boldly inserting a line into the QAnon conspiracy theory page. I had concerns about the relevance of the line on the page, and a possible violation of WP:SYNTH, so I reverted it. Instead of discussing the issue per BRD guidelines, user Beyond_My_Ken started an edit war with me. He then, ironically, posted an edit warring template warning on my talk page. In response I posted the same template on his talk page (I'm not sure if this is the correct procedure - please correct me if it's not, I am new to editing regularly) and ultimately ended up making a section on the talk page for the article as user Beyond_My_Ken should have done in the first place.

    This would have been the end of it, but on the talk page for the QAnon article, user Beyond_My_Ken then proceeded to disparage me and my motivations for editing, implying that I was purposefully "stripping" the article of "information that I don't wish to be seen by the reader of the article." This is pretty clearly an assumption of bad faith, and a nasty accusation to boot. I am on this site because I am interested in building a good encyclopedia, and I shouldn't have to defend these motivations against brazen and incorrect accusations. I don't want to get into the content dispute here since (afaik) this is not the purpose of ANI, but I do want to state categorically that my only goal was to improve the quality of the page and make it more consistent with other similar pages and with Wikipedia's guidelines. It's worth stating that the consensus on the talk page, it would seem, is that I was correct.

    I invited him to reword his unnecessarily insulting statement in a more civil way, or to strike it out, and waited several days. He has not done this. In the future I'd like to not be disparaged in this way, or have my motivations impugned without good reason. Thank you.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The top of this page - "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." All of the edit-warring happened five days ago, and there was a small discussion on the talk page which hasn't been posted to for three days. I don't see an issue that needs urgent admin attention? Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I was trying to be charitable by giving him a few days to fix his error by apologizing and/or striking through the offending text, since the article on Civility suggested this as a solution. That same article suggested I go here if that didn't work. What's the proper procedure for something like this? Is there a board for less "urgent" incidents? Sorry if I did something incorrectly - I just don't like that there's borderline slander against me sitting around on a talk page with no apology or retraction, and thought this was the correct procedure.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You sure know a lot of wikibuzz words and buttons for someone with only 45 edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! I'm not actually sure what you mean by "buttons," but regarding "buzzwords" I have done a lot of reading on policy, since I'm trying to do things correctly. Were you by any chance implying something here?CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dennis Brown, asking loaded questions of this editor with their odd editing pattern, and their immediate escalation to ANI trying to get old BMK censured and even adopting some of BMK's editing habits? Dear me! Drmies (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • My escalation to ANI wasn't immediate - I asked for a retraction or apology on the talk page where the discussion was happening, then I waited three days for a response which did not come. He participated in that discussion with other editors during that time, having ample opportunity to see the request. If I did something wrong, please tell me what the actual process is so I can follow it next time. Is ANI an over-escalation in this case? What should I have do instead if I honestly believe someone is behaving uncivilly and insultingly towards me? For reference, I was doing my best to follow the list laid out in "Dealing with incivility" section of [19], which I took the time to read after this incident occurred. Should I have sought "dispute resolution" per step 7? My reading of the line seemed to indicate that I should go straight to step 8, ANI, since there was a very unpleasant accusation still sitting on the talk page. I want to be a good editor here, please tell me if I overstepped my bounds and, if so, what I should do next time.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            This was a #7/walk-away, not a #8/emergency situation. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay. Thank you - I will try to have a better gauge for this kind of thing in the future. Still learning the ropes here!CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember, it takes two to tango. If someone is edit warring with you, you are both edit warring. But here, nobody broke the WP:3RR, and it was peacefully talked out. I don't see BMK's comment as particularly uncivil. Could he have assumed more good faith? Probably. But considering that you are a new editor in a super contentious area, please understand that people have some suspicions. Instead of reverting BMK, you should have immediately taken it to the talk page, which would have gotten a much more positive response. All in all, I see this as a general learning experience, and see no likely sanctions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • RE: two to tango - you're right. I suppose I was taking the stuff in the BRD page as more of a mandate than a guideline. In the future I'll do my best to seek consensus on the talk page first. Thank you. Regarding suspicions, it's certainly understandable, but I do feel like people ought to keep this sort of thing to themselves if they don't want to unnecessarily drive newer users away. From my perspective, I was just trying to improve the article (and consensus agreed it was an improvement) and in return I was insulted.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMary_Tyler_Moore&type=revision&diff=965390062&oldid=965389259 which was just posted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The OP did what they were supposed to do: reverted a bold (and IMO questionable) edit. They got attacked for doing so. BMK does have a history of being fairly abrasive. A quiet note from an admin asking for somewhat more civil behavior wouldn't be badly placed. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    to be clear, the above comment refers to the QAnon issue, not the MTM one.Hobit (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Request lift of TBAN

    I am requesting a lifting of my August 30, 2019 TBAN on dogs. In the decision was written "They may reapply here after a period of 3 months for the community to reconsider the same."

    After having taken a several months hiatus from Wikipedia, I came back tentatively in December 2019, then strongly this March, and have been editing heavily since then. I haven't been accused of PAs or tendentious editing or advocacy or any of the other things that I was accused of in the ANI last year. Though I was told I could reapply after 3 months, I have allowed myself 10 months to pass before deciding to request it, both to be confident in my ability to work well with other editors (or walk away from hot spots) and to show others through my edit history (now 2,000 edits later) that I am here to build an encyclopedia and do so collaboratively. I have done a lot of observation and learning during this time, and can recognize what is acceptable and unacceptable within Wikipedia.

    In the meantime, I have worked on cat articles, tiger articles, snake articles, state forests, parks, enhanced several articles on various topics that were PRODed or AfD'd, voted on AfDs, cleaned up articles after translations from French, joined some WikiProjects, worked on a bunch of list articles (I love lists), a bunch of history articles, articles on NRHP places, added my first images in Wikimedia, learned all about roses, historic African-Americans, and am currently working on a set of list articles related to the George Floyd protests and the taking down of Confederate monuments.

    Please consider lifting my TBAN on dog topics. I am not particularly interested in working on dog breed articles, but occasionally I'm working on something that I'm editing across all articles (like the day I was hotlinking to an author using the author-link parameter, went through all of the cat articles but had to stop short because I couldn't do likewise for the dog articles he was cited in). Dogs are ubiquitous and very much a part of human life. I would also like to be able to just edit without worrying about whether or not someone is going to call me out on it because dogs might be involved, like the day I was editing animal sanctuary articles (tigers). I would like the freedom to be a Wikipedia editor without restrictions. I feel like whatever behaviors were present or were manifesting last year are not currently present, and my edit history will prove that I have the ability to edit in Wikipedia without getting caught up in similar problems.

    — Normal Op (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Normal Op: You sound unsure of what behaviors needed to change/have changed. Can you be more specific about what you did before and what you will do different now? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deepfriedokra: For what happened, please see last year's ANI. It was messy and I couldn't even begin to summarize it except to say "butting heads". What I have learned since then is a lot of how to deal with people online that you don't know, cannot see, and cannot directly interact with. With regards to Wikipedia, that would include recognizing that few things need fixing right now, not directly engaging those who hold strongly opposing viewpoints as yours, that I can let things slide and don't have to fix everything, don't take it all too seriously, and that arguing against the viewpoints of others won't win support from other editors but more likely will alienate observers from yourself. I have even learned some de-escalation techniques, both for self and for online situations. If I sound unsure, it's because I don't like eating crow (who does) and wasn't even sure if this was the right venue to ask to lift a TBAN. My request above was framed more about my current contributions and less about my old dirty laundry. Normal Op (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm mostly OK with this as long as you steer clear of pitbulls. Guy (help!) 21:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      ... and of course be very careful not to engage in any hounding or bitey behavior. EEng 23:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Note: Recycled joke, so no charge.[reply]
    • EEng, I am responding while sitting on my sofa fully dressed, so I am also a joke recycler. Joking aside, I support lifting this topic ban, because the editor seems to understand how they went astray, and how to avoid that behavior. However, I must caution Normal Op that any disruptive editing in the area of dog bites or pit bulls or dog breeds or breed variants sometimes accused of being prone to bite will be met with a re-imposition of sanctions against you. You also need to be careful to use only the highest quality reliable sources. You were putting forward some exceptionally poor sources a year ago. Do not propose any sources unless you believe those sources to be reliable. It is disruptive to expect other editors to waste their time evaluating unreliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Normal Op must realise that there will be increased scrutiny of their editing in that topic editor, at least to begin with. It needs to be understood that the TB can be reimposed if necessary, and if reimposed will be much harder to get lifted again. That said, the appeal shows that the editor has matured and learnt from past mistakes, so let's give them a chance. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Non-admin. Seems like they've figured out the issue. Note: on topics you are really passionate about, it is really easy to get drawn in again. Might be best to avoid your hot-topic issues. Hobit (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I very much appreciate the votes of confidence. Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Normal Op has come a long ways in ten months and has made a great deal of positive contributions to the project, and has clearly been learning the law of the land. I think the most important takeaway is that Wikipedia is a community-based consensus project, not a battleground of who is right and wrong, and their recent contributions have shown a great deal of evidence of this. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent changes patrolling by BeamAlexander25

    We are going to try BA's self-solution for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    BeamAlexander25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved in Recent Changes patrolling, but is unfortunately making regular mistakes which are likely putting new/IP users off editing (two examples from today: [20] & [21]). They've been told by several users on their Talk page that they need to slow down and make sure edits they report as vandalism actually are disruptive to the project, rather than good faith edits which are perhaps just missing sourcing, but they continue to do this regardless (and have actively said today[22] that they'll continue to do so, which was the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of bringing the issue up here). I suspect they're young and/or have English as a second language, but at this point, where they've had lots of feedback about their disruptive patrolling behaviour and continue to do it, it's probably worth bringing up for discussion here for wider community review. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I happened to see the discussion on BA25's page, and told him I'll block him if he keeps reverting in the same manner. Not sure he understood, as he merely replied by asking why I have declined his rollback request. I'm afraid this is a complete CIR case, possibly because of language difficulties. Signing off for the night now. He may actually need a CIR block before I wake up. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I wrote mostly everything I have to say on this matter at their talk page, but I'll summarize it here for everyone. I was watching recent changes myself earlier today, and found that BeamAlexander25 reverted the edits of 109.87.48.66 at European School (history). 109.87.48.66 removed a substantial amount of content without an edit summary, prompting a revert by BeamAlexander25 (starting with [23], but 109.87.48.66 later clarified [24][25] that it was part of splitting content into a new article on both the article's talk page and their user talk page. Despite my attempt to clear this misunderstanding, and that this is obviously not vandalism (also note that 109.87.48.66 has been previously working on the article), BeamAlexander25 both ignored my response on 109.87.48.66's talk page [26] and my edit summary (I reinstated their edits since their purpose and good faith was unambiguous) [27], and reverted my edit as if it were vandalism and left a template warning on my talk page [28][29]. Though they self-reverted on the article a minute later (apparently realizing this mistake), they did not respond to a personal note I subsequently left on their talk page [30] explaining exactly this misunderstanding. I did what I could to explain that these edits were not vandalism, other users raised similar concerns (hence this ANI discussion), and offered to discuss the matter with them, but like the attempts of previous users, was met with failure. Luckily this IP was not scared away, but not before they were reported at AIV [31] before reaching a level 4 warning for edits that were never vandalism to begin with.
    My bigger concern is that BeamAlexander25 has not been responsive to messages on their talk page, and continues the same questionable behavior thereafter. Hasty reverting (that is, not examining edits closely and thus incorrectly classifying them), while also a problem, is not uncommon for newer editors, but one should not dabble into recent changes patrol if they are unable or unwilling to communicate effectively with users (this also means not templating regulars) whose edits they revert or users who highlight mistakes. It's possible to learn the ins and outs of recent changes patrol over time, but not without open and effective communication. ComplexRational (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given their apparently poor English, I'm not sure they should convinced they should not be doing Recent Changes patrolling at all. (But I'm off to bed now, and I'll look back here tomorrow.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like a bad case of the law of the instrument. BA has WP:Twinkle & WP:RedWarn which can be used even without a firm mastery of English, and without revealing that deficiency. So long as BA has these tools enabled and uses them without a comprehension of what they're doing or why, they're a WP:CIR-on-steroids. Cabayi (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Communication is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I not happened again this incident, i am reading every policies in wikipedia, i promise that i could patroll carefully and i follow WP:CIR, WP:COMMUNICATE and more, but some reverts are being mistake. -BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 16:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CIR is always a one that makes me feel bad, although probably a necessary evil sometimes. I think there are good intentions here, but likely a lack of knowledge and policy, combined with language barriers, may cause problems, despite their best intentions and statement above. My view is that blocks/bans shouldn't be punitive, and although they may be necessary, if we can avoid them and still resolve the issue I think it'd be a nice outcome. I think perhaps if BeamAlexander25 is willing to stick to obvious vandalism only (unexplained blanking of large sections, addition of derogatory content, and absolute nonsense) it's an area where there'd be less room to make mistakes and is a suitable resolution in the interim. In other words, the suggestion to take it slow may be helpful. I think the reason for his lack of response to some comments is not necessarily poor behaviour, but perhaps poor understanding (due to language barriers) of what was being said, though this doesn't change the fact that WP:communication is required. Failing that, I'd say a ban from anti-vandalism patrolling may be applicable, in case they wish to contribute in other areas. I don't think a site block should be contemplated unless such a ban wasn't followed. Finally, given BeamAlexander25 states on their profile that they are from Luzon, https://tl.wikipedia.org may be of interest to them as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I broadly very much agree with this ProcrastinatingReader, though at this stage (bearing in mind a few have raised concerns on their Talk page about their patrolling previously with seemingly little impact) I'd personally suggest a ban on the use of semi-automated reversion tools such as Twinkle and Redwarn at a minimum (and I could see the logic behind those who'd prefer a total ban on anti-vandalism patrolling, be it semi-automated or otherwise). OcarinaOfTime (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OcarinaOfTime, admittedly my judgement is somewhat weak when it comes to CIR. I find it difficult to support excluding someone (acting in good faith) from the community or from the area that they like, sometimes even if I know in my gut that this will happen again.
    Nevertheless, I see your view and the need for a ban at this stage, as this is going to turn away new editors. Anti-vandalism is clearly something that they're passionate about, though, so perhaps an acceptable option may be that limited anti-vandalism work / usage of tools is allowed should they join WP:CVUA and find a suitable trainer, and the ban ends should they graduate. I think that's a way for them to learn more about anti-vandalism and related policies, and hopefully in the future they can return to the area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    May I say thank you for a careful, measured response, but a response, after all, which is needed. Having been a victim of overeager editors who have few or any contributions and give the appearance to be in Wikipedia merely for the thrill of deleting, I know too well how something like that hurts, especially the noob. I'm glad y'all following up, while not getting all bunched up. Thank you! YamaPlos talk 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I'd support a topic-ban from recent changes and or from Twinkle and Redwarn too given the language issues here, Whilst everyone makes mistakes given the user's mother tongue isn't English I fear this would happen again IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 16:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again we see a brand new editor using semi-automated tools badly. Is there no way to stop this happening? We control user rights such as rollback, but seem to allow anyone to use more powerful tools. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      We do stop use of powerful and fast-paced tools, such as Huggle, by requiring rollback perms. RedWarn is like Twinkle, from my understanding, so it isn't particularly more fast paced or in need of rollback perms. There's definitely a big barrier to the level of mayhem possible between Huggle and RedWarn. Requiring someone to apply for rollback to use any sort of anti-vandalism tool, even if not advanced, is problematic, because this just results in either less anti-vandalism patrollers, or more inexperienced users gaining access to the actual powerful tools. Perhaps the developer of RedWarn could implement a RW block-list, though, and similar for Twinkle, but that's probably a slightly tangential discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You can do just as much damage, at the same speed, with the normal undo button. Twinkle and RedWarn help with warning users, but for just reverting the undo button is pretty fast.--Chuka Chief (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will enroll Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy to improve my anti-vandalism counter and when i graduated my session, i will use recent changes, twinkle and redwarn again -BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 17:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Update, i am going to bed now - BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 19:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would strongly suggest you voluntarily withdraw from reviewing or any other semi-admin type tasks. Right now, your grasp of the English language isn't bad, but it isn't sufficient to do these things. I'm afraid you will end up getting topic banned if you continue using automated tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I released my statement in my userpage, please visit to BA25's Userpage, thanks -BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 03:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, and I feel compelled to remind you that "vandalism", as defined by policy, is ONLY those edits which are are designed to damage the encyclopedia and it's accuracy. Well intentioned but wrong edits, sloppy edits, unsourced but plausible edits, none of that is "vandalism". Calling those unhelpful but well intentioned edits "vandalism" is itself disruptive. If you aren't 100% sure about an edit, it is better to do nothing. You've been warned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, @Dennis Brown:, this sounds like a strategy that might keep BeamAlexander25 active, if he wants to, but avoid overstepping! YamaPlos talk 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd agree with this, and in addition it looks like they've uninstalled Redwarn and haven't done any anti-vandalism edits since this ANI section was created, so I'm personally happy this is resolved for now without needing any formal administrator intervention, so long as they don't start again until/unless they graduate from WP:CVUA. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated unsourced edits

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

    Despite multiple warnings, reversion edit summaries (examples 1, 2 & 3) as well as personal pleas, Jeremykuhl refuses to acknowledge these issues on their talk page nor have they made any attempt at verifying their edits. Here, here and here are some examples of their most recent unsourced edits and I can happily provide more if needed. I'd greatly appreciate some admin intervention please. Robvanvee 08:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a bump in the hope that an admin takes a look. Robvanvee 13:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They've not responded or edited since before you ANI noticed them. I'm watching their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Deepfriedokra. Quite right, other than to remove my personal request from their talk page asking kindly for them to source their edits. I chose not to remove any of their unsourced additions until an admin had taken a look at the case so we shall see if they intentionally reinstate their unreferenced edits again. Thanks again! Robvanvee 07:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robvanvee: We equate removal with acknowledgement, though it may only indicate annoyed incomprehension. I think they have been sufficiently warned. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Many thanks again Deepfriedokra! Robvanvee 08:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war about Lawrence Kasdan

    Closing for now, nothing really to do. If edit warring continues, I recommend use of the block tool. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    (Original section title was: "Comprehensive additions to the Lawrence Kasdan article keep being undone, resulting in an undesired edit war")

    I added a substantial amount of new material to the article for Lawrence Kasdan in February 2020 (all of it meticulously sourced), and one particular user, Revan646, has now three times deleted all of my work to revert back to the old (and very sparse) version of the article. The only reason given was that I "ruined it" by making it too long and "filling this page up with unnecessary information." (The user has also insulted me personally, calling me "stupid" and "a troll.") I've communicated with Revan646 directly on their Talk page (politely), but we appear to be at a standstill. The back and forth prompted another user, Timaaa, to warn both of us about the consequences of engaging in an edit war, which I certainly have no desire to do. I posted this dispute to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and user Xavexgoem closed it—advising me to instead post it here, since "Conduct issues abound." I would like to see this dispute resolved peacefully, and see the hours of hard work to improve Kasdan's article re-implemented while adhering to all of Wikipedia's standards and protocols. Tgreiving (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are the diffs wrt to this dispute (note edit summaries): [32][33][34][35]. Also see [36]; it would be their 8th contrib. Content DR usually has conduct issues associated with it, but I don't think my rejecting this case was unreasonable. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tgreiving, I notice that you and Reyan656 both only have a handful of edits, as in 17 and 25 when I looked. I'm lost as to how you can get in an edit war when you have less than 10 total edits to mainspace between the both of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also have closed that thread at DRN as primarily conduct. In some cases the length of the insult in the edit summary was as long as the disputed content. I don't like Uncivil Edit Summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I may be misunderstanding, but my contribution (edits) to the article amounted to nearly 10,000 words of new content. Revan646 deleted the entirety of it out of hand for no reason other than that it was now "too long." It's true I haven't contributed much to Wikipedia outside of this article, but I'm not sure why that would be relevant in this dispute. Tgreiving (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, User:Tgreiving and User:Revan646 are both edit warring. Each of them is risking a block if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How would I get a consensus? I feel stuck in a stalemate with a user who fails to engage in a meaningful or substantive way. My contributions to the article have all been additive and constructive, and the "war" has simply been the other user deleting everything I added without explanation. Tgreiving (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The general way to go about getting a consensus is to have a discussion on the talk page. Right now, there are three comments from two editors about your edit. Reyan656 said the career section was too long (referring, I believe to your additions) and was going to restore it to what it was, and the other editor commente) that the longer version (your version) was better. On the de facto side, in the edit history of the article, you have two editors removing your edit (Reyan646 and one other) and you have Calton restoring it. Although I restored part of the article that you had removed -- the filmography -- I also accepted your edit as an improvement.
    Right now that puts things even-steven, with no consensus one way or the other, so go to the talk page and make an argument as to why you believe your edits improve the article, and see what kind of response you get to that. "Too long" is not a very valid reason to delete an entire edit, so Reyan646 will need to come up with a better argument to counter yours. Who knows, you may agree that your addition is fundamentally an improvement, but needs to be slimmed down a little. You'll never know until you start the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, this is minor edit warring arising from a content dispute and should probably be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    For the watchlist

    Per this report, Stefan Molyneux, Richard B. Spencer and David Duke have been banned from YouTube, and that typically leads to a flurry of non-neutral edits to a BLP. Guy (help!) 09:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I know this is WP:NOTFORUM, but I can't restrain myself. I must say, it's about time. Twitter, you're on notice when even YouTube bans someone. Get your act together. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 09:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All those articles are already sprotected (the first two by yours truly), so there's that. But I am prepared to temporarily upgrade to ECP, if the need arises. El_C 12:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, yup. And I just sprotected the talk page of Stefan Molyneux for a couple of days due to egregious trolling. Guy (help!) 20:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, I thought I had already indef sprotected Stefan Molyneux like I did with Richard B. Spencer. I suppose I can't invoke AP2 with him, though — his Canadian-ness compels me! El_C 21:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On closer look, it is under AP2 — Canadian-ness notwithstanding. I doubt that would fly if he was British, though. El_C 21:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not Canadian-ness, I assure you, this wretched soul is Irish and precisely the American Internet's problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, he's appeared on InfoWars and AmRen, so this is in scope I think. Guy (help!) 09:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Americanada, then! El_C 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Close enough! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, indeed - certainly within the realm of WP:BROADLY. Guy (help!) 10:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WOMANLY would be a less sexist way to put it. EEng 14:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SYNTH at River Vale, New Jersey

    A series of edits to the article for River Vale, New Jersey by User:201blm make a series of claims about the township's mayor. Previous versions were missing sources, but even with sources, the edits constitute clear violation of WP:SYNTH policy as an effort to claim that mayor Glen Jasionowski should have issued a statement about Black Lives Matter. The sourcing is predicated on the facts that 1) the community is largely white, 2) that he has taken a stance on a mascot issue at the local high school; and 3) that there were racist incidents at the high school several years ago, which are meant to show that the mayor should have made a statement about Black Lives Matter, but has not. All of these things may well be (and are) true and they all may have sources, but as I see it, the conclusion does not follow from the predicates and this makes all of this a rather blatant WP:SYNTH violation. See this edit, this second reinsertion and the latest version with some minor tweaks. Alansohn (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute, but I removed it. Someone not doing something isn't encyclopaedic. Plus the stuff about the schools should be on the school's article, of which there is one. Lastly it fails WP:LEAD. Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like pretty clear WP:SYNTH to me. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Marsha P Johnson vandalism

    Marsha P. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Escalating since this page is featured in a Google doodle today. Marsha P Johnson’s page is being repeatedly vandalised with NSFL images. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/965314802 Already semi protected. Sleeper vandal blocked. Do we want ECP? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Deepfriedokra, where's the fun in that? I love a game of whack-a-mole! Imagine, though, blowing an autoconfirmed sleeper on something that lame. Guy (help!) 17:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Two blown and now ECP by General Notability. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It set a personal best by no fewer than four individuals contacting me in RL to ask for its removal, and I still didn't get there in time Nosebagbear (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse by IPs

    A group of similar IPs has posted messages in talk-pages of articles in which I have contributed or discussed (possible WP:HOUNDING), which included derogatory content and private information about me. Part of the messages have therefore been oversighted.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop lying nothing is written derogatory and private information. Just read it. Why are you lying to the administrators? They should ban you for lying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.73.127 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @WEBDuB: There are oversighted revisions, though there's no way now to tell why they were oversighted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tezwoo (talk · contribs) has also made edits at Talk:Croatia that have been oversighted. Any chance he could be operating the IPs? User:GeneralNotability did the block of Tezwoo and they might have some advice on this situation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, I've actually unblocked Tezwoo per discussion with them - further investigation gave reasonable doubt about whether or not that IP was actually theirs. I can't see the oversighted material so no comment on what they may or may not have done. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits are oversighted due to some internal error because all those edits seem visible on the talk pages, on Talk:Croatia and Talk:Novak Djokovic [37], where I first noticed that. I would assume it's because the IP's did not sign their posts which created some strange bug after users tried to sign them. Tezwoo (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tezwoo has nothing to do with it, I'm sure that he is certainly not connected with the disturbing behavior of these IPs. I requested oversight because of derogatory content and private information about me. I have e-mails as proof of those requests and the oversight team's approval. This behavior continued after that, which can be seen in this section as well.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there were stranger accusations recently. Regarding the oversight, then there might have been an error during that action because all of the edits are still there on the talk page [38], even though the diffs can't be checked. Even a bot's edit was oversighted. Tezwoo (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Spshu undoing my edits

    107.77.189.0/24 range blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So Spshu has been reverting my edits on WLAJ, WILX-TV and WLNS-TV without explaining everything; they are disruptive, and even edit warred on other articles. Basically they should be blocked indefinitely for being not here to clear an encyclopedia. 107.77.189.39 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say the reversions generally did have justifications provided (where an identical reversion occurs to a prior one, and there was an initial reason provided, it can usually be assumed to have the same explanation). Their participation on WLAJ (and yours) appears to be a slow-speed edit war. In all three cases both of you should have taken it to the Talk Page to hash things out. They're inactive on WILX-TV in most of a month. I don't find either editors' behaviour formally sanctionable from the above but would normally suggest a trout to both (I see that has caused issue on Spshu's TP, however). Instead please both consider this a requirement to discuss each instance rather than recommence a slow-speed insert/revert. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it curious that the reporting IP had knowledge of conversations on the talk page of an indefinitely-blocked user (diff). A boomerang may be more useful here than a trout. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This feels a little bit like blocked user CentralTime301, who was active in the same areas and clashed with Spshu on more than one occasion. I tried to reach out to them back in January, to no avail. I'll be really dissapointed if they're still at this, six months on. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 19:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CT301 is globally locked from editing. 107.77.189.39 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP addresses are editing user talk pages, giving false warnings, and edit warring

    IP addresses 107.77.189.13 and 107.77.189.39 has been removing "nonsense" from user talk pages that they are not allowed to edit – 107.77.189.39 even falsely warned me on my talk page for "deleting or editing legitimate comments". I also think that they may be related IPs as they share a similar editing pattern.

    107.77.189.39 was also engaged in an edit war with User:Spshu, which the IP address then reported Spshu for, as can be seen in these diffs. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Attacks and aggression

    WARNED
    I have issued a DS alert for BLP and warned Indrian that further edit-warring over deadnames will lead to a block and potentially a ban. Guy (help!) 20:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I would like to report issues with User:Indrian. I initially planned on creating this page after our Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rebecca_Heineman DRN case had finished; however, I've decided to post it now so that it doesn't appear to be retaliation in the event the DRN doesn't turn out in my favor.

    Indrian has been reverting edits regarding Rebecca Heineman's deadname for approximately six years now. While googling around, I noticed what I considered an excessive amount of deadnaming on her article, and decided to remove it. While looking at the article's history, I noticed several people had attempted to do the same over the years, with all of them quickly reverted by Indrian. Fearing an edit war, I left this message on the talk page, pinging Indrian, and attempting to explain my edit in a way they might understand. After posting, I reached out to several people in real life and online to get their thoughts, and ended up making this edit, in an attempt to avoid an "us vs. them" mentality, as advised by a fediverse user. Several hours later, Indrian left this response, and reverted my changes. This message by Indrian accuses me of censorship, and suggests Rebecca edit her page if she wishes, despite her being unable to do so because of a lack of NPOV. Additionally, Indrian references the book 1984 at the end of the response. These are running themes with this page and Indrian, as they have accused another user on the talk page of pushing personal agendas and censorship. In a somewhat blunt response to Indrian, I opened the previously-mentioned DRN, as it seemed clear to me we could not come to a resolution on our own.

    Throughout the rest of the posts on the talk page, Indrian has continued to claim I am pushing a personal agenda of censorship, and has ridiculed me for opening a DRN request, which I believe is in violation of WP:AGF. Later in the thread, I somewhat-jokingly refer to Indrian as "Mr. Ministry of Truth", calling back to their previous reference to 1984. Indrian's most recent response (as of right now) claims this is a personal attack, which I find quite ridiculous.

    I believe this behavior of aggression, accusations, ridicule, and attacks is awful, and should not be allowed on Wikipedia, especially as Indrian has been doing this for at least six years now, beginning with their response to User:Girlsimulation on Talk:Rebecca_Heineman. This is no longer about the deadnaming of Rebecca, but Indrian's behavior and aggression. I am tired, and I am frustrated. I attempted to enter this discussion with an open mind and assumption of good faith, and in return I have been bullied and attacked by someone who sees everything as a grand Orwellian conspiracy by trans people. 3nk1namshub (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, what a mean-spirited personal attack! We are having a productive discussion at DRN regarding the current situation. I stand my my talk page response to User:Girlsimulation, which merely lays out policy as I interpret it. I also stand by my assertion that attempting to erase historical context is Orwellian. I see no grand conspiracy therein. I do see individual members of a community with no grand design or larger intent being overzealous in stamping out a practice that they rightly see as hateful when applied to judgement on self-identification choices but on Wikipedia is merely reporting biographical data necessary for historical context in accordance with current Wikipedia policy on alternate names and pronoun usage. To assert a privilege to erase history is, sadly, an invitation to practice an ugly form of bigotry just as insidious as trying to deny a person the right to self-identify on the gender spectrum. I have been on Wikipedia since 2004 and been involved in dozens of heated discussions on articles in that time. This is the first time I have been dragged in here. How very interesting. Bullying and attempting to silence dissent indeed! Indrian (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is not about our disagreement, but about your aggression and attacks. Please do not attempt to spin this as anything else, thank you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh there is really no need to spin anything. You have done perfectly fine laying out the obvious connections here without my help! Indrian (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indrian, you acknowledge that the birth name/deadname is mentioned excessively in the article and yet you revert every effort by any editor to reduce this excessive use of that name. I see that an IP tried in January to eliminate only two of the excessive mentions, and you reverted. So, due to your zeal, the article has had an ugly problem for six years. I recommend that you back down. If you won't, perhaps we ought to consider a topic ban for you from transgender people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. The January edit was actually quite appropriate and I knee-jerked it due to years of frustration putting up with far more militant attempts. I am all for going back to that version of the article. Indrian (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indrian, I do not think that you can be trusted to exercise good judgment on that article since you haven't for six years, and are being extremely aggressive when criticized legitimately. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have returned the naming situation to the state it was in as of Janaury 2020. It appears to me that it now has a good balance between providing proper historical context and respecting the right of self-identification. Indrian (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was still excessive so I have reduced it further. You should have waited until this discussion ended. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a DRN related to the content dispute. It was closed without resolution. The ANI was about my alleged aggression, not the content. Indrian (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indrian, do not keep trying to ram those excessive mentions back into the article without consensus. In my opinion, you are skating on thin ice. Let's hear what other editors think. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am okay with hearing what other editors think. I think it would be a good idea, however, if I stop talking about the Ministry of Truth and you and others stop with the equally charged deadnaming accusations. Providing proper attribution for her early work is not the same thing as trying to call out a prior name in an attempt to dredge up painful memories or question the legitimacy of a self-identification choice. Indrian (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This case has been closed at DRN. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Retaliatory AFD nominations

    Closing this as it has spiraled in some unhelpful ways. Cactus Jack, before posting a retired message, closed the retaliatory AfDs. They also should not have left an uncivil edit summary directed at another user as they left the project in anger. Further discussions about how we do, or should, apply NPOL can be held an appropriate forum. Any disagreement needing community input about two completely different editors, neither of whom seems to think there's something that needs intervention, would belong in a different place. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After arguing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamie Paul that my "interpretation" of WP:NPOL is incorrect, an editor tried to retaliate against my position by pointedly nominating several completely unrelated articles that I recently created about the annual iterations of a notable film award ceremony whose articles have actually been long overdue. Obviously film awards and political candidates have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and nominating stuff for deletion solely because you disagree with the creator of it on a completely unrelated matter is at the very least a WP:POINT violation and potentially even approaches harassment, but as a directly involved party it would be obviously inappropriate for me to either close the revenge nominations or sanction the editor myself.

    The discussions in question are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8th Jutra Awards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9th Jutra Awards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th Jutra Awards and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11th Jutra Awards — and both our article about the overall Prix Iris (name changed in 2016, so don't get confused by the Jutra-vs-Iris distinction) and the fact that every year's ceremony has an article on the French Wikipedia as well, plainly demonstrate their notability.

    Accordingly, I just wanted to ask if somebody could take a look at this situation, and potentially at least speedy close the revenge nominations if you consider that appropriate. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I stand by my comments and I will not recant them. Bearcat has been bludgeoning the AfD process on politician articles for years now, insisting that his interpretation of that guideline is the only correct one and that GNG is completely irrelevant, and filibustering anyone who disagrees. I apologize for the pointy nominations - that was petty and wrong. I accept the inevitable block - I recognize that I deserve it for my comments and pointy nominations. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I stand by everything I've said. I do not have any "personal interpretation" of NPOL that differs one iota from standing sitewide consensus about how NPOL works.
    As I've said before, every candidate in every election everywhere always gets some campaign coverage — so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to hand a candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to pass it at all anymore. Politicians are one of those groups of people who are highly prone to attempting to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform to try to promote their candidacies by posting campaign brochures here — but that's not our mandate or our role, so we have an established consensus that the key to getting a politician into Wikipedia on political grounds per se normally requires holding office and not just running for it. So political candidates don't just need to show the existence of some campaign coverage to exempt themselves from NPOL, precisely because every candidate would always be NPOL-exempt if NPOL worked that way — rather, candidates need to show that they escape WP:BLP1E by having coverage in more than just that context alone, and/or a reason why their candidacy would somehow pass the ten year test for enduring significance, before they get exempted from NPOL.
    And none of this is just my own personal opinion: all of it is established Wikipedia consensus, supported and upheld by literally thousands of past AFDs on politicians, many of which I did not even participate in at all. And, in fact, I used to also disagree with the established consensus, and supported articles about unelected candidates — I came around to agreeing with the consensus only after witnessing, with my own eyes, the effects that my former position actually had on the quality and reliability of Wikipedia, because articles about unelected candidates almost always devolve into advertorialized junk.
    But regardless of whether you agree with me on a politician or not, retaliatory nominations against topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with the notability standards for politicians is simply inappropriate. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the AfDs were inappropriate - I was wrong to do that, and I've attempted to speedy close them. However, since you're insisting on relitigating NPOL here, I'm going to post the same thing I just posted in the Madison Cawthorn AfD:
    Madison Cawthorn AfD comment
    • Comment - this is the full text of the WP:NPOL guideline:
      The following are presumed to be notable:
      * Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
      * Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
      Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.
    • Nowhere in here does it say that political candidates are required to meet NPOL. Nowhere in here does it say there is some extra special notability requirement above and beyond the GNG when determining whether coverage is sufficient to establish notability. Nowhere in here does it say that "sustained international" coverage is required. Nowhere in here does it say that the subject must still be of sustained public interest in 10 years.[a] And certainly nowhere does it say that the candidates must achieve Christine O'Donnell levels of coverage. NPOL is about categories of politicians presumed to be notable even if they don't meet GNG. It's not some extra hurdle that's required; it's an extra route to notability for politicians who fail GNG. If an editor repeatedly insists that their position on NPOL is the "community consensus", even when the actual text of the SNG contradicts them repeatedly, the onus is on them to prove it, not just repeat it over and over and over again.

    Notes

    1. ^ Actually, they often are to those who study American politics - that's a reason in itself. The general public doesn't care about all the tens of thousands of species of insects - many are only of interest to specialists. That doesn't mean we delete those articles.
    You don't get to just insist that your interpretation is the "correct one" when the text of the guideline flatly contradicts it. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 02:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    May I suggest that you quickly withdraw those nominations? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure of the procedure to do that, but I'll give it a try. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 02:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just strike out your argument for deletion and leave a note saying ‘nomination withdrawn’. Beaten to it. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank goodness that we have editors like Bearcat who help defend our longstanding consensus that unelected political candidates who have never held high office are rarely notable. This editor has done outstanding work helping keep campaign brochures masquerading as encyclopedia articles off of Wikipedia. Of course, if the candidate was previously a general or a professional athlete or a movie star, they are notable for those reasons. But the vast majority of local lawyers or business people running for Congress or Parliament are not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, because their coverage is routine, local, run of the mill, and predictable . Such candidates should be described briefly and neutrally in an article about the election campaign, with all candidates given comparable coverage. But the POV pushers and SPAs who try to write these articles do not want neutral coverage. They see a Wikipedia article focused on their candidate to be just another component of their campaign's social media portfolio. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Cullen328 is right about SPAs not wanting neutral coverage. This concern applies both to political candidates and to corporations. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to jump too deeply into this, but I should probably report CactusJack levied an incorrect accusation of a pointy nomination against Bearcat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Perceval-Maxwell and then rage-quit when I requested (retrospectively it was pretty firm, but I respect the editor) that the accusation be retracted. A block might be needed. (The edit summary was what brought me here more than anything, please note.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me as if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Perceval-Maxwell WAS a pointy nomination, given that both Dylan Perceval-Maxwell and Annamie Paul have significant detailed in-depth sources going back decades, on issues relating to their candidacies. Both are clear keeps ... and while CactusJack shouldn't be making retaliatory nominations - neither should Bearcat should make pointy ones. I'm also very concerned about Bearcat's insistence during and AFD debate that the SNG (in particular NPOL) trumps GNG, which seems to be consistent in some of their recent AFD nominations. Nfitz (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC) (more pointy than retaliatory) Nfitz (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, Nfitz, is everything okay? I've respected your work at NFOOTY AfDs but I've noticed some odd conduct recently and given your conduct on these two nominations, your request to have a clear copyvio restored at DRV, and your request of an AfD closer to reopen a clearly unanimous deletion discussion, I'm a bit worried about you - is everything okay? SportingFlyer T·C 08:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These two nominations both clearly and easily meet GNG. Here's the TLDR ... but thanks for the concern, I'm fine ...
    Extended content
    I wasn't aware of the extent of the copyvio when I first entered that DRV ... it wasn't mentioned in the AFD, and when I entered that debate, only part of it had been identified as a copyvio in the preceding comment; there was a clear lack of consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satheesh Menon as surely if only JLP (who is still topic banned from AFD creation) endorsed deletion, then any deletion is surely subject to WP:REFUND - I didn't push the issue after the copyvio's were reported in detail ... but that doesn't mean the close was good. I've been concerned about a couple of Fenix's closes ... in the case of Foysal, I think it could be improved. In the case of Ishan Pandita, there was procedural error in closing given the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishan Pandita (2nd nomination) which was no where near unanimous, and itself somewhat questionable ... when I looked at the amount of material published about him after the 2nd AFD it just seems to me that the 3rd AFD didn't do justice to the issue. Is there an issue with me ... well ... after 3.5 months at home in lockdown perhaps I'm getting a little stir crazy ... aren't we all? ... but I suspect that I just have a lot more time on my hands to dig deeper than I usually do :). Coincidentally, I was starting to have similar concerns about Bearcat, who I've seen generally being rational in the past at AFD - particularly on Canadian articles.
    Nfitz (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Two Concerns

    Speedy Keep !Votes

    There have recently been a lot of Speedy Keep !votes in AFDs that are neither SK2 or SK3 and simply mean "I don't like this AFD". There was at least one AFD that was recently closed with a very confused bad non-admin close of Speedy Keep, but that was reversed at DRV. Saying Speedy Keep when you mean Keep does not help. It confuses. Maybe we need a species of trout to eat the Speedy Keep arguments that are insect-like. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NPOL Restated

    User:CactusJack states that User:Bearcat's interpretation of political notability prevents improving the encyclopedia and should be ignored. That statement misunderstands the political notability criterion. Political notability is an ipso facto special notability for certain officeholders, and has been understood and agreed on for years. Individuals who do not meet it, including candidates, must be assessed by general notability. If you mean that a deletionist interpretation of general notability is harmful, say so. The issue isn't political notability, which is clear. It is general notability. There should be no disagreement about political notability. There are questions about general notability for candidates. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that @CactusJack:'s issue is that User:Bearcat has the following interpretation: Any candidate is going to have coverage and would easily meet general notability. To prevent Wikipedia from being filled up, we have to apply the `additional` criteria of political notability, and it is only when they would meet WP:NPOL that their article could be accepted.
    That is the opposite of what User:Robert McClenon is saying, ie that political notability and general notability act as 2 ways to reach notability. If one is met, then the person is notable. TimeEngineer (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Something that should remembered, is that even with significant coverage, a candidate (especially a failed candidate) would only notable only for one event, as per WP:BLP1E - so there should be no concerns with either the NPOL or GNG policies. In the two AFDs that Bearcat created recently, this is all moot, as both candidates have GNG coverage going back decades - and it's here that Bearcat is erroneously claiming that NPOL trumps GNG. While the candidates political career may otherwise not be notable, it's not surprising that the leadership election of a significant federal party attracts candidates with notable histories. Nfitz (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOL isn't the relevant policy. We frequently clean up non-notable politicians who fail NPOL, not because NPOL is exclusionary, but because they fail WP:NOT in some way - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROMO, maybe WP:BLP1E, I think there may be one I'm forgetting. Almost every politician, even very local politicians, will pass GNG, meaning we hold them to a higher standard at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 17:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SportingFlyer, indeed, and we normally fudge this by having minor candidates in a collected list of candidates for election X, and only having standalone articles for winning candidates for major office, or people who are independently notable. Guy (help!) 10:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a wider discussion on GNGs and SNGs at WT:N. ANI isn't really the place to hash out what is 'erroneous'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Original concern

    • I did not expect this thread to get hijacked, but I would still like an admin to review this edit. SportingFlyer T·C 17:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wasn’t it just a couple of weeks ago that CactusJack scrambled his password and quit Wikipedia? Maybe he needs a proper break this time. P-K3 (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • With 3 years since their rehabilitation and no blocks, I don't see an imminent concern with CJ ... the pointy AFDs have been withdrawn, and the foul language remains the issue. Let's not chase away an editor when perhaps they are at their most vulnerable. If we go that direction there'd also be boomerang potential, given Bearcat's pointy AFD, incivility, and unusual insistence that SNG trumps decades of GNG coverage. Everyone just needs to calm down. Nfitz (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The foul language isn't the issue, it's the personal attack they levied on the way out. Bearcat's AfD was NOT pointy, and it would benefit ALL of us if you would retract those statements as well. I also do not appreciate you hijacking this request. Please refrain from interacting with me. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bearcat brought here a complaint about a user not being civil and creating pointy AFDs, You then raised the situation escalating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamie Paul. As I'd already separately complained to Bearcat about their civility and pointy AFDs, when I saw this ANI discussion, I don't see how I had any option other than raising the issue, as a potential boomerang. The AFD was most certainly pointy ... as there was not time in 16 minutes after a different user highlighted it as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for Bearcat to read the post, do a proper BEFORE, and complete the AFD nomination. Not surprisingly when one fails to BEFORE, there is 20-years of GNG coverage, not just the recent leadership run. Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction Ban?

    Proposal for an interaction ban between User:Nfitz and User:SportingFlyer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How about we try playing nice first ... after almost 15 years of editing in similar AFDs, we've seldom ever disagreed much, never-mind approached the level of needing an intervention! The only User page interaction I can find ever was all very civil at User talk:Nfitz#Foysal Ahmed Fahim. The current disagreement is very minor, very specific, and I didn't even think very serious. I don't think we need interaction bans for every little thing. Nfitz (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I wanted an interaction ban, I would have specifically requested one. This section only further serves to take away my request for administrator to look into the diff I asked for review and I suggest it be closed immediately. SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems a bit premature? Guy (help!) 10:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    White supremacist activism in edit history of Allama123

    Allama123 registered his username in 2012, performed a few chemistry topic edits, then disappeared for eight years. Returning in 2020, Allama123's flurry of activity has a very different flavor, with nearly every edit an attempt to skew Wikipedia into the direction of white supremacism:

    1. At the Tucker Carlson (Fox News, etc.) biography, he changed "white supremacist" to "white identitarian" and diminished the respect for Vox, GQ and Media Matters.
    2. Allama123 added a sympathetic interpretation to Ku Klux Klansmen fighting a Black man in a parking garage.[39]
    3. At the biography of alt-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, Allama123 sympathetically reworded things to remove the idea of conspiracy from white genocide, turning it from a conspiracy theory into an actual white genocide. This was done using primary source tweets, deleting secondary source analysis from mainstream papers.
    4. Allama123 removed conspiracy from the biography of hate speech fomenter Gemma O'Doherty.
    5. Allama123 added another reference to the article on lynching, to help support the idea that Black men are not the only ones lynched in the US. The cited source from 1910 was reporting satisfying peace in Tampa following a lynching of two Italians (thus normalizing lynching.)
    6. At the biography of Black activist and rapper Raz Simone, Allama123 added one nationalfile.com right-wing batshit crazy source calling Simone a warlord.
    7. At the biography of Black Lives Matter founder Patrice Cullors, Allama123 added the label "Marxist" without context, to be used as leverage for political attacks. Marxism has three meanings, making it a very loaded word in a biography. Note that the cited source is a Cullors quote taken out of context, and that no third party observers have analyzed Cullors' political stance to determine which of the three Marxism meanings is at play.

    Given this pattern showing the defense of white supremacist racists, and the attack on anti-racist Black activists, I propose that Allama123 be topic banned from American politics. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The marxist label is entirely appropriate. She self-described and it was published in a reputable source. But the rest is block worthy. I'll take care of it.--v/r - TP 04:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I gotta say this is not super compelling. The Gemma O'Doherty edit is probably correct actually, no idea why you reverted that one. The Raz Simone still has the warlord stuff, not a great source they added but seems like a content issue. Finally for the marxism stuff, they are self identified. If you feel more context is needed you are free to add it but it does not seem contriversial. A lot of this seems like a content dispute and you calling another editor racist. PackMecEng (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Black Kite: They may well be a conspiracy theorist, that is not the problem. The problem is that a single opinion article was the source used to make that statement. I could not care less if they are one or not. I do care that we follow proper sourcing and BLP policy to do so. PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PackMecEng: Yes, but it wasn't making the statement in Wikipedia's voice. It was, quite correctly, framed as an opinion by that journalist - who is incidentally a high-profile author who has written about scandals in Irish life, not just some random staffer - see Michael Clifford (journalist). And there are many other reliable sources in the article for her conspiracy theorism. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then those can be used. A singular opinion article even from someone noted in the field is rarely good enough to apply a contentious label. You know that. Now if they reverted and added some of the sources you suggest that would be fine. As it sits, it is clearly not fine. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree with the NAC here. The user is disputing the block, and an editor here (PackMecEng) has also questioned the block. I agree; this seems like WP:CRYRACIST more than anything. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 05:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The user was warned in Feb 2020 and again recently about the AP2 topic area and DS in that per the talk page. The edit warring behavior today, and only taking to the talk page for the first time in their editing history after doing 2 back-and-forths is a bit troubling in terms of having been warned about this. I do worry about the CRYRACIST aspect but the block is good without taking any other factors into account. --Masem (t) 05:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that I left the edit window open for a time period, and did not notice the subsequent edit by PackMecEng. Given it appears the issue / discussion may not be resolved, I have reversed the closure. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to me we can go with one of three approaches here: WP:ROPE, a topic ban, or a block because this looks like a sleeper. For me, the choice would be governed by whether there are overtly racist edits. Guy (help!) 09:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks to me that #4 was a good edit per WP:RSOPINION and #7 was a good edit per the self-identification (I forget what shortcut that is). The rest are not meeting sourcing policy (e.g. WP:BLPRS) and have POV issues. However, I'm not seeing where this was discussed with the user, or where the user was warned, prior to being blocked. Seems like those are two important steps that were skipped here. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to try to save every racist account with 38 edits. Registering accounts is cheap and easy to do and this project would spend all it's energy trying to rehabilitate racists and trolls if we did that. WP:DFTT.--v/r - TP 19:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody's asking you to save or rehabilitate. Maybe template, because WP:AGF. Let's say an admin faces this exact situation 10 times. Option A: admin blocks. Option B: admin templates first, then blocks on the next offending edit (if any). And let's say the admin's "gut" is right 90% of the time, and 9 out of 10 of those times, the editor is a troll, and 1 out of 10, it's a good faith editor who made a mistake. Under option A, we lose the good faith editor. Under option B, we gain a good faith editor at the cost of 9 bad edits. I'll take one editor for 9 bad edits any day of the week. Let's say this happens not 10 times but 100 times, and the admin is right not 90% but 99% of the time. I'll still take one good editor for 99 bad edits. It's very cheap to warn first, and it pays huge dividends if we gain a whole, entire new good-faith editor, at the cost of a few bad edits. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 22:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Bad edits do have a cost, of course—someone has to deal with them. And over time, we lose good editors because they get burnt out by large volumes of unchecked tendentious editing, POV-pushing, and nth chances provided because someone on AN/I wanted to look magnanimous at no cost to themselves. A high tolerance for trolling/bad editing is cheap only if you attach little or no value to the time and goodwill of our constructive contributor base. No comment on what should happen to this particular editor; I just dispute the framing that giving "rope" to trolls is "cheap". MastCell Talk 22:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't believe that any established editor has ever been driven off the project because of an edit made by an account with 38 edits in between being warned and being blocked. When established editors are driven off the project, it's because of the actions of other established editors. I think if this editor had been warned before being blocked, the risk that this editor would have driven off any other editor is 0%. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If you ever become an admin it will be a misfortune for the project, and if you get on Arbcom it will be a catastrophe. Insight and expressiveness like yours should roam free and unfettered. EEng 02:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      On that note, I'm driving off into the sunset and hopefully through the invisible fence that binds us. There may be a cacophony, some carnage, a coyote. EEng, this is not your fault. You hear me?!? Levi, don't you cry-ee-eye tonight! MastCell, you're alright. Alamma123, "white identitarian" is the worst phrase I've ever seen put to paper, even online. Just on a word level, nothing racist, but the worst I've seen regardless. Either you be sentenced to adminship, or I keep on driving! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed glad to hear that something's not my fault (for once) but I have no idea what you're talking about. EEng 09:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      As an established editor seeking freedom from unpaid writing work, I thought I'd see if the outrage provided by a single edit from a fresh account could power my crazy train on through to the other side. But Levi was right, there was nothing, 0%. So yeah, he's wise enough to rule us all, but undeserving of such a tedious responsibility. We could make Alamma123 an admin instead, and let someone else choose his fate. Admins get enough grief for deciding matters around here, not exactly cool, to the admins or the people who already vouched for their competency in RfAs. But enough of this sidetrack, I yield the floor back to the racial debate. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MastCell, agreed, but I am not sure this is a troll, necessarily. Most of the edits seem decent, if perhaps lacking robust sourcing. Guy (help!) 09:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The pattern is there to see plainly. Example number 1 is a terrible start to the mess. "White identitarian" indeed. And the writers at GQ are not collectively activists. Most of Alamma123's edits are attempts to soften the criticism of white supremacism, or to uphold its conspiracy beliefs, or to throw shade on those who oppose white supremacism. That's why I took the serious step of bringing my observations here. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Binksternet, yup, that's a shit edit alreight. Guy (help!) 14:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at all 38 edits and I disagree with "most". I think a few are bad, about 5-10, the worst listed above, but the rest are fine. Look, if an article says that the article subject "is a Fooian", and I think that violates NPOV based on the sources, and I change it to "is considered by some to be a Fooian", then I am, in fact, "attempting to soften" the statement, but that doesn't mean that I am "upholding Fooianism" or "throwing shade on those who oppose Fooianism". It just might mean I don't think the sources support "is a Fooian" in wikivoice. It doesn't mean I believe in Fooianism or that Fooianism is OK. So, same for white supremacy. an editor who "softens" an accusation of white supremacy in an article is not necessarily supporting white supremacism or minimizing it or anything like that. NPOV applies to white supremacists, too. I still think #1 was a bad edit, I just don't think the editor who made that edit is supporting white supremacy or anything like that. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a comparison case: Fielding L. Wright was a famous American racist. Our article on him went through GA and DYK before anybody noticed that it really didn't cover his racist views in accordance with WP:DUE. This was because the primary contributor to the article was working off a set of sources that, themselves, provided incomplete coverage. The issue was raised, discussed, more sources brought forward, edits made, and the problem fixed. Nobody at any point accused anyone of supporting racism or segregation or white supremacy; nobody was blocked or warned; nobody "cried racist"; we didn't lose any editors; it just didn't come up. It doesn't have to come up. It doesn't have to be the case that everyone who makes a "bad edit" is a bad editor. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-reporting

    otherwise I am sure someone will do it today. {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} has been taken to TfD two years ago and deleted (converted to a wrapper), against my objections Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 3#Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality. A month ago I discovered that the new version imports unsourced and presumably wrong data from Wikidata (presumably because {{Infobox Settlement}} does it) and this data is shown on the English Wikipedia unless overwritten per article. I have opened a topic at WP:VP/P (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 158#Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality, Wikidata, and verifiability) and the suggestion which came out was to go to Wikipedia talk:Wikidata. I did that, Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality and import of bad data, and as a result RexSS opened a topic at the talk page of a template. There was very little participation, with two users plus me stating this is a problem and nobody opposed. The topic has been open for 3 weeks, with no new reactions for 2 weeks, and today I reverted the template back to pre-TfD state. Whereas this clearly goes against the TfD consensus, and whereas I am clearly involved, I do not see how these two factors could be above WP:V, which is one of the cornerstones of our project. I do not quite see what else I could have done to have WP:V enforced. In principle, this (import of unsourced or sourced to Wikipedia fields of the template from Wikidata) is the general problem of {{Infobox Settlement}} and probably needs to be fixed (after which my edits can be rolled back), but I do not see how I can have it fixed without risking my mental and physical health.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ymblanter, annoying: technical purity versus factual accuracy. I think factual accuracy should win. Guy (help!) 09:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see it, the consensus at this 2020 discussion overrides the consensus at this 2018 discussion. Nothing unusual about that, it happens all the time (WP:CCC). Thank you for implementing the 2020 consensus. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The sad thing is that it's perfectly possible to create an infobox that only pulls sourced information from Wikidata, but the editors converting the infobox chose not to do so, leaving it liable to breach WP:V and clearly contradicting the consensus found at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC #Discussion: "if Wikipedia wants to use data from Wikidata, there needs to be clear assurances on the reliability of this data.". --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What happedned is exactly and precisely what I said at the TfD. My argument was that I was (and still am) user working with these templates, other users retired or went inactive. I knew what the old template was doing, and I know it was working fine. And I do not now how the new template works. A bunch of users voted citing uniformity (which is not even a Wikipedia policy) and converted the template to something I have no idea about. Then they went to some other business, and I was left with a non-working template in about five thousands articles which nobody but me is maintaining. The first version of a converted template was showing wrong maps for about half a year, and I stopped adding it to new articles. And now we finally see that it was not a good idea, but I am sure at some point it will be taken to TfD again, and I will be again left with a bunch technical issues imposed on me in the name of uniformity.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Theknightswhosay

    As their recent edits on Stefan Molyneux show, despite warnings, User:Theknightswhosay is WP:NOTHERE and merits a quick block for repeatedly vandalizing a protected article. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandals are the people who describe someone with no white nationalist content as a white nationalist and who think the Independent is an unbiased factual news sourceTheknightswhosay (talk)

    I am not sure about NOTHERE, but if the user continues reverting reliably sourced material, a block would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: They are continuing to edit war with Greyfell and just wrote this uncivil comment on their talk page: I know most editors on this page are partisan hacks who want to smear anyone with whom they disagree. If they were ever here in the past to build an encyclopedia, they clearly no longer are. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 08:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked for 72h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per "took out lies" and Vandals are the people who describe someone with no white nationalist content as a white nationalist and who think the Independent is an unbiased factual news source, this user repudiates WP:RS and is WP:NOTHERE other than to WP:RGW. changing "In June 2020, Molyneux was banned from YouTube for hate speech" to "for being to the right of Chairman Mao" is unacceptable. Guy (help!) 09:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit from Safehaven86 (talk · contribs)looks interesting as well, might be worth a CU's time to check that edit! Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 14:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AboriginsDude

    Any admins from meta or incubator here? I would like to report User:AboriginsDude for vandalizing my user talk page on incubator. We have reported this on meta and incubator community portals but we have not received any response from the admins there. Also, what I know is that this user is already blocked here in en.wiki. Seems like this user is a sock of User:My Royal Young based from the vandal's behavior. -WayKurat (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @WayKurat: you may want to try stewards.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: User:Þjarkur already posted a report there but there still no action. The vandal keeps on posting a picture of Osama Bin Laden on our user page and trolls us whenever we revert them. -WayKurat (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:111.125.119.6

    Hi. I would like to seek assistance for any administrator to block the user talk page edit rights of this IP address. This IP was blocked last Monday for three months but the vandal keeps on editing their user talk page and even posting Filipino profanities there (see here). I have posted this to AIV before but my request is being automatically removed by the cleanup bot. Thanks in advance. -WayKurat (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Official Varun Dhiman

    BLOCKED
    Official Blocked Spammer. Guy (help!) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Seems like a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE; they've now recreated a personal page for themselves for the third time after being speedily deleted twice already (I have since re-tagged it). Their only other non-deleted edits was to replace an existing article with the same copy of their desired user page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I just indeffed them. Page hijacking for self promotion, using pages to promote themselves. Not here. And gone. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Multiple issues: discretionary sanctions, COVID, other

    Articles

    Hydroxychloroquine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Hinokitiol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ionophore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Chloroquine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Zinc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Iron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Iron deficiency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Adding Zinc oxide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors

    Georgedouglas123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Mandem123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Mr.MAGC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Notices

    COI query from HaeB: [40]
    Response (concerning) from Georgedouglas123: [41]
    Notice from me pointing towards discretionary sanctions [42] and personal attacks in edit summaries: [43] [44]

    And, reverts continue: [45] [46] [47] [48], those are samples only, there are more.

    Looks like commercial interests and potential coordinated editing, and breach of COVID discretionary sanctions after notification. NOTHERE. I will next notify the three editors linked above, and @DePiep: who is reverted multiple times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I indeffed the first two per WP:NOTHERE (and being likely socks of each other) and protected Zinc. The third one mainly edited in their sandbox, and I do not see them participating in the edit-warring together with the other two. Probably somebody understanding what they are trying to say should have a look at their edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted to WT:MED, so hopefully the pharm people will be on it soon. Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO these edits are particularly concerning [49] [50]. It's one thing to add promotional nonsense about the wonders hinokitiol to the hinokitiol article [51] [52], it's another to add it it to other broad articles. Both also seem to be a clear attempt to promote the specific "patented" or patent pending DrZinx by Advanced Nanotek and AstiVita, similar to this [53] from the blocked editor. Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec, saw the blocks) To me, the insertion of the very same textblock (i.e., c/p) having multiple sections in the articles looks troublesome. In most of these places, I objected for WP:UNDUE and such reasons. Also, all fresh new editor Mandem123456's contributions contributions show the same editing, and might qualify for a WP:SOCK check. -DePiep (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Remedies by Ymblanter look fine. I consider done, but for new info turning up (WP:MED?). -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If a pharm person can get to this, they might also examine these edits; not my field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I pending changes protected Iron deficiency in response to an unsourced and dubious claim. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    2601:8B:C300:4A70:5D09:1427:2C4C:4D51

    IP (possibly range too, as the range is currently blocked...) seems to need a TPA revoke. See their recent edit history on User talk:2601:8B:C300:4A70:5D09:1427:2C4C:4D51. Also, with all of this vandalism/disruptive editing, I think a longer block than just 2 weeks may be necessary... Magitroopa (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Much easier to req page protection yourself. Try WP:DENY Unbroken Chain (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Their vandalism on their own talk page while blocked is quite extensive, and vandalism on other articles prior to block (and on previous IPs in the range) are extensive as well. I'd definitely say a longer block (possibly indef) and TPA revoke is needed. Magitroopa (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, you still didn't answer why a simple WP:RPP wouldn't solve this? No admin in their right mind is going to indef an IP. Unbroken Chain (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP vandalised my talk page (if this is any relevent to this discussion) [54] P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is almost no problem with indefing an IPv6. The chances are better that the vandal gets hit by lightning three times in the same year that that of their IPv6 being allocated to another user. --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RexxS: Slight nuance there that those chances are better for now. There's no guarantee that they will be ad infinitum; indeed, it's likely that in the coming years-to-decades the IPv6 available address range will narrow fairly significantly, as potentially billions more connected devices get IPv6 addresses. Not that I'm suggesting that indefs of IPv6 addresses are a bad idea as a whole, just I think we should be wary about putting ourselves in a position of having lots of IPv6 indefs, because sooner or later, they will start to be reused more frequently. "Not as wary as IPv4" isn't necessarily the same as "block the same way as a user account", I guess is the gist. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Naypta: If you do the maths, you'll find that the IPv6 range won't narrow significantly before the heat death of the universe. A few billion more devices won't make the slightest dent in the 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 blocks of /64 ranges available. I could indef one /64 range per second for the next hundred years without blocking even 0.00000002% of the available /64 ranges. In other words, there are a lot more IPv6s that you might think. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RexxS: I could indef one /64 range per second for the next hundred years without blocking even 0.00000002% of the available /64 ranges - is that a threat? That notwithstanding, I agree that it seems unlikely, but we probably would have said the same thing about IPv4 (more than 4 billion addresses! how will we ever run out?) - I'm not saying it's a certainty by any means, but it's something to bear in mind Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RexxS and Naypta: That is emphatically not correct. It is only correct when IPv6 privacy extensions are enabled; often, however, the last 64 bits are deterministic based on the MAC address. The first 64 bits are in fact often statically assigned. Also, Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses very clearly states that IP addresses, categorically, should never be indefinitely blocked. I ask that you respect that consensus-supported version, and if you disagree, open an RfC to change this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Jasper Deng's word of caution above. IPv6 addresses are not necessarily assigned randomly—external factors, depending on the ISP, may still result in collateral damage. It remains against common practice to block IP addresses indefinitely, even when it is a /64 IPv6 address range, and I would strongly advise administrators not to deviate from this practice without prior consensus. Mz7 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Jasper Deng: it definitely is correct. First, IPv6s are normally allocated in blocks of /64 to the same connection. Secondly, it is demonstrably true that the last 64 bits are not determined by the MAC address, since you can now see the contributions of any /64 block and observe how they change over time, while the same user is obviously editing; whereas MAC addresses are fixed. Third, it doesn't matter whether the first 64 bits are static or dynamic as there are so many of them, the chances of reuse are close to zero. Finally, I know what WP:IPBLENGTH says and I know how out-of-date it is, and I'm sure you do too. I have no desire to block any IPv6s indefinitely, so I find no need to waste time on arguing about changing the policy. I guess somebody who gives a damn will do that sooner or later. Or not. I'm only having a bit of fun pointing out the silliness of treating IPv6s as if they were IPv4s. --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RexxS: No. IPv6_address#Stateless_address_autoconfiguration clearly states otherwise. The only reason why it might seem that they are random in practice is privacy extensions but we have no way of telling for any given case. None. And the chances of reuse depend on the address assignment method; it is very conceivable that some DHCPv6 servers assign /64 prefixes sequentially. In any case, this "random" behavior is not observed for addresses assigned directly by DHCPv6 or static addresses. A clear example is furnished by Special:Contribs/2600:387:5:800:0:0:0:0/60, where the addresses are clearly allocated either sequentially or otherwise in such a way that only the last byte of the address really gets varied.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking from the perspective of a CheckUser, I have certainly checked IPv6 ranges as narrow as a /64 on which there were a multitude of unrelated users sharing the range—there are some Internet service providers out there that simply allocate their address space in this way, especially in countries with highly dynamic addressing like the UK. While I am willing to concede that there are some situations where what you are saying may be true, we should be cautious about forming generalizations, and I don't fault Jasper for advising caution. Mz7 (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be very unusual for /64 to hold multiple users, but I concede it could happen. Indeed, if an IP had an IPv6 /64 block allocation comparable to the number of their customers, then the randomness would disappear. Given the cheapness of IPv6s, I find that a very unlikely scenario in the current circumstances, but I concede it's not impossible. It's also true that the bundling of groups of addresses to simplify routing reduces the randomness, but again there really are so many possible /64 blocks, that the chances of reuse of an IPv6 remain minute. I agree fully that we should always err on the side of caution, but I maintain that the degree of caution required to minimise issues when blocking IPv6s is nothing like that needed when blocking IPv4s. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Concubinage in Islam/Slavery in Islam

    I don't know anything about the subject and I'm not interested in it. The revision history was a shit show of reverts (edit warring) and moves until CambridgeBayWeather WP:MOVP'd the page. I hope that interested administrators and editors could take a look at the page and see if they can resolve the dispute. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 20:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP repeatedly leaving unwanted message on my talk page.

    I asked 90.226.9.16 to stop leaving messages on my talk page after it became clear that a discussion we were having was going in circles. I first asked the user to stop on June 16th. The user left me two more messages on the 17th. I asked again, and the user left another message on the 20th. I cleared out my user talk page the same day following the advice from help desk, but on July 1st the user left yet another message. Furthermore it seems like the user was trying to pit me against another user by vandalising chopsticks. I asked for my talk page to be semi-protected, but apparently that is not allowed for my case. I just want to stop receiving any further useless notification from the user. How hard does it have to be???? --Yel D'ohan (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That IP address used to belong to the blocked user, BjörnBergman. Frankly, it seems there's a good chance it's still that same person, evading their block. I base this on the continued focus on longevity articles, such as this (and other) edits to Jiroemon Kimura, made in June, and this edit to List of the oldest people by country made in March. The account is probably too old for an SPI, though, and I'll note that the IP isn't focusing exclusively on longevity articles. Nevertheless, I suggest a block for the behaviour raised above, and making it an extended block given the likelihood that this is a blocked user returning to cause trouble. --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As the IP repeatedly posted after being asked not to, I've blocked them for a week for WP:Harassment. If the behaviour recurs after that, I'll make a longer block on notification. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a delight to realize how long since there's been any real longevity-related trouble. Remember what things used to be like? EEng 09:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you hassling EEng about an unrelated matter at an ANI thread about IP disruption at longevity articles? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    37.130.126.241

    (non-admin closure) Talk page access revoked, block extended. Darkknight2149 19:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can someone revoke this IP's TPA? Adam9007 (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    TPG violation

    (non-admin closure) Fixed, per Dennis Brown. Darkknight2149 20:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    We have an IP 107.77.213.157 here with a penchant, somewhat, for violating talk page guidelines and treating them as a forum. Examples include this, blanking their talk page, or here. A review of their recent history would indicate they appear to have a history of trolling, refer to this and this. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Over-zealous vandal fighter: need eyes on their edits

    We have a new vandal fighter, Imgoodcop (talk · contribs), who has been extremely prolific, extremely inaccurate, and extremely scattershot in his vandal-fighting. False reverts of vandalism and incomplete reverts abound, as I have found by going through quite a few of their edits. Examples are this, this, and this. Could people keep an eye on their contributions and intervene if necessary? I can't really do this myself because the user seems to be in an incompatible time zone (I've barely been able to keep up with their edits as it is). Graham87 14:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also pinging Incagnito and AviationFreak, who have dealt with this user. I think I've recently noticed another user behaving similarly ... however, I can't find their username by searching my contribs and I have no idea what became of them. Graham87 14:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this user has made some significant mistakes, not adhering to WP:AGF and often being "scattershot" in their edits & reverts. I think some significant notice and warning would be of use here. This user often reverts edits that needn't be reverted and are done in good faith with the intention of making Wikipedia a more informative and accurate source. I think a good example of this behavior is here. AviationFreak💬 14:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just done a few spot checks on their reverting, and it did not take long to find numerous examples of problematic reverting. This is made worse by the fact that they almost never use edit summaries. I see that you have already approach them about this - I'll warn them to slow down. They don't appear to have edited in about 12 hours, so presumably have been offline since you raised this, but if they persist with this please let me know. GirthSummit (blether) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Graham87, well I gave my 2 cents of their talk page. Let's see. If it proceeds I think we can assume that they either don't comprehend or don't care. Either way further action will be required. We'll find out soon enough! Glen 15:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • <250 edits and many false positives. I suggest a 0RR restriction for 6 months. Guy (help!) 00:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NPOV problem over at Core Issues Trust and WP:3RR Violation by User:92.2.40.111

    (non-admin closure) Blocked by GeneralNotability. Darkknight2149 19:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm currently enrolled in the CUVA program and am now in the Tools part of the program to learn more about recent changes patrolling. I came across 92.2.40.111 (talk · contribs)'s edits on Core Trust Issues and saw that it violated WP:NPOV. I had asked the user to change the phrasing of the term to a neutral one instead of forcing a phrase that goes against WP:NPOV. Instead of complying, the user has accused me of defending whatever Core stands for, the user is likewise stubborn as seen by the user saying that it will keep editing the page over and over again. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @Tarheel95: as the user has also discussed the matter with the IP User.

    IP User here. The problem I had in the first place has now been resolved. The term 'issue' should not be used in sensitive topics such as this. Therefore, I have changed it to topic now and consider this problem closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.40.111 (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @92.2.40.111: I'm glad that you came around, I would consider the matter closed too because you've resolved the WP:NPOV issue. But there's still the matter of the 3RR. You were actively engaged in edit-warring, I didn't revert you the last time around precisely because that was a violation of edit warring. The 3RR matter you still have to face though, very sorry to say. Gardo Versace (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't came around. Ban me from editing, I don't care. This has just proven there are much more reliable sources of information than WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.40.111 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can speak to the validity of both issues regarding repeated ignorance of the policy at WP:NPOV as well as violation of the Three revert rule. User does not seem to acknowledge the NPOV conflict and has engaged in repeated reversions to biased content even when alerted to the policy violations dicussed above and on user's talkpage. Tarheel95 (Talk) 16:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that I also issued an 'only warning' to this editor, over a personal attack towards another editor shown here. It looks like other editors have subsequently issued a significant amount of warnings for violating NPOV. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia in my view. Best, Darren-M talk 17:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor is NOTHERE as far as I'm concerned. Page protected, IP blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor lies and removes my edit on talk-page

    I have indeffed for WP:DE. A convincing unblock appeal may be considered, of course. El_C 13:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I asked Kurdiyate352 to explain why they removed census information on Tuz Khormato and the explanation was that the info could not be found. That is a blatant lie and they also mischaracterize the content of the book which makes it clear that they have not read it. Moreover, when I asked for clarification on the talkpage, the editor removed my edit.[55]. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There's certainly merit to this. The source is subtitled "Politics, Travel and Research in North-Eastern Iraq, 1919-1925" but it nevertheless does reference the 1947 census multiple times, which Kurdiyate352 keeps removing. I also noticed that Kurdiyate352 linked to offsite attacks of Semsûrî and immediately afterwards left a Kurdish tea WikiLove message at their Talk page which comes across as very passive aggressive. Woodroar (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurdiyate352's linking to offsite twitter personal attacks is a disturbing practice.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As you have stated, the 1947 census is referenced in the book. Kurdiyate352 first claimed that there was no census done in 1947[56] and after proving them wrong, claimed that the census was not mentioned in the book. I frankly don't have time to argue with someone who blatantly lies to push for their POV and their removal of info on Tuz Khurmatu should be readded. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the sourced statement, but I added it to the History section where it seems more appropriate. Woodroar (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruption continues on both the main page and the talkpage[57][58]. Also, they seem to have breached the 3RR rule which should also be taken into consideration. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This seals the deal for me. Wikipedia:NOTHERE.[59] --Semsûrî (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor vandalises pages with ethnic propaganda

    Semsûrî has been vandalising pages about Assyrian history, removing thousands of characters and pages of history, replacing it with Kurdish propaganda. I have asked to stop and tried to revert the edits but they do not listen. Ahmedo Semsuri adds fake statistics and propaganda to claim Assyrian-majority areas and Turkmen-majority areas in Iraq as Kurdish (which they are not). --Kurdiyate352 (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A cursory look through Semsûrî's contributions don't show any of that. You should supply DIFFs of any wrongdoing, otherwise this is a groundless personal attack. Woodroar (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. El_C 13:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Why is this ok?

    Dear $DEITY. I have indeffed for now, because it seems like the kindest thing. Guy (help!) 10:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    OP says they're going to stop. Let's take their word for it. If behavior resumes, open an ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    STALE
    Not timely. You can discuss this, presumably, at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost. Guy (help!) 00:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I'm really not gonna bother much with markup here. Sorry, I'm too tired to care. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour&diff=885668498&oldid=885667368

    This is over a year old, but it still has unanswered relevant questions.

    Why was this ever published in the first place?

    Why was it blanked, but not nuked?

    Why were there no punishments for the editors who published it, or the editor of The Signpost who allowed it? Surely it constitutes a personal attack on every single trans editor here. If I were to go onto any cis person's page here and start talking about how I hate cis people and think they're subhuman """SJWs""", I would get a block.

    What is Wikipedia doing to ensure that content like this never makes it to The Signpost again?

    What is Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia Foundation) doing to challenge the environment they created, that clearly encourages and condones transphobia? An environment where "don't treat trans people like subhumans" is seen as censorship?

    Apologies if this isn't the right place, but I have no idea where else to post this.

    Wikipedia clearly has a problem with transphobia, and nothing is being done about it. Why? Is everything okay if I call it "comedy"? Hurt is hurt, abuse is abuse. It doesn't matter if you find it funny, being a shithead is still being a shithead.

    3nk1namshub (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, apologies for not being more "well-spoken". I have no energy and I just can't bring myself to care anymore. I've only been paying attention here for about a week and it's clear the transphobia issue here is terrible. Y'all claim you want a more diverse editing population, but do nothing to foster an environment that allows that.

    You have created the world's biggest repository of information. It is your responsibility to make sure people are safe here. 3nk1namshub (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the deletion debate: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour Fences&Windows 23:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be blunt, I don't care. As I said, you have fostered an environment of transphobia. Of course it isn't gonna get deleted if you take a vote, the people here are biased whether they admit it or not. It should never have been published, and that alone should be enough of a case for a nuking. 3nk1namshub (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding on in another edit because my brain isn't functioning well today. The entire "don't delete" argument is "muh censorship". If you think it's censorship to treat people with basic human dignity, boy howdy do I have news for you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question has been answered, and this is well over a year old, so it isn't a discussion for ANI, which is for urgent (timely) matters. Someone should probably close this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you took the time to read anything I said. If you could at least point me to where I should have posted it, that would be appreciated. 3nk1namshub (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unhinged transphobic rants are not funny

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Why_is_this_ok%3F

    The comment left by Squared.Circle.Boxing is disgusting. If someone is clearly upset about being marginalized, laughing is abhorrent.

    I just want an admin to say "transphobia is bad" for once. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an admin kindly review contribs and then apply a NOTHERE block to this RGW SPA? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What is an RGW, and how am I a SPA? If you actually read my contribs you'd see that I've made several contributions in many different places. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Transphobia is bad. I think you need to step away for a day or two and let yourself calm down and think more clearly. The Moose 04:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you want trans people to contribute, or do you want us to just be good little transes and not get upset when people attack us here? 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, thank you for saying transphobia is bad. Now, will you follow through, or is this just cosmetic? 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Levivich; NOTHERE block as this will only detract from writing the encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one who called me a fascist for not liking transphobia, and you're trying to silence me? That sounds like {fascism,stalinism,hitlerism,what ever other buzzword you would like} 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:3nk1namshub, you were already told on the thread you started above that the matter was discussed and settled by the community over a year ago. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by opening two simultaneous new threads on it now, but that coupled with your edit history makes it appear that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to pick arguments and chastise anyone who disagrees with you. If you'd like to avoid the boomerang, I suggest you drop the stick and move on (unless you'd like to open up a new thread complaining about Wikipedia's callous disregard for stick-related horse violence). OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I explained why that was a laughable "argument". I opened a new thread, and was advised to open one on Jimbo's talk page. Just doing what people tell me to do. I'm not picking arguments, I'm upset people are being openly transphobic. 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an old issue. I was blocked for 24 hours, and apologized to everyone involved. 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fifteen days isn't so old, and it's informative nonetheless. People who appear out of nowhere to do nothing but demand that everyone attend instantly to their urgent concerns never end well. Cool your jets. You're not the only constituency that's suffered. EEng 04:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you search the internet for "fallacy of relative privation". 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you better look it up (and while you're at it, ask around about the likely outcome of a battle of wits with me). For those playing along at home, the fallacy of relative privation is (as applied here) the dismissal of an issue because "it could be worse" or "your complaint isn't as serious as this other person's". I didn't say your concern is obviated by others' concerns; I pointed out that others' concerns are valid and deserve attention as well, so your may not be attended to as promptly and intensely as you'd like, or with the outcome you personally desire. EEng 05:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3nk1namshub's user page has basically turned into a rant against Wikipedia's refusal of nuking the offending diff, and calls the editor who made it a "moron". I tagged it for speedy deletion under WP:G10 for now. I support a WP:BOOMERANG block for this user. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 04:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since they are attacking everyone, including people trying to help them, I'm inclined to think that they are likely a deliberate troll, or at least lack the competence to be editing here. The Moose 05:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Moose: Sorry. I'll go now. 3nk1namshub (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One last thing, sorry. I'm upset. I'm angry at a systemic issue that is very alive here. Is this the right place to vent? Definitely not. However, it's upsetting that you cannot see another option other than "troll or [insert insult]". There's a reason I'm upset, it's just not a good one. Have a good night. 3nk1namshub (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Some sleuthing shows to me that the user here is definitely not a troll (and I think Guy Macon was being not super helpful by calling them one, or using kidnapping as a metaphor. Guy: maybe...don't do that.). I think they are a legit user that is angry with the system, but doesn't understand how we work on Wikipedia. Hardly the first user to barge in demanding grand institutional change without realizing how we operate. They have expressed a desire to cool down. I think if they are receptive to positive contribution upon their return, we should keep them around. 3nk1namshub, I imagine you will read this. If so, I hope that you think about how to be a positive contributor. Outrage fixes nothing. But working with others and being a positive voice does. We need more diverse users, and the more diverse we are, the more welcoming we can be. If you really do wish to improve Wikipedia, and fix our many issues, we'd be glad to have you. But please realize that change is a slow process, and that we are much like a library. We ask that our patrons be polite and don't shout. If you can't follow those rules, we kick you out. But if you are WP:CIVIL and engage with other users meaningfully, there is so much you can do. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring

    I'm afraid @3nk1namshub: is now edit warring at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost. @Jasper Deng: and I have reverted his removal of comments. I have warned him but he reverted it and put this in its place. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    They. And you'll notice, I've stopped editing and brought up a new section on the talk page to discuss the issue after your final warning.
    If I'm not mistaken, I can edit my talk page however I wish, including blanking. 3nk1namshub (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with you blanking your own talk page, it's more of the message you left in its place that concerned me because it seems to imply you're not willing to recognise you are going against Wikipedia rules, guidelines and common practice. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, and will remove it. I simply put it there because I was being spammed with messages for the same issue. 3nk1namshub (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that comment on your talk page now is much better than that confrontational one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. In the future I will try to be better about being confrontational. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @3nk1namshub: You can do that on your own talk page, but not the talk page of the Signpost. Please, some honest advice–it's past time to drop the WP:STICK on this issue entirely and move on to somewhere else.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue has only just started? I'm not okay with another editor using my autism to attempt to remove agency. It's horrifying. I attempted to gain consensus on the issue, but you closed it. What would you prefer? 3nk1namshub (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it "remove" your "agency"? @3nk1namshub: My advice about dropping the stick still applies whether you consider this a "new" issue or not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Attributing someone's actions to their autism is a real problem for autistic people. It removes our agency because it attributes our actions to our autism, not our current emotions or intellect. I think I made it clear on Jonesey95's talk page, I was angry about a very real issue, my autism has nothing to do with it. Regardless, I apologize for undoing any of the comments. I should have waited for Jonesey95 to respond and gone to DRN or ANI if necessary. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @3nk1namshub: To be quite honest, I fundamentally agree with this in general; see my comment on the commenter's talk page. However, this falls far short of the standard for immediate removal. In general, it is better to have someone other than yourself remove comments when you are deeply involved in a heated dispute like this; your judgement will be unlikely to be objective.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're completely correct, and again I apologize. I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia when this is over so I can calm down and make sure I don't make rash edits like that again. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a message to any administrators who decide to take action on this. I would at the very least prefer a several day block to make sure I can calm down. I've had a very rough day, both on and off Wikipedia. That's of course not an excuse, just an explanation. I think some time away from the internet will be helpful, and a block will force me to do that. Thank you. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly suspect that we are dealing with a sockpuppet here. See User talk:Guy Macon#Stay away. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me? First I'm a troll, now a sock? Alright, do me a favor and summon a checkuser (not sure how to do that myself). I've only ever edited from one IP and one account. I would appreciate if you stopped making unsubstantiated claims. If you have an issue with me, please back it up with evidence. Summoning @CaptainEek: as the user who lightly chastised you. Perhaps "warn" was not the right word. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • With due respect, @Guy Macon:, I think your continued involvement here is unlikely to be helpful. I do not think they are a sock; it was more likely a heat-of-the-moment comment. I deal with many sockpuppets and they do not seem to be one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not inclined to think that the editor is either a sock, or a troll. I do think there are NOTHERE concerns, but not the former two. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) On the recommendation of Jasper Deng, this will be my last comment here. but I think the evidence of sockpuppetry is compelling:[60]
    • "I have asked you to stay away from me." At the time 3nk1namshub had never asked me to stay away from them. Perhaps a previous identity asked me?
    • "You have been warned multiple times." At the time I had received zero warnings about or from 3nk1namshub. Perhaps I was warned about a previous identity?
    • "Do not spam my talk page." One warning is not spam. Perhaps I warned a a previous identity?
    • "Stop wishing bodily harm on me". I cannot find anything in the interaction analyzer that could have possibly triggered this reaction, nor do I believe that if 3nk1namshub had actually received anything even slightly resembling wishing bodily harm they would have failed to comment on it.
    These are not the words of an editor who has never interacted with me in any way until seven hours ago. They are the words of someone who had a prior conflict with me, is now using a new identity, and forgot what got said using each account.
    But, as I said, this will be my last post on this topic. To make it official, I now ask 3nk1namshub to leave me alone. I will do the same concerning 3nk1namshub. Don't post on my talk page. Don't reply to my comments to other editors. Don't mention me by name. Don't ping me. If 3nk1namshub fails to leave me alone, I ask that an admin warn them -- I won't respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    3nk1namshub asked you to stay away here . Mysticdan (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like 3nk1namshub has been indeffed by JzG as WP:NOTHERE Mysticdan (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.51

    103.60.175.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making hundreds of edits (semi-automated?) making color changes to tables in articles & templates, & leaving no edit summaries. This has made edits that appear to be identical to 103.60.175.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who recently has been blocked for two years. I am in the process of rolling back the disruptive edits. Peaceray (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 2 weeks. They made about 400 edits on July 2, and only a handful before that. I'll also make a report at WP:OP to see if this IP is an open proxy. WHOIS says that this IP is part of a /24 range hosted by Mazeda Networks in Bangladesh. mw:ORES is flagging some of these IP edits as well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion at #Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.41
     Please see the discussion at #Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.41. Peaceray (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaming the system, adding unreliable sources

    CONTENT DISPUTE
    No admin action required at this time. Guy (help!) 09:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    There appears to be an IP editor 2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 who is repeatedly using unreliable sources on an article. The IP editor is also gaming the system by using another policy, WP:NPOV, to flout WP:UNRELIABLE. Just plain ol' disruptive editing. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Did I also forget to mention the editor has also added original research? Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor is now using another policy, WP:BLP, to flout both the WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:NOR policies. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How is her own Twitter account not a primary source? You're opening up wikipedia to a defamation lawsuit by including this since the candidate has denied being a supporter. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and this article clearly isn't. I included a primary source for my edits I don't know what you're on about.2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Her own Twitter account is a primary source, and using primary sources in articles constitutes original research. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia because this type of content isn't considered to be verifiable. If you want to include claims that she denies being associated with QAnon, find a reliable secondary source - or don't include the claim at all. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already warned you for making legal threats to other editors, including myself. If you continue with this disruptive editing, you WILL be blocked. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    So the fact that NYT published made up allegations means that another article has to be written that denies them for her claim to be accepted even though she denies it through her own words. I mean that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever head of2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also her Twitter is verified so : As a reliable source: Nota bene Sometimes. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter incorporates a Verified Account mechanism to identify accounts of celebrities and other notable people; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter messages. so according to this it should be considered as a reliable source.2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Twitter can be cited per WP:TWITTER. This sounds like a content dispute? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivich is right, though in this case there still may be problems with reporting the post because it's hard to interpret. We may still need a secondary source to comment on what it may mean. And this is a content dispute. Remember: At ANI we comment on contributors, not on content. EEng 04:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Rt0103

    Blocked for one week by El C. NAC JavaHurricane 08:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Personal attacks. User name calling "stupid and moron" on edit summary - see here-1 and I placed a warning on editor talk page for personal atack - see here-2. He wrote a message to me on my talk age and I replied their message on my talk page and informed them to stop personal attacks and adhere to WP:5P4 " as treating other editor with civility is one of the five pillar of Wikipedia principal" - see here -3. Rt0103 continued personal attach again on my talk page - see here 4. Editor had received a block in February 2020 - see here 5 for descriptive editing. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 04:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I suspect editor Androlucus of being paid to promote various Chinese film schools, as he/she consistently adds red link pages to the pages of schools like Beijing Film Academy and Central Academy of Drama. 24.232.123.199 (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There are also 38 (thirty-eight) non-notable people in the BFA's "notable" alumni list, any one of whom could've personally ponied up the promoter's fee, see? And 49 (!!!) for CAD. Why would a school want to water down its famous students with 87 relative nobodies? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be that the school considers them notable even if we don't. Or it could be that @Androlucus: considers them notable; at a glance, they haven't really added anything that I would consider promotional, either to those pages or regarding any of the people listed. Usually I'd expect a paid editor to do more than just list names. Also, OP, don't forget to inform people when you bring them up here. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bahati

    Bahati registered in March 2006 and has accumulated 226 edits at time of writing. His history is one of inactivity punctuated by disputes. I encountered him at Stefan Molyneux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he is employing a variety of creative arguments for not following sources in stating, as fact, that Molyneux is a white supremacist. Going back to his previous actiove period, which involved Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I found edits like [61] and [62], which promote Islamophobic comments by Richard Dawkins but demand that criticism of those comments be excluded.

    On the one hand, past history indicates that he will probably go back into hibernation soon. On the other, it also suggests that he will be back again, probably at another racially charged article.

    Does this rise to the level of a possible editing restriction? Guy (help!) 09:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just about to post a warning about WP:TENDENTIOUS editing over at Stefan Molyneux for not dropping the stick as it is just the same arguments over and over again.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy, I support you using the DS to impose a topic ban from the topic area of race and ethnicity. El_C 10:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, I can't, per WP:INVOLVED, but also it doesn't fall clearly into any specific sanction area. Guy (help!) 11:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I stand corrected. I guess the Committee's ruling on various race facets over the years have not resulted in a topic area under restriction. I mistakenly thought that this was the case, but upon closer examination, you're right, it doesn't. Has the user edited productively any other topic area, though? If so, a community topic ban might be due. If not, perhaps a normal WP:DE/WP:NOTHERE indef would be preferred, instead. El_C 11:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps an indefinite block till they address these problems? Whatever restrictions we impose, they could pop up afresh with the same problems somewhere else at a later time. Then we'd need to start all over.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless there are objections, I'm willing to go ahead. El_C 12:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The allegedly islamophobic comments by Richard Dawkins: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard-dawkins-accuses-ahmed-mohamed-of-committing-fraud_n_55fed260e4b08820d918fe9b?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592&guccounter=1 (the source used in the article at the time). They don't mention or refer to Islam in any way. IIRC there was no criticism of his comments included in the WP article, but of him in general. I maintain neither would be appropriate for inclusion in the article. I have made no edits to the Stefan Molyneux article nor intend to. The prolonged discussion on the talk page of said article is, in my estimation, a product of apparent lack of consensus about important properties, facts and policy interpretations surrounding issues raised, not issues themselves, which keep prompting correction and some repetition to provide context to the correction. Guy is correct to refer to my hibernation, due to which I'm not familiar with this process. If I am supposed to defend myself against an accusation I must admit I'm not sure what the accusation is. If hibernation itself, my interest in racially charged articles or my arguments on the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident and Stefan Molyneux talk pages are actually the issue I am, in the absence of details as to what I did wrong, unrepentant. Bahati (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bahati, the "Richard Dawkins is not an Islamophobe" card has been played before, without success. Guy (help!) 12:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, I'm not playing that card. I'm playing the "Guy is incorrectly claiming that a particular set of Dawkins' comments are Islamophobic" card. Though I'm not really sure why. Would inclusion of islamophobic comments in WP articles be against policy? EDIT: to clarify, I didn't include comments in question, since removed, into the article. I'd still like to know if that would be against policy, but also if the same goes for arguing for their inclusion. Bahati (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On Stefan Molyneux there is consensus, one VS many.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I conceded that multiple times fairly early on. However, people are still talking and so am I where appropriate. If that's a bannable offence all I can do is apologize and ask to be pointed to the relevant policy article describing what I did wrong. Bahati (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So why then still argue if you accept you do not have consensus? JzG time to just let him have the last word.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To make sure that there is common understanding of the various aspects of the issue and that my points are understood in the way I want them to be. It would be silly to declare lack of consensus before that. BTW, barring more suitably annoying additions to the Molyneux discussion I'm done talking about it. A tip: if you don't want me to have the last word, for some reason I won't pretend to understand, definitely don't ask me a question. Bahati (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bahati, you are risking sanctions with these responses, also. Which may get imposed, regardless. El_C 14:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El_CThat's okay, if I'm doing something wrong I deserve sanctions. I can only hope someone in the present company, at least three of which seem to be administrators, will find it prudent to inform me what that is. Although one of them making blatantly false claims and misrepresenting my response to them doesn't warrant much hope. Bahati (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jmgwilson

    User:Jmgwilson is convinced that calling the black Marvel Comics character Brother Voodoo a "character" instead of a "superhero" is evidence of racism. Through edit summaries, an IP first let him know there's consensus preferring the neutral term [63], then later gave examples of white characters not described as "superhero" [64] to counter the OTHERSTUFF arguement.

    The IP alerted the Comics Project, which is how I got involved. I confirmed the IP was correct per WP:PROTAGONIST. Jmgwilson is aware of that discussion, and he reiterated that not using "superhero" is racist. I corrected the pages he pointed to as OTHERSTUFF here and here. I informed Jmgwilson of these changes and invited him to do the same.

    In response, Jmgwilson (editing as an IP and manually citing his user name) made it clear he planned to continue violating WP:PROTAGONIST until someone else removed "superhero" from all other articles. I advised against doing that, but I was ignored.

    While I typed this, User:Izno reverted and gave Jmgwilson a warning for edit warring. I'm not certain what level of restriction would be best here, but I'd like some admin action to stop the disruption while he realizes why his behavior is disruptive. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:FILM does not mandate how comic book articles are written. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But consensus does, and the Comic project has long relied on that bluelink without adding it to the Comics MOS. I tried to find some links in the archive, but "character", "neutral", and "superhero" aren't very effective search terms. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a content dispute. The only reason it is removed from Brother Voodoo is racists moderators is obviously not great for an edit summary, but that aspect of the dispute and the edit-warring seem too brief for WP:ANI. As far as the rest goes, even putting aside the fact that WP:PROTAGONIST is in MOS:FILM, the manual of style for film is a guideline and not a policy document. You could perhaps bring someone to ANI for egregiously disregarding longstanding MOS guidelines to the point where it's disruptive or raises WP:COMPETENCE issues, but I don't think you can do so just for going against a relatively obscure part of one guideline; in fact, plenty of MOS the more obscure or specific guidelines are treated as advisory rather than being rigorously followed. As it says in WP:ENFORCEMENT, enforcement normally relies on community norms and discussion first; admin intervention is for cases where it is clear a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy) (emphasis mine.) In other words, if you want to bring someone to ANI for a MOS violation, you have to show that it's egregious enough that their action violates policy as well, or that the guideline serves to implement some policy (ie. WP:RS is technically a guideline, but serves to implement WP:V, so most violations of it are also policy violations; I'm not seeing how "don't call people superheroes" has the same force or importance to it, so disputes over it are still just content disputes.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern was this edit, where he said he planned to continue editing against consensus. The intent to edit war with a RGW mentality is why I brought it here. Everything else was background. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this ANI request is premature at this time. Let's see if he stops edit warring first. --Izno (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User Snowded

    Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Sirjohnperrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Despite several attempts at resolution on the respective Talkpages this user has engaged in a series of personal attacks following an exchange about my editing of the Laugharne article. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you any evidence for this charge at all? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave his edit history on my and other people's user pages to speak for itself -----Snowded TALK 13:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I don't think Snowded is the problem --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have warned Sirjohnperrot, but sanctions are still possible. El_C 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also see the discussion on my user talk page at User talk:Verbcatcher#Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe of Westmead. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's the linked evidence of said behaviour? GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page of Verbacher linked above pretty well says it all. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also been reported for vandalism :-) -----Snowded TALK 13:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we may need to get Australian, forum shopping to get a user banned is shabby at best.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Only warned. Limbering up my throwing arm. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support you doing whatever you see fit, Deepfriedokra. El_C 13:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having seen the vitriol and offended attitude over a simple discussion of sources, not seeing their own faults while blowing out of proportion any disagreement, accusing attempts at helping them of being personal attacks (and personal insults), I'm convinced OP is not suited for a collaborative environment. Reporting non vandalism at WP:AIV was certainly beyond my imagination. @Sirjohnperrot:, this is a limited time offer. Please either substantiate your accisations here or withdraw your complaint. The alternative is that you be blocked from editing. If anyone sees an alternative outcome, please speak up. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TBAN siuts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to wait for the lad to respond. But, Snowded a vandal of articles? doubt it. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It gets better. Is this a legal threat? @Sirjohnperrot: Do please explain your accusations. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deepfriedokra, I sought clarification, which is to say, a categorical withdraw of any threat of legal action. El_C 14:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I need popcorn. This is better than Game of Thrones! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanctions are coming? El_C 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    on 18 June Sirjohnperrot requested protection of my user talk page.[65] This was interpreted as a request for protection of Laugharne.[66] Verbcatcher (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems like an honest mistake. I wouldn't hold it against them. El_C 14:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In no hurry. Awaiting response from OP. TBAN vs Indef. Given the torrent of words, I'd expected a response. The quasi legal threat just makes this so much better. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project is the essay I had in mind. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I throw this hat into the ring? The phrase "family history burrowings" suggests that they may have a COI, and are attempting to write about one of their ancestors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. Good be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64, I posed that question to them directly (uw-coi). El_C 15:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Sir John is done for today. May be back in the evening, GMT --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in no rush to act, myself. El_C 15:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A cliffhanger! Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Still going! El_C 17:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, Sirjohnperrot has responded to our concerns on his talk page HERE and again HERE. I leave it to you, gentle reader, to ponder how best to proceed. Suggestions welcome. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure dramamongering on his talk page is helping him. I'm still where I was, a Tban obviously makes sense in one way, but I think the problems run deeper than this one topic. It's already been stated but I will repeat that some people just aren't suited to working in a collaborative environment. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but obviously something strong is needed. There does seem to be a consensus for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say we give the lad another 24 hrs to provide his supposed evidence. If he doesn't? then this report should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying give it a good day before saying good day? :-) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OP wants to complain about me. I again invited them to respond here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Signing off. Gotta claen up the yard. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Greetings to my fellow user, Dennis. We've not been formally introduced but let me congratulate you on your vituperative talents, they are considerable and clearly well practised. If you and Deepfriedokra are indeed benchmarks of collaborative working our planet is really in trouble. I suppose if gratuitous and ignorant abuse counts for anything anywhere you've found a position as Wiki administrators where it might, do you also venerate dishonesty like your fellow team members? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we assume, you're putting evidence together? I've known Snowded for many years & ain't seen him vandalising articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits by User:Chaipau at Bhawaiya

    User:Chaipau keeps on edit-warring ([67], [68], [69]) at Bhawaiya without adhering to the sources and policies. In this edit, he changed the lead sentence against what the sources state, bordering on source falsification. Here, he removed the Bengali-language equivalent name which was added per MOS:LEADLANG. He keeps on referring WP:MOSIS to impose on this trans-boundary topic but MOSIS states, "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, Pakistan or any of India's neighbouring countries". All these issues were already explained at the talkpage two days before, but the user seems to have no intention of fruitfully engaging to reach a consensus. --Zayeem (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Kmzayeem is displaying WP:OWN issues in that article. In this revert [70] they claim that the article is not "predominantly" Indian and that the primary language is Bengali, and therefore WP:MOSIS does not apply. The form of music is associated with the erstwhile Koch kingdom which is in India and the historical/cultural footprint of which spans India, Bangladesh and two Indian states-West Bengal and Assam. Chaipau (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bhawaiya spans multiple countries and linguistic regions, and WP:MOSIS applies. Nothing is lost by not having Bhawaiya not listed in the Indic script. Chaipau (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaipau: 'Predominantly' in this context means articles that are solely related to India while Bhawaia is a music which relates to both Bangladesh and India which you have accepted yourself, how does WP:MOSIS apply here? --Zayeem (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kmzayeem: that predominantly means solely is new to me. Chaipau (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaipau: What is 'predominantly' in this context then? And why do you think this article is 'predominantly Indian' when you said it yourself that it "spans multiple countries"? I think you are just gaming the system here. The stable version of the article had always carried the name in local script per MOS:LEADLANG before you started edit-warring. --Zayeem (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kmzayeem: Why are you hung up on predominantly? WP:MOSIS was instated to handle precisely this type of conflicts that touch on "multi-cultural" issues. In the discussion Talk:Bhawaiya#Bhawaiya also belongs to India and even Nepal. your position has been that this is about Bangladesh alone. You have even taken the position that Bhawaiya is not an indigenous form in Undivided Goalpara district in Assam and when you were given references with quotes, you have pushed it down claiming Bhawaiya originated in North Bengal alone [71]. Here is yet another reference, this time from Bangladesh itself, which states unambiguously that Bhawaiya is native to Goalpara too [72]. Clearly you are displaying WP:OWN. Chaipau (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Benti

    There are recent BLP violations in the histories at this article, its talk page and my talk page. I wrote most of the article. I am now late for work. Can another administrator please revdel as needed? Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, MelanieN. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User Lilipo25 repeated and sustained conduct issue

    Both users are warned to better condense, and to always backup claims about one another with evidence. Newimpartial is also warned not to personalize content disputes. El_C 23:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am opening this ANI subsequent to a previous one about this user here. Unfortunately, their conduct has not improved since then, and has recently been especially bad. The main complaint from myself around conduct is repeated false accusations and needless antagonism, which can be seen for example here, here and here. Many other editors have also experienced this behaviour, but my personal experience has been one of repeated, sustained abuse while I have tried as best I can to respond with infinite civility and patience, as I think is demonstrated in the examples given above. The previous ANI was generally viewed as being a content dispute, though I maintained it was not - I think it is now clear that this is very much not an issue of content but of conduct, as it spans articles and editors. As before, I do not want Lilipo to be banned or similar, but I absolutely want this behaviour to stop, as I think we all should. It is unacceptable that anyone should be free to abuse others in this manner. I welcome any way we can maintain Lilipo's contributions to wikipedia while losing the immense and needless distress caused by their conduct.Wikiditm (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Two positive points which I think are worth mentioning. Firstly, following the last ANI, there was an initial period of calm in which no abusive behaviour was directed at me. Secondly, on one occasion of a false accusation being made, this was retracted after I said it was untrue. These two examples I think give us something to work with, and sufficiently prove that the user is a good faith editor.Wikiditm (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiditm threatened me with another ANI (after the one they opened on me in May failed and they were told that there would be no sanctions against me) and I told them to go ahead because I refuse to be bullied into submission by threats of ANIs every time Wikiditm and another editor tag-team me or hound me and I object. The same three editors (Newimpartial, Bastun and Wikiditm) continued tag-teaming me on the Graham Linehan page, so I left and two of them - Wikiditm and Newimpartial - followed me to yet another page, Fred Sargeant, where I was editing (and where neither had ever edited before) and continued the edit warring. I left a message on the talk page of Girth Summit about the WP:HOUNDING and it got worse. Girth Summit has been trying to mediate the dispute on the Sargeant page, and told us to concentrate on that, but Wikiditm threatened to open an ANI on me if I don't toe the line, so I said to go ahead. I'm tired of being bullied and threatened.
    I am sure this will go as swimmingly as the last one, which literally ended in the other tag-teamer, Newimpartial, suggesting that I (a Jew) am just like the people who stood by and let the Nazis murder Jews and that I want transgender people to be murdered (the evidence for this was that I had said nothing about crimes against transgender people in a discussion that had nothing to do with that). Apparently, Wikiditm is just going to keep opening these ANIs until some admin gives them a result they like better. So here we go again. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lilipo, literally not everything is about you. I gave you plenty of opportunities in that last ANI to recognize that violence and abuse against Trans people - especially sexual violence - is real, and you stubbornly refused to take any of those opportunities, which is where I pointed to how you were, in fact, just standing by while violence is perpetrated on others. What this has to do with your Jewish identity is not clear to me. Anyway, I am just placing this here for those who don't want to go back to the last ANI to reconstruct the context. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimpartial, you were warned very clearly by Girth Summit in the last ANI not to state again that because I had not mentioned violence against trans people - which we were NOT discussing at all - that meant I wanted trans people to be "raped and murdered", as you stated then. And you also made an ugly remark in that ANI in which you suggested that because I had not talked about trans ppl being raped and murdered: (Quote: "Lilipo25, I am reminded of those who have historically not "made any statement at all" about the violence directed at people from groups with which they disidentify. You make my point for me.") Lilipo25 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm disappointed that this has ended up here. We were, I think, making progress at the Fred Sargeant talk page, and had just about managed to thrash out a version of the disputed content through discussion, with all parties accepting some compromise and focussing on content. I'd hoped that by encouraging the parties to engage there, rather than commenting on each other on the gargantuan thread on my talk page, I might be able to help them edit together productively. I'm sorry to see a thread raised here when it seemed we were making progress; if it has been in any way prompted by a typo I made in this post, explained in this one, then I apologise again for that. GirthSummit (blether) 18:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also thought we had made good progress on the Sargeant page and appreciate your efforts there, but here we are. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statement by Newimpartial - Lilipo stated above that I "followed them" to the page Fred Sargeant "and began edit warring". This is not a balanced summary of events. While I had been watching this page for some time, I did not become involved until Lilipo reverted the addition of sourced content on the subject's anti-transgender activism; when challenged, Lilipo removed the content again and again, without participating in the Talk page. When Wikiditm added another source to replace one of Lilipo's, the latter reverted twice, again without meaningful participation on Talk as this new material was added. (Lilipo did participate in meaningful discussion between the first and second cluster of reverts, and after the second cluster). It is typical of Lilipo's approach to dialogue that they describe this sequence of events as "following them to yet another page" and "continuing edit warring", seemingly without seeing the role of their conduct (POV edits and reverting) in creating the situation on multiple pages. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be curious to know how long you had been following that Sargeant page without editing it, Newimpartial? You appeared there right after our disagreement on the Linehan RFC, when I gave up and left because I couldn't take being tag-teamed by you and Wikiditm any more. And you appeared on the Linehan article, where I was editing and you had never edited before, right after we disagreed on another article on the Vancouver Rape Crisis Center. Each time, you claim it's merely coincidence that you have taken an interest in whatever page I am editing after I disagreed with you on another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilipo25 (talk • contribs)
    Newimpartial, indeed. Lilipo25 does make some compelling arguments. El_C 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As previously stated, anti-trans activists are one of the areas where I follow a large number of pages. Yes, Lilipo has created or alerted me to some of these, but my editing interest in this area is longstanding. I have never interacted with Lilipo outside of edits related to these anti-trans activists and organizations, their talk pages, editors' talk pages, and ANI. I have never shown any interest in Lilipo's edits outside of this area where their POV is problematic (as I have demonstrated elsewhere in this discussion, with diffs). Therefore I have done no HOUNDING (or "bullying" or "gaslighting" or "DARVO", among the many accusations Lilupo has thrown at me during the last year). Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can partially accept that explanation. But both of you should remain matter-of-fact and professional by focusing on content. That is absolutely key. El_C 23:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As you well know, the material was removed because it was taken from a blog on Medium, which is listed as an unreliable source on Wikipedia. In addition, the blog made no attempt at NPOV. You reverted my edit repeatedly without improving the source, and when I gave in to most of your changes and got you to use better sources, the section was left up. You agreed to that. Then Wikiditm, who had also never edited the Sargeant page, immediately swooped in and deleted the small amount of my editing that was still left in the section and inserted biased language again that set off another editing war there. Even after Girth Summit became involved and told us to stop reverting and discuss, you continued changing the section without discussing first. Now I have compromised again and we have agreed on edits for that section.
    I want to be clear that I will not be insulted and bullied with suggestions from you like you made in the last ANI, about me being like the people who let the Nazis murder the Jews (some of whom were my family members), or with grotesque descriptions of "bathroom pogroms" comparing the 150-year-long genocide of Jews to women wanting single-sex bathrooms, or with false claims that I want trans people killed because I said nothing about crime against trans people. You went far beyond anything resembling civility last time, and it should absolutely never have been allowed. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lilipo, you have repeatedly engaged in POV edits to whitewash the BLPs of anti-trans activists and articles on related groups, such as Fred Sargeant, Graham Linehan and the Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter. In this context, I think it is reasonable to ask whether you condone violence against trans people, since those whose pages you edit with such POV have been accused in reliable sources of contributing to violence against trans people. If you say you don't condone it, then I will accept that and that particular issue will be put to rest. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet again, you make the same outrageous accusation that you made in the last ANI, that Girth Summit specifically told you in that ANI was "unsavory" and not to do again. To accuse me of wanting violence against trans people is vile and libelous. This is the exact bullying that you subject me to nonstop while following me from page to page on Wikipedia. I cannot understand how you continue to get away with it with no repercussions. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, people who find a potential characterization "vile" condemn the course of action that characterization involves. Lilipo, do you condemn violence against trans people? Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimpartial, I have been trying quite hard to avoid taking sides on this, to mediate and to encourage positive contributions. I still want to do that, but I have to say that this is unreasonable of you. Lilipo25 has done nothing to suggest that she would in any way support violence against trans people. Your repeatedly asking her to make a statement to that effect is very hard to understand. You have never made a statement to the effect that you condemn violence and death threats against people who are labelled as TERFs - I think that it would be completely unnecessary - and downright rude - of me to demand that you do so. I don't understand why you are going down this line. GirthSummit (blether) 20:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I categorically condemn violence against TERFs. That isn't hard for me to do in good conscience. And what is more, I have not and will not edit articles in such a way as to condone or whitewash violence against TERFs. This seems to be to be straightforward.
    On the other hand - and I am happy to supply with diffs upon request - Lilipo has repeatedly whitewashed articles about individuals and organizations with an anti-trans agenda, including promotion of violence against trans people or "standing idly by" while their allies promote violence against trans people. Lilipo's edits have removed reliable sources, made accusations of bias where none exists, and written language into articles that defers unduly to the views of the article's subject in violation of NPOV and BLP policies. So in this context, and given the degree of outrage Lilipo displays when violence against trans people is implicitly compared to violence against other groups with which they have more sympathy, I don't think it is "hard to understand" why I find Lilipo's position on anti-trans violence relevant to this (and the previous) ANI discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not ever edited any Wikipedia article to promote violence against trans people or to 'whitewash' anyone promoting violence against trans people, nor have I in any way ever advocated that anyone should "stand idly by" by while violence against trans people is promoted. None of that is true. Newimpartial is making a disgusting claim to distract from the fact that they have made comments suggesting that I am just like the people who stood by and let the Nazis kill my family, and that they have followed me from article to article on Wikipedia where they have never edited before just to continue the harassment. I cannot believe they continue to get away with this, month after month, with no consequence. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lilipo, you have certainly whitewashed articles about people described in reliable sources as "anti-transgender activists": notably here, here, here, here, here, and

    here, as well as here. You have also insisted on the insertion of the non-neutral POV term "womanfemale-born" (corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)), which has been used historically to exclude and promote violence against trans women, here, here, and here. On the other hand, I have never said that you have promoted violence against trans people or even that you are "just like the people who stood by and let the Nazis kill your family" -which is an absurd statement. I have, however, invited you to condemn violence against trans people, or at least state that you do not condone such violence, but you have declined to clarify the matter (as I have for example by condemning Anti-Semitic violence and violence against TERFs). Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You have literally JUST been told by TWO admins, Girth Summit and El_C to stop demanding that I "condemn violence against trans people" because I have never suggested that I in any way support it, ,and of course you go and do it again. Unbelievable.You just won't stop bullying, as usual.
    Nowhere in any of those diffs does it show me "whitewash[ing] articles about individuals and organizations with an anti-trans agenda, including promotion of violence against trans people or "standing idly by" while their allies promote violence against trans people" as you stated above. Nowhere. The use of "anti-transgender" to describe those people and organizations has been in great dispute by many editors, resulting in an RFC just in the past few weeks on the Linehan Talk page that ended with no consensus. But none of them have advocated violence against trans people at any time and that claim is simply false.
    I have never insisted on or even suggested the use of the term "woman-born", which just sounds ridiculous outside of Shakespeare's Macbeth, in any article. In the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre article, the quoted source referred to "female-born women" and so I argued that we should use their terminology. I also asked you and another editor repeatedly to stop calling ME 'cis' as you knew nothing about me or how I identified. My request was refused.
    And finally, the suggestion you made about me being like the people who stood by while Nazis killed Jews is in the previous ANI. I don't know how to do a diff for it, but it's near the bottom of ANI Archive 1036 and I have already quoted your exact words in this thread. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To start at the end, Lilipo, what I actually said, Lilipo25, I am reminded of those who have historically not "made any statement at all" about the violence directed at people from groups with which they disidentify. You make my point for me." cannot reasonably be translated as suggesting that [you are] just like the people who stood by and let the Nazis kill [your] family. Anyone who cannot operate with sympathy for others at the level of abstraction required to read my statement as it is intended should not, in my view, be editing sensitive topics on Wikipedia.
    And once again you make a bald misstatement when you say I also asked you and another editor repeatedly to stop calling ME 'cis' as you knew nothing about me or how I identified. My request was refused. I never once, in that entire discussion, referred to you as "cis", and I can't imagine why you are repeating this demonstrably false accusation.
    I am sorry for my mistake, and have corrected "woman-born" to "female-born" above, but this is still a non-neutral term used to promote violence against trans people, and the source you were taking it from was not using it in its own editorial voice but as part of the terminology used by the subject of the article, which you have been warned against relying on unduly.
    As far as violence against Trans people is concerned, the first of your two BLP subjects "has been permanently suspended after repeated violations of our rules against hateful conduct and platform manipulation" according to Twitter spokespeople. Your second subject publically applauded the police shooting of a black trans man. Your claim that neither of these activists has condoned or encouraged violence against trans people is, ahem, unproven, and contradicts the available sources. Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you both need to step off the ledge. These implications about violence toward trans by attributing that sentiment to Lilipo25, is a bit much, though, Newimpartial. I am starting to lean on closing this report without action, but with some warnings attached. This is not a productive discourse at this time. El_C 23:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you kidding me here? First, Linehan was suspended by Twitter for saying "men can't be women", which is NOT "advocating violence against trans people". I can cite a bunch of sources that have called Twitter's decision wrong, including an Op-Ed by trans woman Dr. Debbie Hayton in the Spectator, if you'd like. And you are actually going to make us try the case of Tony McDade here, on an ANI page, by posting that kind of slander about Sargeant? FINE. This is a ridiculous attempt at further distraction, but you leave me no choice but to present facts.
    McDade stabbed to death a 21-year-old young black man, Malik Jackson, minutes after filming an hour-long video and posting it on his Facebook page, in which he declared his intention to commit the murder and then commit suicide by cop by pulling a gun on police officers because, in his words: ""Just know before I kill myself through a shootout because that's what's going to happen. Cause I'm [going to] pull it out and you know these officers nowadays they see a gun they just [going to] shoot...I will not be going back to prison. Me and the law will have a standoff after I end you bitches' lives...I am killing and going to be killed, because I will not go back into federal prison". Sargeant has worked with the family of the victim, Malik Jackson, and stated that he had no sympathy for Jackson's murderer. Pink News, angry with Sargeant for calling out their incorrect reporting on the Stonewall riots (which Sargeant was at) then ran a hit piece on him claiming he was celebrating the murder of a black trans man by police. They never mentioned that McDade had just committed the murder of Malik Jackson, or that he had posted a video stating that he was about to commit suicide by cop.
    NONE of that is even relevant to this discussion. You are, as usual, throwing everything and the kitchen sink at me in the hope that something will stick. It's just more bullying and I am beyond weary of it. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Will no admin do anything about this, again? No one? Newimpartial can just keep taunting me and bullying me with disgusting accusations like this about things that I have never implied or suggested, much less said, and do it again and again even after an admin tells them to stop, and there are never any consequences for them for it so it just keeps getting worse? The most they get is a mild rebuke about it being wrong that they just shrug off and ignore in order to continue the harassment. They follow me from article to article around Wikipedia to continue this bullying. How is this okay? Lilipo25 (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't harassment, Lilipo. It was a fairly simple, yes or no question, which you have chosen not to answer. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And lest any Admin wonder where this interaction started, I would point to the discussion recorded here. I will not pretend that I was infinitely patient or perfectly well-mannered in that discussion, but the series of personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations which Lilipo laid on me on that Talk page are beyond anything I have encountered on Wikipedia, and I have been editing "Culture wars" topics here for quite some time. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimpartial, I have to agree with Girth Summit. You are skirting toward the realm of provocations. El_C 20:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there something "provocative" about my posting the link to that Talk page discussion? I'm not sure what you're reacting to, here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm making a general point about you seeking disclosure of allegiances from other contributors. That can come across as a bit much. El_C 20:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fair. But as far as "allegiances" go, Lilipo believes it is fine to ask interlocutors about COI so long as the question is are "logical". Do you agree? Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First, El_C, let me point out that my asking Wikiditm if they had a COI in an article was the subject of the LAST ANI Wikiditm took out against me (where Newimpartial engaged in these same bullying tactics toward me, and where it was decided that no sanctions against me were warranted). So Newimpartial is now shopping that decision to a new admin in hopes of a different decision. Secondly, I believe Wikipedia policy states that asking if another editor has a COI is permissible. Thirdly, Newimpartial themself just asked me today in the Fred Sargeant article if I have a COI, and I was happy to answer. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking a user to disclose whether they have a conflict of interests (I recommend uw-coi on the respective user talk page), is a totally legitimate query to make when one is in doubt. El_C 21:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Back to User:NVTHello

    User was previously reported for unsourced genre changes here and here. User has once again continued their unsourced changes and refuses to use a Talk page, this time including articles related to Cascada and the latest such changes being at Helicopter (Martin Garrix and Firebeatz song). In my second report to this noticeboard, a suggestion was made by the last blocking admin GeneralNotability to indef the user. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.41

    Probable block evasion: 103.60.175.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making hundreds of edits (semi-automated) making color changes to tables in articles & templates, & leaving no edit summaries. This has made edits that appear to be identical to 103.60.175.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has been blocked for two years. Yesterday, another attempt at block evasion, 103.60.175.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked. Peaceray (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Disruptive edits past 4th & then two final warnings. Peaceray (talk)
    Discussion at #Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.51
     Please see the discussion at #Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.51. Peaceray (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Blocked and edits rolled back. A rangeblock might be possible. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Malcolmxl5: Thanks! EdJohnston & I have brought this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests#103.60.175.51. Mdaniels5757 has declined this request with this reasoning: "The range seems to belong to a normal ISP, so I wouldn't block for being a colo/webhost or similar. If there was no collateral, I'd recommend blocking the /24 anyways, but it looks like there would be some collateral (see Special:Contributions/103.60.175.51/24 pre-July), so playing whack-a-mole is probably the best option." Peaceray (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peaceray: Nah, per my update there (which I think I pinged you on) "Yeah, notwithstanding the collateral (see the edits from May), a block of the /24 may still be warranted (just not a proxy block)." --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdaniels5757: Thank you for the clarification. I think that I must have misunderstood. I think that if this editor resurfaces on another IP in the same range, we should proceed. Peaceray (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This behaviour has been ongoing for, I think, nearly two years and has been voluminous. Yes, if it happens once more, a rangeblock would be warranted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dyll222

    Requesting administrator assistance regarding edits on articles such as Ovation Brands. The editor in question persistently adds unsourced information and is not engaging in talk page discussion, and refuses to reach a consensus, instead adding comments through edit summaries such as the ones here and here that lean towards WP:PA.

    Edits involving the unsourced additions include the following: (1 2 3 4)

    I've tried to follow guidelines per WP:DDE so I'd appreciate admin assistance to resolve this as best as possible. Rosalina2427 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. El_C 23:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Dabliz spam

    Starting in June, various users have created or significantly contributed to spam articles about Steve Dabliz, a non-notable Australian actor. These editors are:

    As you can see, most of these editors have already been blocked, but that's not stopping more from coming in and recreating the article (under different names, such as Steve Dabilz, Steve ‘Stuzz’ Dabliz, and Steve dabliz stuzz). There appears to be some sort of elaborate meatpuppetry going on here. Almost all of the accounts have disclosed that they are being paid to create the article and are contesting its deletion with "This person is famous and notable enough." or something very similar ([73], [2], [74]). I think the only was to deter the creation of this spam article is to block all users that are not already blocked and WP:SALT all article and draft titles that were created about Dabliz. - ZLEA T\C 23:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have salted those pages. El_C 23:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Is plagiarizing another editor wrong?

    I would like to ask whether editors should be allowed to plagiarize another editors work almost verbatim without giving credit?

    For example I have have recently in my user space at User:Mabuska/Normans being doing a rewrite of the Norman invasion of Ireland article. I notified that articles talk page I was doing a rewrite in my user space.

    As of today I have just realised that one editor @Asarlaí: has been copying bits and pieces from my user space and claiming as his own work by not attributing it in his edit summaries.

    The prime example is this edit [75] on the 30th June. Not only does he add the exact same sub-section header as in my user space "Role of the church" subsection , he even copies an entire block of text minus the year that I have written in my user space on the 28th June. Other additions in that edit of his are also direct lifts from my work such as Bernard of Clairveux and his Life of Malachy etc.

    Surely this is wrong and bad faith behaviour? Mabuska (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=965887881"