Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074

Bludgeoning and WP:OWN by Andrew Lancaster

For quite some time now, user:Andrew Lancaster has been bludgeoning discussions at talk:Germanic peoples and talk:Goths, posting huge walls of text and driving away most editors.

• At talk:Germanic peoples, he's added 44.2% of the edits and 56.3% of the text. The next closest editor, Krakkos, has added only 9.3% of edits and 16.6% of text.
• The disparity at talk:Goths is even starker. There Andrew Lancaster has made over 50% of the edits on the talk page and added 61% of the text. For perspective, the next closest editor is Krakkos, who's added only about 17% of the edits and added only 23.1% of the text.
• This has been a long term problem, beginning probably about a year ago. It involves endless repetitive discussions in which almost everyone disagrees with Andrew, but he somehow gets his way. See the discussions and RFCs about "what the article is about" whenever anyone else starts editing: Talk:Goths/Archive 10#Review of new proposal by Krakkos 31 March 2021, Talk:Goths/Archive 11#RfC on re-focusing the lead, Talk:Goths#RFC on article focus Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 9#Revisiting the article topic controversy, Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 11#Future of the article talk:Germanic peoples#Structure ideas again, Talk:Germanic peoples#the question of what this article is about. (I've probably missed some)
• The neutrality of Andrew's POV and the direction he has pushed the article has also been a topic, resulting in Bloodofox tagging Germanic peoples for neutrality [1] and eventually me reverting back to a version before Andrew had made his changes, as had been repeatedly suggested on the talk page. This has been a long-term issue that's been brought up numerous times before, see Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 11#Drastic and highly problematic edit to the lead, Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 13#Agenda Anyone, Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 15#Rewrite and NPOV as just a few of the more explicit examples.

Recently, Carlstak and myself have repeatedly reached out to Andrew to stop bludgeoning the process, but to no avail, (see [2], [3]). The issue of Andrew's wp:WALLSOFTEXT was also brought up by other editors, such as Bloodofox [4]. It is my belief that Andrew is at this point the main obstacle to ever getting anything done on the article, that he has some serious wp:OWN issues on the topic of early Germanic peoples. He's driving away other editors who simply don't want to deal with him - including myself, for a long while. I think that a topic ban is most probably in order.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors @Berig, Obenritter, Alcaios, Ealdgyth, Srnec, Avilich, Dynasteria, Yngvadottir, Austronesier, SMcCandlish, North8000, Krakkos, Bloodofox, and Carlstak:, my apologies if I missed anyone.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I can only concur with what Ermenrich writes above. It is a clear case of WP:OWN, by an editor who appears to have developed a method for bludgeoning away other editors. I don't know how many competent editors he has pushed away from these articles, but I am one of the editors who don't feel it is worth it to engage in interminable discussions.--Berig (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I also concur. Unfortunately, Ermenrich's assessment is exactly what I have witnessed. Other editors have been very patient with Andrew but this has been going on for far too long. As editors, we can disagree on this or that—that's perfectly natural—but Andrew's consistent and extensive bludgeoning is a real problem. He's well aware of what he's doing. Several editors have mentioned it to him, including myself. At this point it's difficult to assume good faith about his approach. I think a topic ban is the only solution here. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I must concur based on my observations as well. Andrew's lengthy and incessant walls of Talk Page discourse are simply too mentally exhausting for most editors, myself included. A topic ban seems the right solution in this case, as he is a valuable contributor otherwise. He simply cannot get out of his own way on this particular subject arena.--Obenritter (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• My knowledge of the situation is from being a medium-close observer of the Goth article for almost 4 months and just a quick glance at the Germanic peoples article when I got the ping for this ANI, so I'm talking mostly about the Goth article. As a preface, on the Goths article, the situation is unusual. There are only minor differences of opinion there; the biggest challenge is that they are dealing with huge amounts of material there on a complex, multi-faceted topic and Andrew has been trying to use a very cautious Wikipedian process (including large drafts) to move it forward. And it's still mired down, again, with no real disputes. IMO partially because the main person trying to move it forward, Andrew has been too cautious and too thorough in his approach. And I think that there have been no complaints about his behavior. In short, the hard work on the article which Ermenrich noted should be cause to give Andrew a barnster not an ANI post. That said, the sheer quantity and complexity of material being discussed and the size and complexity of Andrew's proposals certainly is an in-advertant barrier for entry and participation; this could be a source of frustration including for Ermenrich, Berig, Obenritter and others. It needs a tough simplifier-facillitator for the conversation. I'd be willing to try to be that at the Goth article for 1-2 months if they wanted me. IMO there is no behavioral problem there.North8000 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm convinced that Andrew is acting in good faith, but this is true that those walls of text on talk pages are often exhausting. You should try to be more concise in your answers, or perhaps to open a blog if you like writing lengthy posts about Germanic studies. Alcaios (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that the contributions of Andrew Lancaster in the talk page come in a length and speed that makes it hard to keep up with the discussion. Some editors react less voluminously, but just as quick. What happens is that people like me who prefer to read 100 pages of good sources first before writing a single paragraph in both mainspace and talkspace will just withdraw (and read sources instead). It is my dearest wish that Andrew Lancaster could "come to senses" without measures like TBAN, because I consider his input very valuable in principle. There's bludgeoning and there's bludgeoning: some people do senseless rants and rambling, but Andrew Lancaster talk contributions always convey a message; unfortunately however, too often repetitive, little to the point, and with a seeming intent to "convince" people instead of accepting each of our POVs as they are. –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew Lancaster is certainly capable of contributing in a constructive way, but his extremely verbose talkpage commentary is a real obstacle for other editors who want to work on the Germanic peoples article. Whether he intends to be obstructive or not, his unending objections and suggestions wear out other editors who've been part of the conversation, and scare away knowledgable editors who would like to contribute but don't want to deal with the morass of commentary, most of it generated by Andrew Lancaster. His general response to admonitions to be more concise is to add another wall of text in response. Our crew of subject experts can't get anywhere because of his obtuse behavior, and one does begin to wonder after a while if his obstructionism is deliberate. I support a topic ban; he can contribute more productively on other articles—he's absolutely an impediment to progress on this one. Carlstak (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• My personal experience has been that the length and frequency of Andrew Lancaster's posts have been off-putting and something of an obstruction to further contributions. My central objection may not be shared by others, that too great a reliance on the "consensus" of recognized academicians is not a strategy for arriving at the truth as best we can know it. But the demand for a consensus seems particularly to be AL's platform for deciding the entire thrust of the article. This shuts out divergent opinion through exercising authority by proxy. "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes." Similarly, it's who chooses which scholar to give legitimacy to that determines which version of the truth is being put out there to the inquiring public. OTOH, I have found Andrew's contributions to be sincere and knowledgeable. Dynasteria (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Belatedly, yes, I agree. Andrew Lancaster is undoubtedly editing in good faith at both Talk:Goths and Talk:Germanic peoples, but his rigidity and aspects of his manner of argument—invoking names of scholars in a sometimes almost talismanic way, voluminous posts including at Talk:Goths a seemingly unending series of requests for comment, and sometimes personalization of discussion—caused me to walk away from Talk:Goths and I have several times been on the brink of doing the same at Talk:Germanic peoples. I am aware both that people of different academic backgrounds can have different assumptions, and that people can have very different reactions to the same style of argument. But for example I find this edit unduly personalizes the discussion, moreso toward Berig and Krakkos than me, while responding to my concerns over sources in a manner that I do find redolent of article ownership, hoping I don't mean he should rehash all the earlier discussions on the page. There and elsewhere, I consider his reference to "old and low-quality sources which equated large language families with ethnicity" to be reductionist. I'm not sure he realizes that such responses are intimidating; I'm pretty sure some would not find them so, but I was put off. At Talk:Germanic peoples, I tried to meet his argument partway by demonstrating awareness of the problematic history of the field under the Nazis (I thought it might as well be me taking the "Godwin" charge rather than someone else), and I pointed out what seemed to me to be a crucial difference of assumptions about the range of the article. Andrew Lancaster didn't bludgeon that discussion as much, and also came to my talk page and I think thought about what I said in response. But Ealdgyth stepped in at the article talk page as a neutral arbiter, and is both a highly experienced editor (and administrator) and a fine medievalist, and I do not think this article section where he interacts with her is polite. (@North8000: I think this illustrates the difference of perception; but I also want to stress that at least one highly qualified person has tried.) Andrew Lancaster rewrote the Germanic peoples article, and I can understand he feels invested in it and it must be hard to see agreement being reached on the talk page to start over with a version of the article prior to that rewrite. I can see why he found it impossible to stay away after I mentioned him on the talk page. As I say, he is undoubtedly editing in good faith. But someone can mean well and yet be intimidating and overly concerned with their own viewpoint and their own rights and insufficiently cognizant of others' rights or open to consideration of their points of view. And perhaps another factor is that this editor's style in the articles, particularly Germanic peoples, is long-winded and not very clear, similar to the style of the "walls of text" they have usually posted on the talk pages. (I am of course open to the same accusations, both with regard to argument and to length and lack of clarity in writing.) Yngvadottir (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reaction. IMHO the posts of Ermenrich and Carlstak are misleading and overdramatized, written when annoyed, though obviously I am not perfect, and can improve. We all have our different skill sets. But Goths is basically frozen and should have strange stats due to the admin decision pushing the main editors to RFC before any edit. The situation has changed again totally on Germanic peoples, so it is a bad time to judge it based on its past. Ermenrich has totally rewritten the article. No one blocked that or anything else. As can be seen in the calmer reactions above the only way I “block” or “own” discussions is by analyzing the pesky complexities which come from published sources. I find the advice of North, Austronesier, Alcaios, and Yngvadottir (and Ealdgyth) very useful and will try to follow it. Much less helpful, Carlstak writes increasingly about their impression of my character, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, but almost never about content and sources. Ermenrich has been an important on-and-off editor who was (like Austronesier and Srnec) an advisor to me when I drafted a new version in early 2020. That drafting period had a big impact on my talk page statistics. I had the time and energy to do it, and no one was stopping any imaginary team of experts from contributing more. That a rewrite was needed at that time was not controversial after several months of bold editing created a mess, and there were also RFCs which guided my work, and then later guided the way I answered complaints by visitors. I have often been involved in discussions about the article scope because that exact question has always been controversial on this article, long before I got involved. NOTE. The idea that the article structure was holding us up, and that we should return to the version of July 2019, which was NOT the version prior to mine but one from a half year earlier, was a recent proposal of Austronesier, and Ermenrich went and did it soon after. Now that Ermenrich has totally rewritten the article, the focus of POV complaints from editors with heterodox positions won’t be me anymore and that will naturally decrease calls upon me. As Dynasteria points out, I’ve been associated with the “POV” of using mainstream scholars, and in such discussions Ermenrich has often appeared as someone supporting my explanations. Why is Ermenrich now focussing mainly on discussions which happened in the past, which Ermenrich supported in the past, and which are now likely to stop naturally? IMHO the trigger has been normal BRD editing disagreements which should be resolvable and are not described as part of the complaint above. So we are in a new phase on this article, and we are all still adapting to it. A critical review of these articles would show a wide range of human imperfections, and no super heroes. Now is not a good time to be over-dramatizing or trying to exclude editors who've spent the last year looking at the sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the singling out of Andrew Lancaster as the problem here. Here's some findings and comments to explain why.

1. I'm new to this topic and so went to take a look at the article Germanic peoples. The first thing I notice as a reader is that it has two banner tags at the top: {{POV}} and {{cleanup rewrite}}. These indicate that these issues will be explained on the talk page but it's not obvious on the talk page which of the many sections relate to these tags.
2. Looking at the history of those tags, we find that they were placed on 8 July 2021 by bloodofox. On that day, Bloodofox posted 32 times on the article's talk page but I can't find any posts which clearly explain or even mention these tags.
3. The main section which bloofofox started on the talk page was instead a proposal to split the article. This is quite a radical suggestion but the process did not fully conform to the process described at WP:SPLIT. In particular, a {{split}} template was not placed on the article to notify the readership.
4. It seems evident that Andrew Lancaster is not the only editor who is very active in this topic and so generating actions and discussions which are difficult to follow and keep up with. If you look at the article history, you can see a flurry of recent edits by other editors – many edits being made on the same day.
5. In this situation of intense activity, it will naturally be difficult for editors to agree or even follow the details. WP:FAIT has a ruling from arbcom which states that "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." So, we should be expecting lots of discussion in such a case. Insofar as Andrew Lancaster is engaging in lots of discussion then he's doing the right thing.
6. To resolve this complex dispute, the editors should be following our processes closely and carefully – processes such as WP:SPLIT and WP:RFC. If there isn't a clear process then naturally the result will be chaos and confusion. The onus is on all editors to do this, not just one of them.
7. It's not clear that any admin action is required yet. Perhaps editors need to slow down a bit and so a WP:1RR regime might be appropriate.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Just on that last bullet, according to me we are in a new situation and actually the high volume is mainly positive right now. (Many of Ermenrich's examples are from the past and quite different situations.) I think we'd all like Ermenrich to continue re-writing the article, and 1R would mainly affect them right now (or it might make others scared to contribute). In the background, there is a chance this article scope topic might hit a wall again. (The fact it got mentioned by me - "hand wringing" - is apparently what frustrated Ermenrich and led to this case.) But Ermenrich's idea of editing for a while and then reviewing this probably makes the most sense so far. I think other editors concerned in how to eventually handle this probably agree. See Austronesier and Srnec here. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing complex about this situation at all. All we have to do is report on what scholars say. Without POV-pushing, that's quite easy. Anyone can produce a straw poll at any time. The issue here is Andrew Lancaster's constant WP:BLUDGEON tactics to get his way and that's not going to stop unless someone does something about it. Remove Andrew Lancaster from the picture and these articles will be FA-quality in no time. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm an uninvolved observer, here on this page for different business, but I had a look at the Germanic peoples page, and now I wonder what is going on here. Everybody seems to agree that AL is a good-faith editor with lots of merits. As far as I understand the accusations thrown at him consist mostly of a) slowing down the process by insisting on more discussion, and b) being wordy. These two things are thrown together into a WP:OWN violation, and now based on this people here are getting out of their way with demands for topic bans for the pages named and even every other page having the word German in them. Have you actually looked at the page WP:OWN? Nobody there makes a suggestion of responding with topic bans, which I consider one of the harshest sanctions available on Wikipedia, amounting to a block for those people where the topic ban basically covers the area of main expertise. Okay, I can talk easily here, as I'm not affected by AL's actions, but surely there must be other ways of moving the article forward than banning a good-faith editor in good standing and undoubted expertise. Please don't go this way. LandLing 11:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite topic ban on anything and everything even remotely related to any Germanic people, Goths and all of their languages

I have had many long and always fruitless discussions with Andrew Lancaster on those topics, over a long period of time, opposing his blatant POV, including basing articles almost entirely on an utterly fringe source with a self-declared agenda: removing the Germanic peoples and their languages, and even the word Germanic, from history. Describing his tactics as bludgeoning is spot-on, because that's what he's doing, in an attempt to drive all other editors away from all articles that has anything to do with Germanic, so that he can rewrite them all to fit in with his fantasy world. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Observation. As far as I can tell my "POV" on various related topics (which has developed as I've learned and read, because it is basically source-based) has, over the last year or more, generally been quite close, at least as far as what we think WP should say, to those of Ermenrich, Austronesier, Alcaios, and Srnec. That makes it indeed ironic that Ermenrich threw POV in the above complaint, but could only find examples where Ermenrich was also in the same discussion, but agreeing with me. Editors on Germanic topics attract a lot of intimidating anger and aggression from editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race, who academics are denying the existence of because they are dominated by ideologies and political correctness. I don't believe any version of the Germanic peoples article will ever avoid problems from that direction. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Andrew Lancaster has resisted constructive criticism. I truly offer this as friendly advice: The rule is, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! Andrew, stop defending yourself. Once again I point out the potential danger of mainstream "consensus" opinions. As an American I can assure you that fear of the tyranny of the majority is a bedrock principal for any free institution or government. Or I could sum it up with this query: Is it mainstream or is it groupthink? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasteria (talk • contribs) 11:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tom's characterisation of certain sources as "utterly fringe" is absurd. Srnec (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Tom's proposal seems intemperate but is not supported by solid evidence such as diffs. Note that this is their first edit in three months. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It would be a travesty to sanction an editor for working hard on articles in a very Wikipedian fashion. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Observation. I'm sure Thomas.W doesn't need my help defending his position, but to keep this discussion intellectually honest I would point out to Srnec that saying that someone's characterization is "absurd" goes nowhere to refute his argument. You actually have to formulate an argument of your own. To Andrew Davidson, the solid evidence has been offered by many others, above. It is, moreover, completely irrelevant how long it has been since someone edited. A person with a brain and the ability to think has the right to contribute. To North8000, the point has been made repeatedly that Andrew Lancaster has worked much too hard to the point of being an obstructionist and very definitely not in a Wikipedian fashion. But I support the direction of your question (see below). Dynasteria (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I managed to collaborate with Andrew on several topics related to Germani Cisrenani and Gallic-Germanic tribes of Gallia Belgica (eg. Atuatuci, Eburones, Caeroesi, etc.). Andrew just needs to be reassured that we're not going to write articles inspired by the essentialist vision of 19th-century scholars, and I'm sure that he's going to make efforts about the concision of his messages on talk pages. Alcaios (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Alcaios, it's not clear to me what that offer might consist of. "I will be reasonable and seek compromise as long as you meet my demands." (?) Dynasteria (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

My own main concern at the moment is that Andrew continues to deny that he's doing anything wrong. I don't think that speaks to him limiting his contributions.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dynasteria: which demands am I making to Ermenrich who brought this case here? @Ermenrich: according to Alcaios above my sin is writing without concision. Yngvadottir, in contrast, thinks some of my recent concise posts were impolite, and she has a point. All such feedback is constructive and I certainly admit to such imperfections in my writing style and will keep trying to improve because after all life is more fun that way. Of course it is difficult to live up to the standards of other editors on Germanic peoples though, in terms of concision and politeness. To be clear: do you think the talk page of Germanic peoples shows editors who are all concise and polite?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:, my remark was in reference to Alcaios's statement that you need "to be reassured that we're not going to write articles inspired by the essentialist vision of 19th-century scholars" in order, apparently, to limit your Talk page messages. This, however, is the Hobson's choice you've been offering all along. Also, since you asked, the question is definitely not what demands you are making of Ermenrich, the issues are those that have been laid out by concerned editors here and elsewhere. Primarily, from what I understand, that you commandeer the article itself and use the Talk page to enforce your POV. Is that not what is happening? Dynasteria (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't really follow what you are saying. I think what Alcaios was saying, rightly, is that my concerns tend to be reasonable by the standards of most editors (or at least Alcaios) and so the situation is fine if we just all work together. (Of course, Alcaios is assuming most editors will not be insisting on 19th century essentialism. That might be an issue for you?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. An indefinite TBAN is inappropriate, and I won't support any measures based on the reasons given in this sub-proposal. I don't see the "self-declared agenda", the use a "fringe source", the "fantasy world", and I don't believe his idiosyncrasies are "tactics". –Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Very strong support, recommend blocking. Enough is enough—I have yet to see any benefit's to this guy's editing, which is indeed POV-fixated and generally poor in these areas. I've witnessed him aggressively pushing extreme positions into the article whenever given the chance and stonewalling anyone who dares attempt to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. These articles have plenty of individuals with formal backgrounds relevant to these topics working on them—we don't need the constant bludgeoning and half-baked POV-pushing. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Given what @Yngvadottir: has highlighted above, I now recommend blocking Andrew's account entirely. That is outragous. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Inclining support. Bludgeoning is on display here at AN/I, whether Andrew Lancaster defines it that way or not. I believe the editor knows that dominating a discussion by posting at undue length and in response to everything anyone says, and being dismissive in short posts, are both uncivil and potentially intimidating, and that drawing attention to the former as a problem is not an endorsement of the latter. Personalization and emotionalism while accusing others of being emotional are also on display here: initial response at this AN/I: "As can be seen in the calmer reactions above the only way I 'block' or 'own' discussions is by analyzing the pesky complexities which come from published sources."; "Now is not a good time to be over-dramatizing"; response to Ermenrich below: "getting irate"; "Angry people are attacking me, including now you."; "anti-academic battlers"; "So you are pretending YOU are calm and not triggered". Yet as seen in in a talk-page diff that I linked above, he's quick to take offense when asked why he is himself emotional on these topics. However, I would not have endorsed such a hefty penalty as a topic ban, except that I find his response to Thomas.W's proposal above to be quite frankly shocking. "Editors on Germanic topics attract a lot of intimidating anger and aggression from editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race, who academics are denying the existence of because they are dominated by ideologies and political correctness." Andrew Lancaster sees himself as a gatekeeper and implies that those who disagree with him (he has provided much evidence on this page of his view that the scholarly mainstream is what he defines it as, for example: "I've been associated with the 'POV' of using mainstream scholars" from a diff I have linked) are tainted with racism. This is classic WP:OWN and WP:RGW, fellow editors do not have to accept such slurs for disagreeing with Andrew Lancaster or anyone else, and I am disappointed that anyone here is still defending his argument tactics after reading that. If he does not apologize and take back the implied accusation against fellow editors, I frankly advocate a block, not a topic ban. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Changed to Support, see below. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of this—that is outrageous and absolutely unacceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This ANI thread has certainly brought out the worst in Andrew, but a different user recently posted to the article talk page a Germans-as-victims screed under the heading "Let my people go" and complained that "white supremacist" was an offensive label. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Srnec:: I am that "different user". You are welcome to your own opinion but I do not have to accept your slurs as examples of the "worst" in someone. My thread was not some superfluous "Germans-as-victims screed" and it is un-Wikipedian behavior to be dismissive toward me. Primarily, though, the fact that I consider "white supremacist" to be a racist term, because it is, is outside your province of review. If you are defending the use, then you are guilty of a racist (or is it political) attack on me. You know nothing about me, do you? Dynasteria (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Other than that you advocate for voluntary amnesia about the catastrophe that was 20th-century German history, no, nothing. EEng 14:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I certainly do not claim to be immune to emotion, or perfect in any way, but IMHO the reality of what other editors have been doing to ratchet up the emotions is relevant to this case and needs to be considered. Several of the editors here really have been part of a systematic push around Wikipedia to delete reference to specific scholars who they claim to have an agenda to "remove the Germanic peoples from history", and this programme has included enormous amounts of ad hominem and incivility. It does seem that Bloodofox's recent approach of claiming that I must resent linguists, and that historians I cite are hardly ever cited in academia, has now impacted upon the relationship between Ermenrich and myself. Thomas.W does not appear to be a very active editor but has pursued me whenever possible since early 2020. For several months in 2020 basically every edit of Thomas.W had one theme. I suppose I am damned if I mention this, and damned if I don't. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Also I did not mention "racism" but referred to the theory that there is a way of biologically or genetically defining who is and/or was Germanic. A weak version of the idea still appears in the article, and defences of this WP:SYNTH idea undeniably appear throughout the talk page histories, attached to specific Wikipedians and their long-term positions on other issues, including arguments against various academics. I don't think it can be denied that this topic is an intrinsic part of why this ANI case exists now. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, Oh man, oh man. I'm not about to respond directly to anything Andrew Lancaster says on this page, otherwise, we're playing into his game, his usual technique, whether conscious or not (it doesn't matter which—same effect, and of course he can see the results—a royal clusterfuck). Look at his responses, classic bludgeoning— responding to every criticism—he's doing it right here in front of everyone, as Yngvadottir says above, because he can't help himself. Andrew still thinks there's nothing wrong with his excessive commentary on and bludgeoning of the talk pages of "Germanic peoples" and "Goths", and it's naive to think he'll change his style of obfuscation on these talk pages. I've given him the benefit of the doubt for too long, and now again he climbs up on his cross of victimhood, and dismisses criticism of his behavior, which seems rather arrogant. I say, stop engaging with him, it feeds what strikes me as something pathological. Carlstak (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning support now myself but also noting there is an alternative proposal below that may thread the needle between retaining retaining the value of Andrew's contributions while restraining any disruption from their ebullient mode of contribution in this area. I've been following this thread since it was first posted a couple of days ago, but taking the time to review the context in detail before supplying my own take on the issues of the talk page. Initially, I felt a sanction such as a TBAN would be excessive for a number of reasons: it's self evident that the two articles in question here cover deeply nuanced topics and must summarize a complicated tangle of issues and sources which incorporate both empirical research and more subjective faire. So a discussion of this topic is bound to involve a fair deal of heavy posts and some eye-straining debate. And if a given editor is predisposed towards verbosity, that could combine with complex issue to produce particularly lengthy arguments, even where bludgeoning was definitely not the intent. Furthermore, looking at some of those particularized arguments, I'm often finding that in some of the situations where Andrew is making their more voluminous contributions, they are doing so in service of a good argument on a complex issue.

However, all of that said, the more I have reviewed the forgoing discussion on the talk pages, the more my concerns have grown and the more I understand the complaints raised here by numerous other editors in those spaces--sometimes even when I disagree with their content/policy read. Andrew definitely needs to internalize some lessons here regarding the fact that having the right position is sometimes insufficient if you can't make your argument in the right way. Which should not be construed as me saying they are overwhelmingly right: I hasten to add that because I am concerned Andrew will otherwise interpret this observation (as they seem to have other comments of partial support above) as amounting to evidence that their problems are mostly due to the complicated position they have been put it.

And ultimately, that is the biggest source of concern here for me: there is a pretty monumental amount of WP:IDHT going on in this thread and even if we let Andrew off without substantial sanction in this case, it'll only be to delay addressing the issue until another day if he does not come to grips with the fact that there are legitimate concerns about his approach here. Above and bellow, I see a lot of posts where he makes a wise tactical decision to admit that his approach isn't perfect, but then spends three or four times as much time addressing why he is really correct in various particulars. That's the approach to mea culpa of someone who has a lot of experience being diplomatic and demonstrating openness to discussion to a certain level, but who really isn't receiving the message about how much their approach needs to change in toto.

Andrew, to speak to you directly now, the sheer volume of feedback you have received about problems with your approach on those talk pages cannot be completely rationalized away as a product of the context, even if we were to assume (as you definitely should not) that you were right about every content question and simply were stuck with the difficult situation of arguing against superior numbers on a complex topic. I do think that North8000's approach below may be the way to go here--or that we should at least try this half-step first--but if you don't make real efforts to recognize and address some very much real shortcomings in your approach to how discussion must proceed in the constraints of this project, I'll be surprised if the topic ban isn't imposed the next time this discussion lands here, if it has to come to that. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: to be honest that all sounds reasonable. I have said from the beginning that I do take some of the complaints on board, where that it logically possible. Some of the clearest and most useful advice comes from the same editors who actually cite sources such as Alcaios, and Austronesier. It is literally impossible to take all the criticism seriously because there are big differences between the different types of opposition against me. For example, Ermenrich included a POV aspect in the complaint citing an argument with Bloodofox. Bloodofox has one big issue and that is that I included citations from the academic author Walter Goffart in the 2020 version of Germanic peoples. If you look at my drafting page for that 2020 version, Ermenrich was one of the contributors suggesting Goffart quotations, and in the very examples cited above, Ermenrich was also involved, arguing against Bloodofox! It is like I said, the talk page is full of human imperfection. Was there an increasing problem or new problem though? No, there is a BETTER situation on the article. This case was triggered by a specific content discussion which is not part of any long term debate that I can see. (But maybe I don't fully understand Ermenrich yet on that. I would like to though.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I am not in a position to debate with you whether the article talk page is in a better place now than it has been in recent time: that may very well be and you know the article better than I, so let's just take that assessment at face value for the purposes of the moment. The important thing is that you recognize that whatever the state of the articles, a large number of your fellow editors and community members here are expressing a need to have you hear something that is pretty consistent in at least some details. Given the tone of feedback at this juncture, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that hearing it might be vital to staying involved on these articles. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I read Andrew's initial response to me above, then went away to give him a chance to reflect on the need for an apology. Instead I find not the tiniest shred of regret for implying that any and all who disagree with his position represent a racist position, not even an admission that he may have phrased his point overly broadly. Instead he doubled down on it initially: "Several of the editors here really have been part of a systematic push around Wikipedia to delete reference to specific scholars who they claim to have an agenda to 'remove the Germanic peoples from history'", and redoubled the aspersion in a later addition to the same comment: "Also I did not mention 'racism' but referred to the theory that there is a way of biologically or genetically defining who is and/or was Germanic. A weak version of the idea still appears in the article, and defences of this WP:SYNTH idea undeniably appear throughout the talk page histories, attached to specific Wikipedians and their long-term positions on other issues, including arguments against various academics." He has continued to attack other editors here on AN/I, accusing them of being emotional and of creating the problem by attacking him; for example to Ermenrich below: "There is too much exaggeration and dramatization. Take a step back and look. You are in control of the article. No one is working against you. I am not the main participant in editing or on the talk page, but if I post any question or concern I get attacked and parodied and long discussions ensue, all driven by the same editors who have attacked me here." Note the use of "parodied", which denotes deliberate misrepresentation, and which he has frequently used when he wants to say that his position is being inaccurately summarized. He has resumed frequent posting at Talk:Germanic peoples (in addition to making one small change to the article itself with a diffident edit summary); with his repeated serious aspersions in this discussion, that is inappropriate. It is apparent that no admin is going to block him, which is a pity because it might have been a sufficiently unambiguous signal as to cause him to reevaluate his argument strategy and his assumption that his article ownership is acceptable here. But instead I must advocate for the less preferable means of stopping his disruption of the editing process. Someone who tenaciously believes that only adherents of his preferred school of theorists should be allowed to work on articles about Germanic peoples, and that disagreement with him constitutes an attack that he is entitled to bludgeon against, should not be editing on such topics or posting to the talk pages. Other editors have expertise in the field and are more than capable of ensuring that the scholarly point of view he favors is adequately represented in the articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see multiple editors making long and frequent posts, both on the article talk page and here. I don't see any cause to topic ban just one of them. This thread is long on opinion but short on diffs of actual disruption. Seems like a content dispute to me. By the way, from skimming the article talk page, it seems to me the root problem is that the editors working there have yet to identify what the leading sources are for this topic. Accurately and neutrally summarizing the sources is impossible until the sources are identified. Levivich 13:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't T-ban people on their first rodeo unless they're clearly operating in bad faith or without WP:COMPETENCE, and yet it's clear that even the editors most concerned about AL's behavior consider him operating in good faith and with considerable competence. He just needs to exercise a different form of [social] competence and learn not to bludgeon discussions to death. I'll agree with critics that the Germanic/Goths discussions have dragged and dragged and dragged unnecessarily, and that AL is the proximal cause of much of this disputation and time-sinking. However, the process has not been entirely unproductive. It could simply have been much more productive. I think the self-moderation proposal below is more reasonable at this time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Can Andrew Lancaster suggest a solution?

@Andrew Lancaster: So, despite your best efforts, even those of us who applaud your work say that there is a problem at those articles as described above. Do you have a suggestion, even of some voluntary approach to try? North8000 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC

• Support this question. Dynasteria (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I would also support some proposal by Andrew given that most involved editors agree his editing is problematic, if well-meaning. My preferred solution would be a one year topic ban, but perhaps there are other ways of fixing things up.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I am stunned at this proposal. "OK, you didn't do the murder, but you did do deconstructionism, so can we agree on a year?" I see neutral Wikipedians posting above don't see any justification for singling me out. There is nothing being blocked by me. That is nonsense. The article and its talk page might be terrible but the direction looks better than for a while and I am contributing to that according to pretty much everyone. Let's just keep working? I find it really sad and surreal that you have attacked me like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The problem here is not a particular editor but some controversy about the topic. The solution in such cases is to attract attention so that more editors attend, express their take on the issue and so help establish a better consensus. This is best done by an RfC but this ANI entry will have a similar effect. Andrew Lancaster will no doubt take on board the various comments made and, in any case, their individual position will be more diluted by the input of others. The outcome we need to settle here is whether any immediate admin action is required and I'm not convinced that it is. This just seems to be a content dispute and so it goes ... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson, various attempts have been made to attract more editors to the topic, including by myself (see [5], [6]), however most are simply put off by the complexity of the discussion and accompanying walls of text and leave. As I've said before, I believe that the complexity of the discussion is largely the result of Andrew Lancaster's manner of arguing, rather than the subject being more complex in and of itself than other areas. This is not just a topic dispute, it's a behavioral problem.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• If it is not a content dispute why was POV included as part of the complaint? OTOH, while your examples of POV disputes are old arguments with Bloodofox where you agreed with me, the emotionally trigger to this complaint was basically at least a short-term content dispute: [7] Andrew, you are trying to force the definition of a single clique of historians onto the article - this is precisely why no one liked how you had edited the article before (and other comments in a similar theme). Apparently to some extent you've been drawn into Bloodofox's idea that this is a battle of linguists versus historians, and Carlstak's and Berig's ideas that they are mustering a team of linguistic experts and I am in the way? Would this whole ANI case really have existed without those battling ideas constantly being floated, and making normal BRD discussions difficult?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• The reason I brought up POV is that you've been pushing the article in a certain way, and it took my actually getting involved in editing it to understand exactly how this is happening. Whether you mean to or not, the walls of text cause people to become irate and annoyed and then eventually to check out entirely. They decide it's not worth the effort to try to debate with you since no matter what they say you will post a wall of text that discards their opinion. I have agreed with you on many things - but I still think you are bludgeoning for a certain perspective (POV) in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• (1) "Walls of text" is a silly thing to keep referring to in this context where longish posts are common among many editors on this topic including you, and some of the posts which annoy you were short. Let's use the word you've recently taken over from the anti-academic battlers to use on talk pages when targetting me: You say my posts are "deconstructionism". This is quickly becoming the most common word as everyone can check. But you don't mean I am a partisan of Jacques Derrida, you mean I look critically and carefully at definitions in sources. (As can also be checked.) Doesn't this match the aims of Wikipedia? Can you deny that this is what you mean? (2) Yes, I agree, this whole discussion here is all about certain people getting irate, including now you. Angry people are attacking me. Look at the observations of neutral observers though. I mean how bad is Deconstructionism right? The anger and intimidation has long been coming from the long term battlers who've been making these article talk pages bad for years, and not the people scared away by them. As Bloodofox warned me, "this is not my first rodeo". Be honest: editors including me and you have been repulsed by these article talk pages over a long period, and you have probably now taken a deep breath before jumping in just as I did a year ago. I want to support you in your efforts to move ahead, but this action you have taken against me can bring us back into the old battling circle. (3) You are saying this was not a content dispute but there is a POV problem. So you are pretending YOU are calm and not triggered by a small content dispute and instead there is some long-term POV problem which, before this ANI case, you have never mentioned. In fact, you still have not named it. Which POV am I pushing? Is it the one mentioned by Alcaios above? You are calling for a ban on a colleague so put it on the table please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• @North8000: I have made friendly commitments to do my best above, and I am open to ideas, but we have consider the real context. Nearly everyone who posts on Germanic peoples could be accused of something, if our aim would be to wikilawyer. I must add that now regret the way in which particularly Carlstak abused friendlier discussions about reducing the number of posts - using them as a rationale to express outrage at anything and everything, even posting a complaint on the article page to notify everyone that I "broke my promise" by posting a message on a user page. We are now in an article rewriting phase, so several of us have been involved in relatively fast exchanges which (as Alcaios remarked) we should perhaps slow down. But in the meantime, the build up of Carlstak's off-topic, uncivil personal attacks and dramatizations has certainly played a crucial role in building up the emotions of some editors, leading to this strange case. If you look through the normal sorts of posts which regularly appear on the Germanic peoples talk page, incivility, long off-topic rants, walls of words, can all be found, but here is Ermenrich saying I must be banned because of my "manner of arguing". But not off-topic, uncivil, etc, - instead referring to me giving detailed careful readings of sources, and comparisons of different logical options. I do not know how unusual this is on ANI, but to me it seems Kafkaesque. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

What I see there is two articles that are mired down due to the complexity of the topics and issues. Differing viewpoints appear to be only secondary causes. Nobody there has a knack for moving forward out of the mire, and as a result there whoever does the most work (Andrew) is creating the most miring. My idea would be to archive all past discussions. Then everybody try your ideas as SMALL individual edits on a BRD basis, one or two at a time. If reverted, discuss those small individual simple edits in talk, making only succinct arguments. For those most focused on Andrew Lancaster, they can rest assured that these changes most change/reduce what he is doing. Do this for 2 months and maybe it will establish a pattern that keeps the process out of the mire. I could camp out at both articles for 2-3 weeks as a facilitator of getting that process going. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It might be a bit different than you think. On Goths, things are stuck because the two main editors have to use RFCs to change the article. On Germanic peoples, in the last few days things are moving ahead but I am not the one doing the most work or wanting to make lots of proposals. Ermenrich is rewriting the article. I fully support this, and my hope is that I can give support and feedback. Ermenrich came here because I raised one or two awkward questions which E felt would hold things back but this was an over-reaction and editing continues. Most of the examples were from past situations. The talk page is busy but better than usual in terms of being focussed upon sources and content. I do not want to predict too much about what happens after this has run its course, but I think it is not controversial to say that this is when the main editors expect to review whether the article scope is good and whether splitting is needed. I don't think the situation right now could be much better actually. On the other hand the philosophy of having me under watch etc sounds ok, but please double check the situation and adapt the idea?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably indicative of the state of affairs on both is that I've spent a few hours on the Goth article over 4 months and 15 minutes on the Germanic article and had no idea that either of the things that you described is the case or even what the current situation is.North8000 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: Agree with your proposal about small edits, succinct arguments. However, characterizing an editor's behavior as (basically) "doing the most work therefore getting the most blame" in a really tough situation is turning the whole discussion on its head. Perhaps the way to look at problematic behavior, instead, is to ask (much like an anthropologist or psychologist) what benefit is the person getting out of the behavior? The topic is no more complex and difficult than the people working on it are making it. Why is it being made unnecessarily complex? Well, the objective evidence suggests clearly that such behavior provides control. Who has been controlling the article for nigh onto a year? Well, I'll let others answer that, but it has been stated already that it's Andrew. I'm attempting to go about this in a friendly fashion. However, as Ermenrich stated, the problem is that AL has not admitted to doing anything wrong. Additionally, I was more than a little shocked to come upon this article late in the game (mine and the article's game) and find such blatant bias and, from my perspective, a kind of lurking hostility toward Germanic peoples. I'm too old to be surprised by much, but I remain shocked nevertheless. I'd very much like to see this article fixed, but part of doing that is recognizing that the morass is illusory and created by human beings. To remove the bias, responsible parties have to recognize it's there. Dynasteria (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dynasteria: you are talking about past versions of the article. Ermenrich is rewriting the article and I am happy about that. Wait till that is done and then let's see if that is still biased according to you. But honestly, it probably will be right? In other words your understanding of why the article was biased is something not many other editors agree with so Ermenrich is not likely to change that problem for you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it is quite unwise to ignore the plethora of editors from the Germanic peoples page—nearly every editor there, in fact—who highlights major problems with Andrew Lancaster's editing style. It's obvious that he's engaging in WP:BLUDGEON and ignoring this fact will only cause the problem to continue. Without Andrew Lancaster consistently attempting to micromanage every aspect of the article with walls of text, we're finally seeing progress toward improvement. The article doesn't need a babysitter, it needs rejection of the constant bludgeoning stemming from a single editor. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Plethora? "Nearly every?" Not quite true is it? Micromanage? Ermenrich now dominates the article in every way. No one is blocking the article. My posts do not dominate the talk page in any way. The article is being rebuilt, and no one can blame me for that anymore which is great for me. When the weaker accusations are stripped away I am just the annoying guy who points to terminology and definitional concerns etc; reading the sources. Please stop poisoning the wells with all your battling talk. I do believe you are to a large extent responsible for getting Ermenrich to see this as a battle and take this action.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Plethora and nearly every, yep. Go ahead and count them—they're all listed in the section above telling you to knock it off, some more gently than others. The fact that you just can't help yourself is one thing but attempting to blame others for your behavior is something else entirely. The article is moving forward because you've been told to knock it off by no less than a crowd at this point, some of them--including myself--even bothering to seek a topic ban for you. Now that's an achievement. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: I'm happy to wait and see. It appears progress is being made. Dynasteria (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bloodofox:, it is good that we can at least agree that Ermenrich and other editors are able to work on the article with no-one holding them up, and that this situation began BEFORE this ANI case. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Some Observations on the discussion so far

In spite of a number of involved or uninvolved users stating firmly that a topic ban in this matter is out of the question, the users Thomas.W, Bloodofox, Dynasteria, Yngvadottir and Carlstak over the last few days have increased their rhetoric and their demands, first calling for a wider topic ban and now even for a block of Andrew Lancaster. When initially the charge was limited at WP:WALLSOFTEXT and OWN, we are now looking at the following complaints:

• AL pushes POV, as expressed by several editors. When AL asked for concrete evidence of his POV pushing, so far nothing was brought forward in terms of diffs.
• AL plays the racist card, to which bloodofox hastily agrees, although the evidence for this claim is rather flimsy, as in the "offending" contribution AL was just defending himself against the above POV accusations, and actually quite reasonably, not making any accusations against anyone in particular.
• AL emotionalizes and personalizes any discussion, also being impolite to others, citing an incident where AL politely explains his choice of words.

All this is being balanced by an increasing level of accusatory rhetoric that significantly overstepped the lines crossing over into incivility. Here are some examples of text snippets found among the contributions of the named editors: "describing his tactics as bludgeoning is spot on, because that is what he is doing", "attempt to drive all editors away", "his fantasy world", "enough is enough—I have yet to see any benefit's to this guy's editing, which is indeed POV-fixated and generally poor in these areas", "stonewalling anyone who dares attempt to discuss", "outrageous and absolutely unacceptable", "we're playing into his game, his usual technique", "royal clusterfuck", "he climbs up on his cross of victimhood", "strikes me as something pathological", "remove Andrew Lancaster from the picture and these articles will be FA-quality in no time".

To me it reads as "no matter what anyone here says about the lack of gravity of the charges brought against AL, or what people think about his good faith and qualities as an editor, no matter that North8000 offered herself as a mediator for the page, we want to see AL blocked!" To me this confirms my initial impression that after all it may not have been AL's behavior that ultimately generated this thread. After all this verbal abuse without substance, I am wondering if it isn't time to play the boomerang card. LandLing 13:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: LandLing, please define "rhetoric" for everyone. I'm aware of increasing reasoned and logical responses, that is, skilled and persuasive discourse. The word carries those connotations for me. Dynasteria (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a second sense to the word: "language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. You can safely assume that I used the word in this sense. LandLing 14:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I assure you I am always sincere and mean what I say. Therefore I reject your characterization. Meanwhile, I'm going through the links in your post (the evidence for your arguments) and it seems to me you lump various editors together and use one set of comments to delegitimize another set. Some of your points may be perfectly valid but it's hard to follow your argument. Ultimately, though, I don't want Andrew banned. I want better articles. Dynasteria (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

References

@Landroving Linguist Please understand that these comments are the results of long-going (how long, two years now?) and mounting frustration with Andrew's continued domination of Germanic peoples' talk page, as shown recently here and here. The first one is the one where I reached my breaking point, since he posted it soon after pleas from Ermenrich and me to please be more concise. It's not just the length of his comments, it's the sheer volume of them—he overwhelms all other commentary, making it very difficult to follow the conversation. As pointed out earlier, he's made 860 of its edits (44.1%). The next most frequently posting editor has made only 179 (9.2%). Andrew has added 754,829 bytes of text to the talk page (56.2%), the equivalent of several very long articles, versus 220,121 bytes (16.4%) added by the other editor, Krakkos, with whom Andrew has also carried on a long-running and acrimonious dispute, from which Krakkos has since withdrawn. I believe the same thing has happened at the Goths article. Andrew has worn many of us involved editors out, and new editors who might contribute are scared away. I apologize to Andrew for the intemperate comments I've made, we've had some pleasant exchanges in the past, even quite recently, and to the community. I got carried away when the article was restored to a previous version that more people found acceptable, and other editors were getting involved again, but then Andrew resumed his characteristic very frequent posting, often at length. It seemed that the progress finally made was going to be dragged down once again. Carlstak (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It is good to hear that apology from you, which will go a long way. Yes, I can see your frustration, but I also took a few hours this morning to read through the Germanic peoples talk page. Although it is certainly very long, there is nothing in there from AL that justifies a topic ban or even a block. Bringing this up here to ANI with this intent has been quite frivolous, to say the least. I hope you also can distance yourself from the more serious accusations that were brought against AL, because they don't really reflect well on those who brought them up to raise the heat in this discussion. LandLing 14:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Landroving Linguist, but have you looked at the archives? It would take a long time to read all the commentary, I think more than half of it written by Andrew since he started posting. It seems that his responding at such frequency and volume is effectively what could reasonably be described as bludgeoning. The acrimony between him and Krakkos, expressed at great length, was extremely frustrating to other editors, and better illustrates why some of us have lost patience. Carlstak (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I, and the other edits who have concurred with my characterization of events, do not agree with you this report has been "frivolous". Just because you can't understand how difficult and demoralizing dealing with the sheer volume of text can be, most of it either focused on extremely minor points, or else trying to push the article in a completely different direction than most editors think it should. We've had endless discussions about whether or not the subject of "Germanic peoples" includes people who spoke Germanic languages or not. At Goths, there's been endless discussions in which Andrew has tried to remove any reference to linguistics related to the Goths. The archives are full of this stuff. It's just too much for most people. While I may not agree with some of Andrew's most strident critics, I do think that the constant bludgeoning walls of text are a problem that needs to be dealt with, and Andrew himself shows absolutely no sign of doing so.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Carlstak: @Ermenrich: It is strange to me that this whole thing was launched some days AFTER Ermenrich completely rewrote the article, proving that no one had been blocking this at all. If I was not actually causing a practical problem then the complaint is frivolous. In effect you are now admitting you just came here to complain that you find me annoying. I find a lot of people annoying too. I also think that there is a giant gorilla in the room, which is that there are no such problems in discussions with Alcaios, Srnec, Austronesier, or Ermenrich (the editors who cite sources) in many other related articles that get less attention. The reason for the difference is obvious. The Germanic peoples talk page has a relatively large number of high-impact intimidating editors who visit frequently and make uncivil comments about other editors, and their "agendas", but never cite sources or work constructively. They've been trying to get more people upset for a long time. Can either of you seriously convince yourself that I am the one who keeps bringing up Walter Goffart, and all the other arguments which are the ones that repeat over and over, and get mixed into every discussion, every time? Ermenrich can you imagine us arguing about that if it was just the two of us? Of course I will keep doing my best, but if you have to write constantly expecting that you are about to be attacked by people like Carlstak, or have your words twisted as throughout this discussion, over and over, it does not help concision? Ermenrich if we are honest, then those have been the distraction discussions, and I literally have no idea what you are talking about with your new accusation. Are you seriously saying that there have been "endless discussions in which Andrew has tried to remove any reference to linguistics related to the Goths"? What are you talking about? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew, if I’m honest I really just think you need to pledge to stop posting walls of text and maybe even take a break from the article. Even when you are being reasonable the sheer amount of text makes it feel like an attack. I do think you’ve gotten too fixated on not Goffart specifically, but a direction of scholarship that tosses out all other disciplines who need to be in the article. That is why this was brought to ANI: I certainly don’t enjoy reporting you here, but it didn’t seem like I or anyone else was getting through to you.—-Ermenrich (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: There is too much exaggeration and dramatization. Take a step back and look. You are in control of the article. No one is working against you. I am not the main participant in editing or on the talk page, but if I post any question or concern I get attacked and parodied and long discussions ensue, all driven by the same editors who have attacked me here. You are not an angel watching from heaven. Two necessary conditions for this ANI case, and the difficulties of keeping discussions neat on the talk page are definitely: (1) Editors personalizing their frustrations about normal content-related challenges; (2) Editors distorting each other's positions. You and Carlstak both now seem to have picked up those bad habits. Concerning your Goths aspersion you are not really answering, so switching to generalizations: yes, there are differences between branches of scholarship which give us challenges. HOWEVER, none of us editors who read the sources could get confused and angry about this if we were working without all the extra noise on a less well-known article. No-one is trying to toss something out, unless you are, so you're summary of my concern with your explanation about the new opening lines is frankly an uncritical distortion that evolved straight from "denying the German race" meme. You have not really read what I was saying, because instead you brought it here. (That was my only long recent post - because careful.) If you want a short TLDR version see my question to Ealdgyth. In response to your "take a break" proposal, unfortunately in less friendly WP editing situations you have to be careful about making friendly compromises which can be twisted into precedents, admissions or promises. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew, I'm going to break my promise to myself not to interact with you any more. After repeated pleas to ease up on the frequency and length of your comments, you ignored those pleas, as you've done all along, because you don't see a problem with your voluminous and very frequent commentary that makes it difficult for other editors to see what's going on, as has been remarked many times. Yes, it's true that Ermenrich reverted the article to a previous version from which to start anew, and progress was being made, but you immediately took to the talk page to register your concerns, as you always do, with multiple, wordy points of 5,092 bytes. I thought, "Oh no, here we go again. The article is going to get bogged down because of Andrew's refusal to consider the comfort and limits of the patience of the people who are forced to read all his verbiage, unless they simply withdraw, as many have done). To give other editors an idea of what I'm talking about with the excessive commentary, obfuscating in effect, I present this interaction timeline between you and Krakkos. Warning: it takes a while to reach the end, after much scrolling downward. The interactions on the talk page of Germanic peoples starts at 2019-09-07. Carlstak (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Carlstak: Honestly, such posts are a problem, not a solution. You could certainly be described in recent times as someone who posts long off-topic posts, and is deliberately trying to disrupt the work of another editor.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So, there's a large crowd of editors here discussing Lancaster's numerous editing problems, and you think it's the crowd's fault? Now that's a creative takeaway. WP:LISTEN. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Andrew and all how about this?: Andrew's very Wikipedian work is appreciated, but the sheer quantity of that work and discussions at the 2 subject articles is causing problems. Andrew will voluntarily cut their amount of work and posts at the subject two articles down to about 1/3 of their previous amount for a month, details on this to be interpreted by Andrew.. After a month the agreement expires but it is hoped that the new pattern established will continue. This ANI will be closed but after 2 weeks concerned persons can reopen a new one if they see fit. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like something a little bit more clear than that. What does 1/3 mean, exactly? That main problem is just his lengthy talk pages posts, as well as, I think, a myopic focus on excluding "Germanic-speaking peoples" from the article "Germanic peoples".--Ermenrich (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: First 2 sentences: do you have a suggestion? Long third sentence has no connection to reality, and is a specific content issue that you're now introducing. I don't think that's practical. (If you really believe it then it shows how much of the current problems are problems caused by personalization of frustrations, and distortions of other editors. This is a content issue, but whatever else happens I would eventually like to have a bit of your time for a discussion to clear this up. I also feel frustrations, like you. It is always horrible to see someone misreport you over and over.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support North8000's proposal. And I also appeal to more restraint from other editors, however "annoyed" they may feel. Can we agree to commit ourselves to DS-like standards in the talk page and the article? –Austronesier (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support for North8000's proposal, and for Austronesier's call for restraint. Edit: I have changed my mind on N8K's proposal (for which I was very grateful as a big step away from the wrong direction), in a way expressed below. LandLing 20:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• North, I appreciate your creativity, and Austronesier I think your words are gold. Sounds doable if done in a reasonable way. However I'd point out that my normal rate of work on the actual article is low and not really the subject of this complaint, so I think the focus is on the talk page? You are going to need to define it though. Are you thinking about something like a number of posts per day and/or bytes limit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

After scanning the history, what about maximum 10 talk-page posts each running 7-day period, maximum size of 1500 bytes per post, and 1700 bytes per day. I presume this is much less than one third of my normal output for some periods. I don't see any reason to be limiting anything on Goths or the Germanic peoples article itself. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew, the intent is to get it down to about 1/3 of your overall rate of activity on those two articles, and yes, it's mostly about talk pages. And it's structured as self-regulated, self-determined by you so details such as you propose are not necessary. But if you want them, fine. The intent is not to create a new rulebook, it's just to get you to do less on those articles, especially the talk pages. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, that is fuzzy so forget the exact numbers, but I'll try to be uncontroversially within that. To be honest my historical participation has been connected to the lack of editors who had time to spend on quality work on the article as opposed to comments on the talk page, and also (as Alcaios mentioned from the start) concerns with occasional attempts to reintroduce what Alcaios politely calls 19th century essentialism. While we have Ermenrich leading work on Germanic peoples, I'm happy to watch and support or comment, as others are doing. I hope I will not continue to be distorted, and I hope the ad hominem posts will stop! While I've clearly taken some wrong steps and should accept some responsibility I do feel however very sad about the way in which ad hominem posts, distortions of my position, and the liberal use of dramatic outrage, have led to this case. I am convinced that if there had been no systematic programme of declaring that I had an "agenda" (variously evolving: Goffart, "revisionism", anti linguist, anti Germanic, "deconstructionism" etc etc) this would not have happened. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with N8k about not having numerical limits but FWIW those numbers are way too high. How much time do you expect other editors will spend on this article, per day/week? What proportion of that time should they spend on reading what you write? That's the way to think about it. Levivich 14:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I really don't want to cause anybody any problem of course, but it is a busy page, and currently undergoing a reconstruction. I was honestly thinking one post per day, and occasionally two, is a quite tight restriction given the normal rate at which not only myself but also others post there and edit the article? I am honestly open to suggestions on how to judge this. I guess we all judge such things based on our experiences of what is normal around us on particular types of articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, I wonder whether we are on the same page here. N8K expressed the limits in terms of bytes, not words. To get this into perspective, AL's post right above this one has exactly 605 bytes, so a limit of 1700 brings it into the range of less than three of these contributions. This is not excessive by anyone's standard, and I don't think it is helpful to restrict any editor using boundaries that are just not realistic. But as I say, I suspect that this is just a matter of misunderstood units. LandLing 18:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Landroving Linguist, you are right: I misread that as 1500 words per post, not bytes. I don't think a word or byte or post limit is helpful, either. The relevant unit of measurement IMO is minutes (of other editors' time). Levivich 19:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unacceptable accommodation for an editor who has bludgeoned, attacked, insinuated, and represented himself as the victim right here and is now bargaining for the right to continue acting as a self-appointed gatekeeper. The chilling effect of both his argument tactics and his insinuations is apparent and has been documented here; subject-matter experts and good writers have been driven away by Andrew Lancaster's acting as arbiter of what Goths and Germanic peoples can say, he is unapologetic, and the problem is not that he has a wordy style or that he is being attacked, or even that he is arguing for a valid scholarly point of view on contentious topics; the problem is that he has a detrimental effect on the articles, up to and including not abiding by minimum rules for civil interaction and not accepting the validity of criticism about his approach. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir: Please give diffs for "attacked", "insinuated" and "not abiding by minimum rules for civil interaction". I stated above that so far the only reasonable documentation in this thread was about WP:WALLSOFTEXT, which is by no means a punishable crime on Wikipedia, if the text is to the point. You are again introducing or repeating charges for which we have not seen any reasonable documentation. Please give us that documentation, or stop doing that. The same applies to bloodofox. Claiming "numerous editing problems" as you did above without so far showing us even one of them is not going to help your cause, but it reinforces my above suspicion that you are part of the problem. LandLing 10:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: I think I may be the only participant in this discussion who has brought diffs and quotations. I quoted the insinuation above: "Editors on Germanic topics attract a lot of intimidating anger and aggression from editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race, who academics are denying the existence of because they are dominated by ideologies and political correctness." I have more recently quoted Andrew Lancaster's doubling down on that insinuation in a response to me: "Several of the editors here really have been part of a systematic push around Wikipedia to delete reference to specific scholars who they claim to have an agenda to 'remove the Germanic peoples from history'". That makes it clear that the accusation of identification with a Germanic race (my emphasis) and of a "push" to delete mention of scholars on such grounds are not drive-by white supremacists or a deluded minority, but those of his fellow editors who disagree with him. Since you apparently require me to personally convince you, I refer you again to my post above supporting Thomas W.'s proposal for a comprehensive topic ban, or you may feel free to re-read Andrew Lancaster's own statements and to remind yourself of the heading of this section, by Ermenrich (who I believe agrees with most of Andrew Lancaster's positions on the scholarship), which refers to WP:OWN and WP:BLUDGEON, both of which are violations of editor conduct standards, although I would not presume to school you on when they cross the line into obvious policy violation. I have also invoked WP:RGW. Perhaps I have been too verbose and you have not read my fuller arguments, above. If you have, please forgive my repetition in responding to your request. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, thanks. Yes, I have read your previous contributions, and in my OP to this section I have also stated clearly that these are rather flimsy grounds for an accusation that AL is playing the racism card. Both passages you quote you interpret as insinuations and use them against AL, but, from reading what I read so far in and about Germanic people, both statements are actually factual statements that need to be evaluated against what they are referring to. Apparently there are editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race. Obviously there are academics who deny the existence of that, and they do seem to claim that such ideas about the ongoing Germanic race are based on ideologies and political correctness. All these are factual statements, and their validity can be discussed without assuming that AL is attacking any editors, such as you, in particular. It is also beyond doubt that AL's statement about editors pushing systematically to delete references to specific scholars is correct, and we can ask Andrew Lancaster for a diff regarding the statement that these editors claim that said scholars have an agenda to remove the Germanic peoples from history, as this seems to be a quote that he has taken out of a talk page discussion. With no word has he accused you or anyone else in particular of being a racist, and I think you know that quite well. Look, this is a discussion where editors wantrequest to *block* or *topic-ban* AL. Frankly, no admin is going to doimplement that on the evidence given so far. The WP:OWN and WP:BLUDGEON charges go quite a bit beyond just observing WP:WALLSOFTEXT, and the jury is even still out on them, as apparently at least the ownership issue had been resolved even before that whole case was brought before ANI. In summary, there is no convincing evidence for AL's attacking and insinuating behavior, and certainly nothing that gets anywhere close to AL not adhering to civil conduct. LandLing 11:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Now, what specifically in AL's behavior warrants a WP:RGW tag? I didn't understand that. LandLing 11:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Yngvadottir: after your first post you switched to expressions of outrage that are effectively treating both me and the neutral admins as dishonest in our reporting of relevant extra context. To point to the gorilla in the room, from your own posts, and various discussions between us previously, this is purely connected to my descriptions of the interactions I have had with several editors you seem to have a longer history of working with (Berig and Bloodofox and I suppose also Thomas.W). The fact is that is that my experience is of them entering discussions and then making personal attacks against me, not citing sources, distorting my position, casting aspersions, poisoning the well, and literally nothing else. Their position is that I am a propagandist for the scholar Walter Goffart (which is not true), who they accuse of wanting to eliminate Germanic peoples from history (which is not true), and who Ermenrich, Austronesier, Srnec etc encouraged me to cite more in 2020. The talk page is frequented by many editors making these claims about WP eliminating the Germanic people from history, and I don't know all their exact backgrounds, so I can only judge them by their actions towards me, and report those. It is clear these editors have a shared POV-based accusation which is completely different from any position I have ever seen put forward by Ermenrich, Austronesier, Srnec, Alcaios, etc who are all editors I have a good history of working with on different articles, and who cite sources (including Goffart) and have a long history of editing and discussing things on Germanic peoples at the same times when I have. So in a sense there are two different incompatible sets of concerns being mixed together. One is about too many or too long posts, and people annoying each other etc, and I have taken it seriously from the beginning. The other is one which I think would require a more complete review of the editing of the above-mentioned accusing editors, Berig, Bloodofox and Thomas.W. I personally do not like wikilawyering or overdramatization but I make no apologies for saying that those editors have acted systematically in problematic ways against me, and that I can't logically take them to be part of the same claim as Ermenrich. Furthermore they are not offering advice (as you did in your first post) and they won't be happy with any practical compromises. Unfortunately their participation here is simply part of their longer run efforts to disrupt any work by me on these topics. That is the truth as I understand it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: Hopefully the diffs you and Yngvadottir have suggested I should show won't be called bludgeoning by anyone!

• Bloodofox was I think an occasional visitor for a long time (longer than me) on Germanic peoples but entered discussion heavily with this thread [8] which was nominally about a new Germanic folklore article drafted over a long period together with Ermenrich and Berig.[9], though no-one has mentioned that since. A large-scale deletion of Goffart mentions followed [10]. The aggression towards me was obvious.[11] I contacted Bloodofox on their talk page to complain about ad hominem posts several times where further comments about Goffart and me can be noted. Bloodofox then called people for comment including many editors who I don't recall seeing on Germanic peoples, including Thomas.W who is not even a very active editor.[12]
• Berig's stated position is that scholars are wrong as shown by their disagreement with the Encylopaedia Brittanica and will be proven soon by advances in DNA research [13]. Soon after posting that statement, Berig seems to have gone to check the Goths article, seen that it was under admin oversight, and then gone to that admin to try to get me blocked, which is when our interactions started. The sequence of aspersion castings (agenda etc) that ensued is remarkable, but no diffs or similar were ever given.[14] They now mainly seem to work on such draft articles which are lists of Germanic things, but also has a longer history on Germanic topics. But recently Berig entered Germanic peoples talk to join the discussion started by Bloodofox, and I think Berig is the one who recently started repeating the term "bludgeoning" over and over about me, leading to requests that I reduce my posting and let others decide the future of the article.
• Thomas.W's activity level is low, so easy to check. Their main pursuit of me was in the first half of 2020, when every edit that user did had some connection to this theme, with constant focus upon Goffart (who has been cited in WP for a long time before I knew anything about him). In a post to Srnec Goffart is described as a "historian who has as his stated goal the total removal of all Germanic peoples, and everything relating to them, from history" (which is not true, as Srnec has explained various times). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, can you show us the diff for this quote: "historian who has as his stated goal the total removal of all Germanic peoples, and everything relating to them, from history", which would be quite important in your defense, as it shows that you were making a factual statement based on the talk history. LandLing 13:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I missed it. [15]. Bloodofox made similar claims in several places linked to above. Goffart's concern is however with the usefulness of the term in "late antiquity", which was a use connected to claims of continuity into medieval and modern times. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh please, I've been editing on ancient Germanic studies topics on English Wikipedia for around a decade and a half. I returned to the then-mess that was the article after completing a draft of Proto-Germanic folklore with several other editors, all of them here. I then encountered a very clear example of WP:BLUDGEON and POV-editing. This talk page is full of editors who encountered similar, specifically classic WP:BLUDGEON at a rate I rarely encounter outside of fringe topic pages. This thread is about your behavior, Andrew. Rather than listening to the crowd here telling him to knock it off and channel his urges into a something more appropriate (like a blog), we're now seeing conspiracy theories from Andrew ("I make no apologies for saying that those editors have acted systematically in problematic ways against me, and that I can't logically take them to be part of the same claim as Ermenrich ... Unfortunately their participation here is simply part of their longer run efforts to disrupt any work by me on these topics" — wtf, take a note for your defense of Andrew, @Landroving Linguist:). :bloodofox: (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, you have once more made an accusation of POV editing without providing any documentation, although you have been asked not to do this. This gives the impression of deliberate contempt of the way discussions are to be conducted on ANI, where diffs are the currency of the exchange. With your blanket statements about AL's alleged misconduct you have contributed exactly nothing to this debate except a significant increase of heat. This is disruptive, and with language such as "knock it off" and "channel his urges into something more appropriate" you have once more crossed the line into personally attacking Andrew Lancaster. I find this rather deplorable and not worthy of an editor in long standing as you are. I'm seriously contemplating to ask the admins to invoke a topic ban against you, because I'm getting more and more convinced that this would solve some of the problems on these pages. You have presented enough material to work with over the last few days to build that case, and there is more on the talk pages. LandLing 22:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I think there may be a misapprehension here. I have looked through this noticeboard section once more, and I don't see any "neutral admins" participating; the only admin I notice here is Berig. (Ealdgyth is an admin and sought at Talk:Germanic peoples to act as a neutral arbiter, but as I wrote above, I consider Andrew Lancaster was rudely dismissive to her; however, as I said and as demonstrated by statements here, editors differ in their perception of hardball argument tactics.) Landroving Linguist, who dismisses the complaints as "frivolous", has called for boomerang sanctions, and demands documentation, is active elsewhere at this noticeboard but is not an admin. Levivich is a regular at this noticeboard but is not an admin. North8000, whose good faith I do not doubt but who appears to have entered this discussion with a very non-neutral statement, "It would be a travesty to sanction an editor for working hard on articles in a very Wikipedian fashion." at the same time as starting a new section inviting Andrew Lancaster to make his own suggestion for what should be done, and he and I therefore disagree considerably in our assessment of the matter under discussion, is also not an admin. Snowded, who has also contributed to the discussion, is not an admin. Nor is Srnec, or Alcaios, or Thomas W. (Nor for that matter am I.) Non-admins, particularly experienced editors, are of course welcome to contribute to discussions on this board, and to attempt to move them toward a resolution. (I wonder whether I have missed some of Landroving Linguist's experience, perhaps under a different user name; I do not recall encountering this editor before, although I have a bad habit of reading AN/I and I admit I am bad at names.) I am sad to say that conspiracy theories about other editors cabaling against one (WP:BATTLE as well as WP:RGW are uncollegial, and their unapologetic repetition on this noticeboard is contrary to our civility policy at the very least. I am pleased to see one small improvement in that "The fact is that is that my experience is of them entering discussions and then making personal attacks against me, not citing sources, distorting my position, casting aspersions, poisoning the well, and literally nothing else." is a statement of what the editor has perceived, rather than an assertion of others' intent, but the accusations of personal attacks, casting aspersions, and poisoning the well still amount to the pot calling the kettle black, and based on the judicious statements I have read in this discussion, are unfounded. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist:, whoever you are, I get that you're keen—for whatever reason—on fighting tooth and nail to defend Andrew from the numerous editors on this talk page describing his behavior as classic WP:BLUDGEON and are clearly willing to look the other way at whatever he happens to say (like accusing other editors of together conspiring against him—which I quote directly in my previous comment), but I'd prefer you not make threats, whether to me or others—if you've got a case for topic bans, go for it. Otherwise I ask you too to "knock it off" and review WP:LISTEN. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support as the only remedy that seems likely to find any consensus at then moment. I would prefer something more definite, however.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but only because this seems to be the only way forward at the moment.--Berig (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Ermenrich and Berig above. Carlstak (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support–I suppose this will need to do as a first step. Any reasonable editor who sees this talk page and notes the sheer volume of editors here discussing the user's behavioral issues (especially WP:BLUDGEON) will immediately see that this needs to be addressed and resolved. However, as I know that Wikipedia can often work in mysterious ways , something done is better than nothing. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I have not heard of a single problem in the history of Wikipedia where cutting activity to 1/3 for a month is a productive solution. If an editor needs a break, it should be a full break. Simply being prolific is not a sin; I suppose editors of a different political persuasion might be inclined to want 1/3 activity but that is not a good reason for one. I don't see anyone who has presented 2 or 3 diffs that justify any action (that action should be a straight TBAN, not an encouragement to reduce activity) in this thread; if I am to change my mind somebody must do so. I also don't see anything on Talk:Germanic peoples or that article's revision history that justifies action. There are certainly points where AL makes arguments against a consensus; the burden is to rebut those arguments, not to ban AL. This is a difficult topic; the process of writing an article ought to be difficult, and whether or not AL is involved is irrelevant to that. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that anyone can look at the fact that Andrew Lancaster has posted over half the responses and over half the text on one page with several editors actively participating in discussions, and nearly that on another, and conclude that nothing is wrong. Should I provide diffs of all his responses? You've provided a link to an essay about AfD discussions, I've provided evidence above with links to examples of repetitive discussions, ignored advice, and the general problem. There's no way to reduce this sort of long-term behavior to diffs.

At any rate, I will defend this decision as a step in the right direction: it encourages Andrew to modify behavior that most editors involved in the talk page have found problematic.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any formal/logged sanction per the supports, really. Sorry, but I just find the supports extremely unconvincing here (and in some cases, rather aggressive). I see a group of people in a content dispute with AL and they're all supporting sanctions. And the main argument is that AL has written half the text and made half the edits to the talk page? That doesn't hold up. It matters how long an editor has been editing a page. Look at the xtools: [16]. Look closer at AL's edits: [17]. I am going to compare Andrew Lancaster with the next-highest editor who is supporting sanctions against AL for bludgeoning, Ermenrich:
  • AL: 863 edits, 756k, over 10 years, an avg of 86 edits and 75k per year.
  • Ermenrich: 100 edits, 50k, in six months. Annualized, that's 200 edits and 100k/yr.

Does that mean Ermenrich has been bludgeoning more than AL? No; if you look at AL's edits to the page, most have come in the last three years, and head-to-head in 2021, AL is probably still making more posts and longer posts. But this whole idea of sanctioning someone based on their xtools stats just doesn't persuade me.

And tbh like others here I see bigger problems on that page, like the "Let my people go" screed and participation here by a non-EC editor, yet none of the people supporting sanctions against AL seem to have a problem with this. This reads to me not so much as being about preventing disruption (since the most disruptive activity on the talk page is not being addressed here), but about preventing opposition (since only the opposing editor in a content dispute is being singled out here).

I do think that AL (and everyone else) should be mindful to keep the frequency/length of posts down, I just don't think this advice needs to be made into a sanction. Levivich 14:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: Sorry, but it does not all boil down to opposition and a content dispute. The OP Ermenrich is largely in agreement with AL about most points regarding the article's topic, and so am I. For the "traditionalists", Ermenrich's position is just as "deconstructionist" as AL's. But: AL has a tendency to address disagreement with the same lengthy, repetitive and almost templated arguments, whether engaging with an occasional drive-by right-wing extremist who identifies with the 19th/20th-century ideology of pan-"Germanic-ness", or with people who are just half-an-inch away from his position. This can be off-putting at times, but here I disagree with Ermenrich, is does not require admin intervention that leads to formal loss of editing rights. I read and support North8000's proposal as a mediation attempt, not as a sanction (even though of course all this is taking place in AN/I).

And paradoxical as it may seem, it is easier to ignore this[18] (in case you haven't seen it yet), than endless textwalls from an editor whom I otherwise highly value for his contributions and insights. –Austronesier (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll thank you to strike-through the comment "yet none of the people supporting sanctions against AL seem to have a problem with this". Wikipedia talk pages attract all sorts of nonsense. Ignoring it is not embracing it. It's offensive that you imply otherwise. I deal with enough pseudoscientific babble and far right-wing blather on this website to not have to deal with some drive-by user implying that because I ignored some inane comment on a talk page that I somehow approved of it. Ridiculous. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, it's not fair of me to interpret ignoring a comment as tolerating it. Stricken with my apologies. Levivich 17:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, "none of the people supporting sanctions against AL" have yet to support the sanctions against the "inane commenter" being proposed on this same noticeboard. That's what you should have said. Not an accusation aimed at anybody. I haven't chimed in on that thread, either. Srnec (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Srnec, no, Levivich shouldn't have made any such implications. You shouldn't have either. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: You're right, I would support it as a mediation attempt and not a sanction. I clarified my !vote that I oppose only a formal (meaning logged) sanction, but I don't actually oppose N8k's basic suggestion that AL reduce the amount of posts. Levivich 17:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per the well-reasoned arguments expressed by 力 and Levivich. LandLing 15:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support as worded, as an unlogged voluntary plan. Oppose if my word "voluntary" in my proposal gets missed and it were to get logged as a restriction. Andrew's behavior has been excellent. North8000 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• There do seem to have been some incredibly long talk page posts. Encyclopaedists summarize: it's our task to present complex and nuanced matters briefly and clearly, and this is a skill that Andrew Lancaster doesn't display. I think those talk pages would be better places if Andrew Lancaster could learn the courtesy of succinctness. I'm concerned that North8000's suggestion as written seems to risk continuing the conflict because of its sheer vagueness. If it passes, I envisage a likely scenario where Andrew Lancaster believes that he's complying in good faith while others have an equally good-faith belief that he's not. I would urge that this part of the remedy should be a clear and specific word-count cap, such as for example a ceiling of 500 words in any rolling 7-day period. It's an extreme stretch to describe the outcome of an AN/I as "voluntary", but my proposal would indeed need to be an advisory, unlogged measure, being too novel for a logged sanction. Nevertheless, it might perhaps be brought back here if not complied with.—S Marshall T/C 00:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support: As a "mediation attempt". There does not seem to be any consensus for a block, T-ban, and even possible resistance to any "official" resolution like "immediate admin action". There is obviously an issue. It seems that even though some consider lines being crossed with the verbosity of Andrew Lancaster there also seems to be some validity to "So in a sense there are two different incompatible sets of concerns being mixed together". Ermenrich has elaborated there is a problem but supports this possible solution as does Bloodofox. One editor opposes it because it is something not evident in the history of Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia has a long history of evolving I don't consider asking (that is about what this amount to) an editor to limit the wall of texts in an attempt to "step back" from certain considered problematic editing practices. The one thing that seems clear is that these accusations seem to be more with talk pages than article editorial issues. A concern is that the "walls of text" can not only "mire" article improvements but potentially run off editors. A next step might include something more drastic. Any such next step might be circumvented by incremental changes, and by abiding by a dramatic reduction in comments. It should be remembered: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". -- Otr500 (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reasonable. Some mediation and self-moderation are clearly needed, but this falls short of topic-ban territory at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Trolling by User:Adamant1

Can some uninvolved people pleasego through the above interactions between myself and User:Adamant1 (in the thread "User: Johnpacklambert emptying categories prematurely; edit warring"), and see whether my feeling that all they are doing is simply trolling is correct or not? I'm way beyond the end of my patience. It started with my edit of 16:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC), and I hoped it would have finished with Adamant1s edit from 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC) where they seemed to say that they would disengage from the discussion.

However, when I today posted (08:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)), Adamant1 continued where they stopped the last time. Basically, they simply make up stuff to be able to contradict, and when challenged on this move on to another made-up thing, with some other bizarre asides thrown in for good measure. Diffs are no use to illustrate this, the best thing is to read thowe two subsections to get an idea of the discussion.

Please just make them stop and hat the two sections which do nothing to help the discussion forward. Fram (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A few things,

1. I didn't continue the back and forth. Nor did I start it. Fram did by responding to me on 1676_establishments_in_Ukraine when I asked Michael Z where they got their population numbers from after I said I was done talking to him. He did the same thing on the ANI board, where he originally started the discussion by responding to something I said to someone else. He was also repeatedly critical of my messages in the same discussions. Otherwise, I wouldn't have continued talking to him. It's rather weird to repeatedly start and continue conversations with someone, even after they say their done, and then blame them for it.

2. He was pretty disparaging from the start about my participation in the ANI complaint and the other conversations related to it. He accused me of trolling (including "incessant trolling" on my talk page) and lying multiple times. Without providing any evidence of either. He also said a lot of rather uncivil combative things when I was making a good faith effort to figure out what his problem was. Like "discussing it with me was a total waste of time", "our positions on what is reality are too far apart to have a meaningful discussion," "Acknowledging such errors would really make these discussions with you easier," "If you would start by reading what people are actually writing, and not what you think happened or was said, we may get some progress." None of that is civil or good faithed.

3. Fram say's that I'm repeatedly making stuff up and then moving on to other things. Since he didn't provide an example I assume it's in reference to me saying that JPL removed articles from the categories before he started the CfDs. Which I provided him examples of. Instead of accepting them, he just hid the discussion, continued accusing me of trolling, and opened this report when I unhid the discussion. Probably because he was trying to hide him being wrong and the evidence that JPL didn't remove the categories after he created the CfDs.

4. I would have liked it if Fram had of stopped accusing me of trolling and inserting themselves in conversations I was having with other people. If they had of, the conversation they are now taking issue with wouldn't have occurred. It did because Fram continued it. Also, I don't think the two sections should be hidden because they contain examples of JPL removing the categories before he did the CfDs. which IMO are important to the ANI complaint. Overall, I think I've been pretty civil about the whole thing. I sure don't see anything "trollish" about my behavior. Let alone incessantly so. I was just giving my opinion about why I thought JPL shouldn't be blocked from editing. Which for whatever reason was responded to by Fram with uncivility. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't plan on responding to your continually-edited post, but "He did the same thing on the ANI board, where he originally started the discussion by responding to something I said to someone else."? Diff please. My first post to the JPL discussion was this, a reply to the opening post, not to you. Then followed your reply, and a back-and-forth. I then stopped posting to the thread, until this morning, when I posted this, which again is not a reply to you or about you at all. You then again started responding, and eventually here we are. Your claim should be easy to support with a diff of what you mean, or easy to retract if it is a mistake. Fram (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"My first post to the JPL discussion was a reply to the opening post, not to you" My post below that (which you responded to) was in general and had nothing particular to do with you or what you said. I just didn't indent it probably. Something that for some dumb reason I routinely have issues with. That's why I said "Whatever our personals beliefs about the issue are", instead of "whatever Fram's personal beliefs are." I was talking about the wider participates of the complaint, including myself. I guess your included in that, but it wasn't directed at you or your comment above it. Otherwise, I would have said so. I can see why you'd think it was though since I screwed up the indent. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside the dubious claim that their reply to my first post wasn't actually a reply, we can at least agree that, contrary to #1 above, I didn't start at ANI by responding to "what you said to someone else" (which now turns out to have been a "general" post to no one in particular apparently). so let's move on to claim #2: "without providing any evidence of either" (i.e. of trolling or lying).

Their first reply to me (sorry, comment to someone else) was a post about some unnamed, unlinked AfD about some essay that got deleted. It then turned into claims that using my reasoning, "At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article.".[19]. I tried to get the discussion back on topic[20], only to be replied to with another ridiculous example[21] ("Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period."), and other elements that didn't make sense at all ("I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point."???)

Adamant then started their claims that there was no problem with JPL's removing of articles from categories at CfD: at first[22] because "if it was clear that the CfDs were likely going to be closed as "not keep" (which seemed to be the case) then IMO it wasn't controversial to depopulate them." I pointed out that such CfDs often have been controversial, that JPL knew this, and that he had been informed about the issues, both long ago and very recently[23].

Adamant's then changed tack, and started to claim that "Plus, you can't say the CfD rules are being broken if the categories were emptied before the CfD." They repeated that point in another post soon after[24]: "it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started.", coupled with "one of the articles he removed, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine (which was the only example I could find)"... Now, Khmelnytskyi, which was already posted in the opening post of the thread, was removed from the cat on 23 June[25], while the CfD was started on 18 June. So the only example "they could find" was completely incorrect. When I pointed out, with examples, that the depopulations were done after the CfD started, the reply was "I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point.", another example of trolling.

I replied with "He didn't know he was going to do the CfD ... 5 days after he started the CfD???" again with diffs, but Adamant replied "Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD." As it had now been pointed out repeatedly that no such edit existed, I had to conclude that I was dealing with either someone lacking the necessary competence to even look at diffs, never mind have an ANI discussion about them, or someone who was trolling. The evidence pointed strongly in the second direction. When their incorrect claims were pointed out, they suddenly changed to "Also, I don't know what "incorrect claims about these old elements" that I've supposedly repeatedly made is in reference to." as if that wasn't clear.

The discussion one week later simply continued in the same vein, with Adamant changing their story multiple times, and providing examples which turned out to contradict his own claims. So yes, I fully stand by my claims that they are trolling and were making up things along the way. But contrary to what they claim, I provided evidence for this all along the way. Which also refutes their point 3, of course. They haven't provided a single example of JPL emptying categories, and only later deciding to CfD them. Their first examples were of category removals five days after the CfD started: their latest examples were of category removals during the time he created the CfD (literally). Inbetween, they claimed "Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." " but when asked to provide the diff of where they did this, they changed the subject, probably because no such edit existed. Fram (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There was nothing dubious about the claim that I screwed up the indenting of my comment. I do it all the time. If you want other examples I just did a similar thing in this diff from awhile ago. Same here and here. This diff where I over indented it. This diff where I under indented. There's also this diff where I did the same thing. I also did it in this diff. Etc. Etc. That's just in the last week or two. Your really looking for things to have an issue with. Your probably going to just hide this message, call it trolling, and then claim in your next message that I never provided any evidence like you did before. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the contents of that first reply, yes, it seems very obvious that it was a reply to me (I start about content, you reply about content: I finish with a call for a sanction, your reply ends while addressing that point). Looking at your many other claims which turned out to be false, I have no reason to believe you own your word on this one. In either case, it shows that your point 1 was wrong. As were points 2, 3 and 4. Fram (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "content" (every message is content and most of what everyone was saying had to with it), but the whole point in an ANI complaint is to decide if someone should be sanctioned for their behavior or not. I don't see how me bringing up something that is literally the point in the ANI complaint shows I was responding to you. Like five messages above that I said I didn't think it was worth sanctioning JPL and it had nothing to do with you. So can you point to anything I said that was directly responding to your message and not just a couple of vaguely related words that we both used? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Content" as different from, or in addition to, just "timing", "placement", "indentation". You acted as if only the indentation of your post was an indication of it being a reply to me, so I discussed its contents. No idea what's so hard to understand about this. Anyway, any news on your claim from 11:33, 19 July 2021 about that other mistake, "as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. "? Any post from before that time were you had actually said this? Fram (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense now. It's still not evidence of anything, but whatever. So you can't provide an example of anything I said that was directly responding to your message then? And here I thought you were all about diffs or it's just a false claim. Yet, weirdly you really haven't provided that many (if any). Let alone to show my message was responding to yours. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your whole message was a direct reply to my post, which you deny. What other diff can be presented for this than the one for your post[26][27]? (a diff I already presented among the many posted above, which you apparently all missed?) I read this, due to the indentation and content, as a reply to my post, you deny this. In any case, it clearly indicates that your claim that my first post to the discussion was a reply to you, was false, as my first post was the one to which you "seemed to" reply. Meanwhile, you still haven't given an answer to support your claim from 11.33 from 19 July. Fram (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Move to close. Is this back and forth going anywhere? This is a discussion about a discussion on ANI? How about both sides stop discussing and back off?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion about editor behaviour, with one side making one false claim after another, interspersed with alot of ridiculous or baffling statements. Their "defense" so far has been shown to be of the same calibre, and I'm trying to get them to respond to another claim they made which should be very easy to substantiate (or to simply admit that it was wrong), but where three requests so far have not produced any result. Of course you or anyone are free to close it, but I don't believe that letting people state whatever falsehoods they like in discussions is in any way acceptable or productive, and editors should be held accountable for such things. Closing this down simply because they try to wriggle out of it all the time and no one else is willing to wade into this is a rather sad state of affairs. The basis for discussions (at ANI and elsewhere) should be that we can trust each other to tell the truth (with occasional mistakes, but not with multiple endlessly repeated falsehoods) and that we can try to resolve differences of opinion on that basis. With this editor, that trust is completely lacking, as they seem much more interested in trolling again, and again, and again. I see here that they got a two week block late last year for "bludgeoning, condescending, talking down to people, misconstruing and misrepresenting comments, and so forth". Only a few weeks ago, multiple editors were calling for an "indef and move on" block for Adamant1[28] for continuation of the same behaviour. Fram (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A call for an "indef and move on" that went nowhere because the majority of the people who commented thought the complaint was either completely meritless or didn't warrant a block. So what's your point? From my perspective the basis for discussions (at ANI and elsewhere) should be that we will assume good faith and take people at their word when they say who their messages are written to, or editors who are unwilling to should be held accountable for such things. From my side I've been more then willing to explain my actions and provided evidence for everything you accused me of. You've just been unwilling to assume good faith and accept my explanations. Instead, you keep baselessly repeating that I'm trying to "wriggle out of it all" and you keep wrongly saying I'm endlessly repeating falsehoods. Despite that, I'm more then willing to call this a wash if you are. I highly doubt anyone wants this to continue. Why not humor them? -Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, coupled with all other falsehoods, "mistakes", and ridiculous asides they proclaimed, I've now three times asked them to substantiate one simple thing they claimed, that what I claimed was a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact" was in fact Adamant1 misreading things, which they had already said at the time I repeated my claims.[29] I asked them then to provide a diff of where they did this, and did so in this discussion again two times. Either they indeed did this, but I kept on banging on about it, in which case providing evidence of it would be a very good thing for them to do and would seriously weaken all my claims. Or they made another mistake, but they have had plenty of time to acknowledge this by now. Or, as was clear a long time ago, they are simply trolling. Despite this, they claim right above that they "provided evidence for everything you accused me of." An editor who makes up such stuff is not an editor we can trust, and not an editor I think we should keep around. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Lets see, so far you've been wrong that I lied about JPL removing articles from the categories before he did the CfDs and you were wrong that my message was in response to yours. Not only that, but you've continued calling me a liar about both even after it was clear that you were wrong. Instead of just admitting that you were wrong. An editor who does such stuff is not an editor we can trust, and not an editor I think we should keep around. Or, you could can just take the L since your currently 1 to 2 and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indef block Adamant1

They were blocked for 2 weeks last year, and narrowly escaped another block just weeks ago. They are now constantly trolling (see above). Enough is enough, this isn't an editor we need to keep around any longer. Please read the above and the previous two ANI discussions about them. Without trust, we can't build a collaborative encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Originally, you asked someone to read through the discussion and give their opinion about if I was trolling or not. Dumuzid did and wrote me a message on my talk page that I wasn't trolling. Yet, you've ignored it and are continuing to accuse me of constantly trolling and your trying to get me blocked for something I didn't even do. How exactly is that a way to build a collaborative encyclopedia? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Since I have been invoked, I figure I had better chime in. I wrote on your talk page, Adamant1, because I wanted to offer advice rather than weigh in on an AN/I matter. I take no position on this proposal, but I will say even with my assumption of good faith, there is a lot of tendentious editing and bludgeoning here. If you are not blocked, I would again advise you to try to be a bit more succinct and that not every slight--imagined or otherwise--demands an elaborate response. As ever, just the way I see things, and you are more than welcome to disregard. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for chimming in and the advice. It's always welcome when given in good faith. I've been a lot more succient in this complaint then past ones and its something I plan on continuing to work on. Reminders in the meantime don't hurt though. Cheers. Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(see above) - The above thread in turn points to another long thread, which points to various other threads. Proposing an indef based on such a "see above" seems like a big ask that would make it hard for people to evaluate without having already been involved. Is it clear-cut enough that there are specific diffs of trolling? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW this may or may not be relevant (I think it may be, looking through some of this, so I'm just going to leave it here in case anyone finds it useful). I remember some years ago talking with DGG about heated discussions on Wikipedia in general. He said -- and I think he won't mind my paraphrasing here -- that he really tries to set a hard two-reply limit for himself in any particular thread. That way he thinks more about those replies and doesn't get dragged into a long, fruitless, and perhaps escalating back-and-forth. While I don't personally keep a number in mind, it's something I remember when I ask myself "do I really need to reply again." Jury's out whether I'm successful :) but I found it to be a simple and interesting approach to a common challenge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll try, but it is more of an accumulation of stuff than one or two very clear diffs.

• Ridiculous comparisons: in a discussion about whether e.g. Odessa University may be in a category for establishments in Ukraine in 1685, they posted this as a reply: "Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period." A previous reply already included "At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article."
• Making false claims: they repeatedly claimed that JohnPackLambert had removed categories from articles before nominating these for CfD (instead of during the CfD), e.g. here, here, here and here (another good example of a trolling post as well). Each time, I pointed out that no such edits were made, that even in the example Adamant1 provided, the category removal in the article was done 5 days after the CfD started (and when multiple people had already opposed it), but then suddenly they didn't understand what I was talking about[30]
• When the discussion restarted 6 days later, I confronted him with the above false statements, only to again be met with a lack of understanding what I meant[31]
• He then suddenly changed direction, and claimed that they had already acknowledged their mistake[32]: "It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though. Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." " Fine, it shouldn't be too hard to provide a diff of where this happened then, surely? But despite four requests so far, no diff of where this happened has been provided.

This is just a summary of some points, there are other examples (e.g. when I talk about the POV of JohnPackLambert, the reply I get starts with "First of all, I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point." Apparently, when there are others with the same PoV, it is no longer correct somehow to call this the POV of the one that started the CfD?) It's all these small and larger issues which make having a meaningful discussion impossible. Fram (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

With your first point, in hindsight I probably could have used a better example. I'd hardly call it trolling though. With your second, I provided the date and times of when JPL made the edits and they were done half an hour before he started the CfDs. So in no way was that trolling or making false claims. It's ridiculous that you keep saying it was. On your third, I'm pretty sure I had already said I miss-read the date of one of his edits. Maybe I said it to someone else though. I don't have the time or urge to look through a weeks worth of messages to figure it out. Someone forgetting what they said or who they said it to isn't trolling anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

For people reading this, just look at this diff[33] and the two edits preceding it (included in the diff). First post is Adamant1 stating or pretending that "How was me posing a hypothetical question about trees that are located in America a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact"?" I then explained again that the incorrect statements were about the dates of JPL's edits, not about that tree thing. The reply (see diff): "It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though.", and then followed the claim which they now can't remember any details about and is unwilling to look for. Despite claiming in this very section "From my side I've been more then willing to explain my actions and provided evidence for everything you accused me of." And all that isn't trolling? Fram (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't trolling, but if not then it's very definitely a case of WP:CIR. The fact that this editor comprehensively fails that has been obvious ever since he started editing. Why has everyone let him carry on, despite several trips here? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm pretty incompetent about how to indent messages. I have like an 88% success rate on AfDs though. So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower. Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1, no no no you don’t talk to Phil Bridger in that manner, even though you struck it out, you never should have made such statement. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Its wierd how when I provided the details of JPLs edits I was trolling, but if I don't provide the details of something else I'm still trolling. Is there anything that Fram is not going to say is trolling? At this point I really doubt it. And then he wonders why I'm not in a hurry to figure out who I said what to. There's really zero point when its trolling all the way down either way. Adamant1 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef ugh. We have a comment thread about trolling (and that you shouldn't be trolling), and Adamant makes this edit, which is pretty obviously trolling. There is absolutely no need for My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower., and I don't want to hear more explanations of how they didn't know it was inappropriate. I would suggest a project-space ban, but Adamant1 doesn't seem to be editing articles either. I don't see any good reason to give them another chance which would just waste more time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh come on. I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels. Especially when it has nothing to do with the ANI complaint. More so because Phil Bridger is always saying stuff about my edits in AfDs. That said, I struck it out because I probably shouldn't have said it anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have given this advice several times at AN/I, and it has never been followed (somewhat understandably), but I will try again. I think by far the best thing you could do to avoid a sanction at this point is to say "I'm sorry, I understand why what I did is problematic, and I'll do my best to avoid it in the future," and then to completely ignore this thread forevermore. I don't know if I could do it myself, but I genuinely think it's the best course of action. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as the comment that I made to Phil Bridger sure. I'm sorry that I said it. I shouldn't have made the comment. Clearly it's problematic to say anything even remotely trolling in an ANI complaint about trolling. I was more then civil up until then though, way more then I have been in the past, and I'm not going to undermine the progress I've made by apologizing for things I didn't do. Whatever the outcome of this I feel like I let myself down with the comment to Phil Bridger though. It was wrong of me to say. I should have just ignored him instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not just look at the facts rather than make such wildly wrong guesses? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I couldn't find the link. Why assume incompetence is the reason people are having issues? Its kind of hurtful to be accused of incompetence considering how much time and effort I put into my AfDs votes to make sure they are fair. Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You seemed to be perfectly capable of finding your own AfD stats, but you then go on to say that you can't find mine, which show that I disagree with the outcome less that half as often as you? And it's OK for you to base further discussion on your wild inaccurate guess? Sorry, but that can only be incompetence or trolling. If you have no idea about something then you simply don't talk about it rather than making things up. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone said what my stats were a few weeks ago. That's where I got them from. I know though, everything is trolling. At this point I'm not going to be that surprised if I get blocked considering the bar for what's wrong, trollish behavior is apparently literally anything. Adamant1 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You are, as so often, missing the point. You said above, "I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels. Especially when it has nothing to do with the ANI complaint." You were talking about me in the first sentence, and it is a bare-faced lie. You did not know anything about how often my opinions agree with closures, but you chose to base a whole sub-thread on this lie. As for the second sentence, who brought up AfD statistics to start with? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you were talking about me saying mine was 85% or whatever it is. I never claimed to know what yours is. That's why I said I imagine its low in the crossed out comment. True, you didn't bring up AfDs, but its the only place we have ever interacted and I don't work on much else. So naturally I figured that's what you were saying I lack competence in. No harm, no foul. Adamant1 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: You never claimed to know what Phil Bridger's AFD correct rate is, yet felt it necessary to insinuate his rate was a lot lower than yours? Why? WP:NPA quite clearly says in the very opening statement of that policy "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." I seriously doubt there is any part of this that is unclear to you, most especially given that three different threads in the last eight months regarding your behavior (November 2020, December 2020, July 2021) concluded that you were out of line in your behavior towards other people. Saying "So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower." is deliberately antagonistic and is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. You are insulting him by way of insinuating he is incompetent. You can either choose to stop attacking and bludgeoning people on this project or you can find yourself not on this project anymore. Great, you struck out the comment. Make comments like this again, stricken or not, and I'm very confident you WILL be banned from this project,^* even if this thread doesn't conclude to ban you. It's your choice. Either be nice, or be gone. Full stop. Is there any part of this that is unclear to you? Please acknowledge you read this, even if you have nothing to say in response. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) (* - just to be clear, I'm not stating it would be me doing the blocking, but I would be making a strong case why it would be necessary)

For the record; Adamant1 responded to my comment by way of thanking the edit [34]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't normally insert myself into discussions of this kind, but the indef support above had me take a look at your contribs and your habit of continually copy-editing your discussion comments... well, it's certainly something. This alone could justifiably be called disruptive, even if (possibly?) unintentionally so. I don't think your Wikipedia career is necessarily beyond saving yet, and I don't mean to be patronizing – however, if you do get through this, maybe you really should consider taking a second look that obscure article namespace from time to time, instead of getting bogged down in whatever exactly this is. AngryHarpy‍^talk 20:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have a disability that makes it hard to write messages that don't contain errors. Dealing with that by editing my comments multiple times after the fact probably isn't the best way to deal with it though. I use to copy messages to Word so I could proof read them before posting. I'll probably go to back if I'm not blocked since how I'm doing it now clearly isn't effective. Adamant1 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That does seem reasonable. If nothing else, you could take it as another reason to keep it a little more concise in the future. AngryHarpy‍^talk 21:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I have a similar problem and sometimes copy paste as well. The typos are maddening. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I note for the record that while making and revising remarks over the course of an hour may cause problems on high-volume administrative pages such as WP:ANI, it is almost always fine and unremarkable when writing non-controversial articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment In the meantime I deleted my watch list and unsubscribed from notifications. Since I've found it helps on other Wikimedia projects if I'm not getting emails or other notifications about every minutia that's going on. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef per fram they were blocked for incivility for 2 weeks last year and recently dragged to ani few weeks ago for same issues and narrowly survived it, they have been given too many ropes and their behaviour at this report includes WP:BLUDGEONing, incivility and badgering of other users,there has been no improvements.Ratnahastin(t.c) 07:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry I let people know that I'm taking measures to curb the issues. My behavior has been a lot better then what I was blocked for and I'm doing things to make sure it doesn't happen again. In no way is what I'm being reported for this time comparably to my behavior when I was blocked either. People shouldn't get blocked just because of past blocks or reports. Especially if the behavior isn't even on the same level and they are actively taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. Otherwise, it would be a punishment. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm doing things to make sure it doesn't happen again. What things? Levivich 14:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I opted out of notifications and deleted my watch list so I want have an immediate urge to respond to things anything. I'm not going to write important or long messages on my phone anymore either so I can proof read them in word first and send them the second they are written. Also, if I'm not indefed I'm going to request an extended block ( right now I'm thinking six months) so I can have some time to reflect, deal with things IRL that are stressing me out, and work on other projects. When I come back id like to do other things besides just AFDs. Since the toxicity involved in them really gets to me. I had looked into doing article review. Maybe I'll do some of that. Over focusing on AfDs has been to much of a stresser though. If you have suggestions of other things I can do or where else to put my efforts I'll look into them. Oh yeah, I think the whole "only write two responses" is a good idea to. Adamant1 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  That all sound like good ideas, but the question I have is: when will you begin implementing them? This is not the first or second or third time... even just drilling down on a small issue, the "success rate" comments in this thread ("I have like an 88% success rate on AfDs though. So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower." and "Oh come on. I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels."), this isn't the first time you've made such allegations: you also did it here, here, and here. These are repeated, chronic issues that are being raised. The time for change is now. You don't need to be blocked; if you want to take a break, just take a break. Stop publishing edits. If you disappear for six months, I believe this thread will eventually archive unclosed, and the issue will die and be forgotten, and when you come back, as long as you don't cause new problems, no one will object. If instead of taking a break, you edit productively for six months, basically same result. What's keeping this alive--what's keeping you on the track to being sitebanned--is that you keep posting to ANI. You are demonstrating that you cannot walk away. The time for change is now. Levivich 15:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's a little unfair to ask me a question and then malign me a few messages down about how unable I am to walk away from this. Outside of responding to direct questions and pings I'm done with this. I already implemented 99% of what I said I'm going to do and I requested a six month block a while ago. It didn't happen though. So I'm going to request one again when this closes if I'm not indefed. I'm done with it otherwise, but don't be upset if I answer a question or ping. Also, I struck out the rude comment I made to Phil Bridger and apologized without hedging on it. 100% that's not something I would have done when I was blocked before. So changing now is exactly what I'm doing. Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  More lies. You struck the first comment that you made about my AfD stats, but you then went on to repeat it by saying, "I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels", which you did not strike but have continued to make excuses for your behaviour that would shame a three-year-old. What weird universe are we in where you claime that you "apologized without hedging on it"? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think I'm not seeing an indef here. Not before trying something else. I'm not sold that what's been called trolling is something other than a mixture of two parts poor communication, one part confusion, one part too many replies, and a soupçon of WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's not great, and is really difficult/exhausting to try to work with, but but it's also not jump-to-indef problematic yet IMO. Adamant, given there are clearly many people who find your behavior problematic here and in the previous thread, I think it would be a good idea to think about some kind of voluntary commitment to put people at ease. One thing that immediately comes to mind is voluntarily taking a break from deletion-related discussions for [3? 6?] months. Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sure. I'm willing to commit to that. Which ever. Like I said, if I'm not indef blocked I want to be blocked for a while anyway to cool down and work on other things. I'd be fine with a 3 or 6 month block as part of that. Which would include not participating in deletion-related discussions. Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Not indef, but FINAL WARNING; We've had three different threads in the last eight months that concluded that Adamant1 was out of line in their behavior (November 2020, December 2020, July 2021). I said in the July 2021 thread that we'd be back here again [35]. Just two weeks later, and we're here again. I'm not really interested in a cool down block, even if self imposed by Adamant1. The necessary behavior changes do not appear to be happening, despite several requests for such changes. We'll be back here again when the cool down block expires. Adamant1's been directed to our policies regarding these issues multiples times. This comment given by Adamant1 in a thread regarding his behavior is frankly unconscionable. There is no justification for it. It's an outright attack. In isolation, maybe not much. Given the prior threads regarding Adamant1's behavior, and given the comment was made in this very thread? Wow. Just .... WOW. Ok, Adamant1 struck it out, but if you look further down in that diff it feels like Adamant1 is doubling down on the accusation. For the record, Phil Bridger's AfD correct rate is just shy of 95% [36]. That said, his AfD correct rate shouldn't be pertinent to the discussion anyway. So, why not indef? A site ban is a serious thing. Yes, Adamant1 has seriously violated WP:5P4. But, I believe in final warnings. Whether the person who closes this thread issues such a final warning (assuming there's no site ban) or not, Adamant1 needs to understand there are no more chances. This is it. Adamant1 needs to avoid making any negative comments about other editors, bludgeoning, or otherwise being incivil, broadly construed. Either they improve their behavior or they are permanently gone from this site. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologized after I said the second part. Sure I didn't strike it out, because I didn't think to and I assumed it was part of the apology because I said I was sorry after the comment. What was I supposed to do, apologize for what I said before I said it? Also, I meant I didn't double down on the apology. I just apologized and left it at that without using it as another chance to take a dig at Phil Bridger. Which I would have done in the past. Adamant1 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If I were you, I would strike out both comments, in total, not just the bit you struck out, and issue a frank, and honest apology to Phil Bridger for calling their competence into question and doubling down on that accusation. You were completely, utterly, and unconscionably out of line. There is no excuse. Ok, you apologized before [37], but the part of that comment were you said "Clearly it's problematic to say anything even remotely trolling in an ANI complaint about trolling." can be construed as decidedly snarky given the context in which you said it. This is one of the problems I have with your behavior. You do not appear to be understanding the impact your words have. I echo the advise given by User:Dumuzid above ([38]). WP:JUSTDROPIT. This might seem counterintuitive. Your righteous ire might balk against it. But, the best thing you can do for yourself is to just drop it. Let this thread play out on its own. You might consider not even reading it anymore. Just walk away from it. Go back to doing productive things on the project and avoid (at ALL costs) making any uncivil comments anywhere on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support as a time sink who is clearly more interested in trolling/nonsense, then building an encyclopedia. [I came here from his AN thread requesting a self block, which shows the continued lack of Clue.] Star Mississippi 18:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indef and move on (again) Seriously, not just my vote, but everything else I said before remains completely relevant. Grandpallama (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indef after reviewing this thread and the thread from earlier this month, I think it's clear that Adamant1 needs a community-imposed indefinite break from editing. Ideally, they will be able to come back in a year and demonstrate that they have made the necessary adjustments, but for the time being their battleground behavior is simply too disruptive to continue. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef and move on Enough is enough. The aspersions, trolling and the false claims have to stop. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment — both Fram and Adamant1 are friends of mine and I have worked with both of them separately and say FWIW, can you both be mature about this, close this thread and settle your differences like men? Adamant1 does good job here although have their shortcomings, I don’t know if it’s possible, but Fram is it possible for you to close this thread and try and settle your differences, one which wouldn’t scar Adamant1? Celestina007 (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Considering that they have now repeatedly called this complaint "meritless", I don't really see how it would be possible to settle this. Our positions are too different to find a middle ground, and the issues in my opinion to serious to simply let it drop (as they are recurring ones). Fram (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indef – the behavior above is precisely the conduct for which Adamant1 was warned not two weeks ago. The fact that it's continuing shows that he has not heeding the warnings given to him, and that's sufficient reason for a block. An indef isn't intended to be permanent, and I genuinely hope that Adamant1 is eventually able to return and contribute constructively. But until he's able to truly understand that incivility, aspersions, and battleground-type behavior aren't acceptable, his continued participation does the project more harm than good. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Promises of improvement are well and good, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. At this point, given repeated issues, some compulsory time off is necessary. Then, the burden of proof will be on Adamant1 to demonstrate a real commitment to change rather than simply promising it until the next ANI appearance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as too harsh and out of proportion. A final warning seems more appropriate. I also sympathize with editors with a disability. Adamant1, sometimes saying less is more, especially at AfD and here on the drama boards. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: While I have no time or the patience to read through these walls of text, I do recall this thread from last year (followed by this) where Adamant1 was confronted over persistent disruptive behaviours. Bludgeoning (replying to every single comment in the thread that they disagreed with), battleground mentalities, making broad unprovable generalisations about groups of users, walking back previous statements in dubious ways (which trolling would explain), deflecting blame, and generally not getting the point. I am both disappointed and not surprised that they are currently facing an indef proposal that's gaining traction. I was hoping they would improve after being talked to, but that didn't happen. Darkknight2149 08:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose- Permablocking someone over an argument that either participant could have walked away from seems overkill to me. And if we permablocked people just for making long-winded, difficult to follow arguments it seems like we'd have to cull half the ANI regulars. Reyk _YO! 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

But Adamant1 doesn't walk away, he always seems very keen to give a very detailed explanation of why he is right and everyone else is wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he hasn't replied to this thread in five days suggests that's probably not completely accurate. Anyway, my opposition to a permablock is also based on whether I think in three months or six months or whenever he appeals it, whether his unblock request will get a fair hearing. I don't think it will. People permablocked for being too long winded, and nothing else, are in an unfortunate position here. If he writes a few sentences along the lines of, I've learned my lesson and I won't be such a persistently annoying blabbermouth, the appeal will certainly get a peremptory decline for being insufficiently detailed. One word more and it'll be "no no no, writing a bunch of text in your own defense is exactly what got you into trouble in the first place.".Reyk _YO! 14:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Final warning. As per the observations of Hammersoft, Isaidnoway, and Reyk, above. But this is a close call, no doubt: the present circumstances simply do not add up to anything for which any sanction (let alone an indef) seems appropriate and proportionate, but there is a compelling body of evidence here that this is just the latest salvo in a substantial pattern of disruption for which the user has received more than adequate feedback and more than generous WP:ROPE, and at this point they ought to understand that they need to be scrupulously courteous and above-aboard in their interactions with other editors in respect of that patience and clear community consensus on their previous conduct. That understanding is clearly not being internalized, and the context of the fact that this thread was probably unnecessary is not enough to erase the weight of even minor civility/PA infractions at this juncture. Adamant1 needs to recognize that they only still have their privileges by virtue of express indulgence from the community and thus if they so much as do the textual equivalent of harumphing at another editor in the next year, I would support an indef. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block. I was tempted to suggest a final warning, but I can't suggest that in good conscience. I appreciate Hammersoft's comments above, but my gut feeling is with several ANI trips by multiple editors already, the odds that if we don't block now we'll be doing it in six months anyway seem likely. The principal problem with Adamant1 is he bludgeons the discussion by replying to everyone and anyone, lobbing in the odd personal attack in the process, including this very thread. It's under this context, where he filled up walls of texts in several AfDs, that led me to believe we should consider sanctions. I don't think there's much wrong with his conduct outside this - he's entitled to give his views on any AfD or notability debate just as much as anyone else - but he doesn't seem to be able to accept that some people will just disagree with them, and that excessive back-and-forth doesn't actually do any good whatsoever. So, I want to spell it out abundantly clear to Adamant1 - this stops here and now. Don't reply to this or any other thread in this discussion. If you're motivated to write a lengthy post about how this is a tragic miscarriage of justice, don't. If you want to speculate the motives of those supporting a block, don't. In fact, I'm tempted to put the block in myself if you reply to this comment in any way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm striking the support for a block just for the minute, because the latest discussion with Adamant1 on my talk page is conciliatory and not abusive. So I will take Reyk's comments above in good faith and trust that staring being kicked off the site has jogged him enough to realise something has to change. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support Indef Block for consistent disruptive behavior including Bludgeoning. They truly need a break from editing. He/she seems unable to stop disruptive behavior and seems unconcerned about conferring with others. He/she seems more interested in trolling than contributing to the project. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• I thought to close this, but I think it would be better to leave a comment instead. I do not see consensus for an community ban, which a community-imposed indefinite block constitutes. I agree with this assessment, but disagree with the warning proposed by others who oppose the ban. Adamant was given a community warning two weeks ago which did not prevent this situation, and while I would like to assume good faith I simply do not believe we can trust that this will resolve on its own with another warning. I believe the best course is to use our existing tools. Given the previous two week block and recent warning, I think a finite block of longer duration is within our typical scheme and a proportional response; I would suggest two months but would support up to six. A finite block serves as a functional warning included in the block log and guarantees that disruption will be stopped without relying on Adamant's word (which has failed us previously). If those advocating for a warning are correct that Adamant has already seen the need to change, then Adamant can return in two months and demonstrate that reform without taking up the community's time in an unban request. If not, they can be quickly reblocked and for a longer duration (including indef) as part of the escalating system of blocks without need for an extensive discussion. I think this is a functional compromise solution. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Per my discussion with Hammersoft below, I'm willing to accept this closing without a block. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• I supported an indef above, but I agree with Wugapodes's proposal wholeheartedly. There's real disruption here that needs to stop, but that doesn't require treating this user as irredeemable. Perhaps a lengthier block will stimulate real change; if it doesn't, that will make the case for an indef/cban all the clearer. A finite block, in my view, minimizes drama and strikes a reasonable balance between deterring disruption and allowing this user to make constructive contributions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Opppose While Adamant1's conduct leaves much to be desired, they have showed that they realize that they need to change their behavior, and I think that they should be given a final chance before a community ban.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef Fram has been right throughout this thread. This has gone on way too long. Adamant1 spends half his time here prioritizing snarky and aggressive commentating over constructive cooperative. Just because he briefly backs down under threat of imminent sanctions doesn't change the long-term problem we have experienced.Talrolande (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support non-indef block I'm convinced from the further discussion that an indef is not needed. I think there still is cause for a block; if there is a block it must be substantially longer than the previous 2-week block for similar behavior and shouldn't be longer than the WP:SO 6 months. If some experienced editors are willing to mentor here I'm not strongly opposed to just issuing a "final warning" with specific discouragement from certain types of edits. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Compromise

• "Oppose indef", Support block as functional compromise solution: Per Wugapodes comments but non-!vote, also supported by Extraordinary Writ. The logic of such a compromise for disruptive behavior, certainly seems within the communities options, over just banning or a stalemate resulting in no consensus for an indef. The subject has commented that 6 months would be agreeable. Whatever term the "customary next step", at the discretion of the closing admin, should not be argumentative. I think it would be ideal, as a "FINAL WARNING", to include the notations that future disruptions including badgering and bludgeoning are considered tendentious editing and will result in a determination of "clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". Please don't unnecessarily burden ArbCom and extend this even further. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose compromise; blocks are not punitive. It's been more than a week since Adamant1 has done anything that would warrant a block. No current disruption is happening to the project. I disagree with Wugapodes that a block log entry serves as a functional warning. It doesn't. This thread most emphatically does. If Adamant1 isn't aware of the very serious concern the community has with regards to their editing after four separate threads (including this one) regarding their behavior, a block isn't going to somehow bring it home to them that we're serious now. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Functional for responding administrators if not Adamant. If an admin gets a report about this user and looks at the block log they'll see a two week block from December but will likely miss the previous warning or the result of this thread. That contributes to the difficulty of resolving long-term problems as responses may be slower or disproportionate given the limited information at hand when responding. I agree that blocks should not be punitive, but per the blocking policy blocks serve to "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior". This is a fine line, but I didn't propose the block as punishment; I genuinely believe it will be effective in preventing likely disruption. Adamant was most recently warned two weeks ago, and the behavior has apparently been going on for months. Despite the short reprieve I am wary of just trusting that disruption will not happen again in the near future. If they didn't get how serious our concerns were after the previous block or after the previous three threads, why should I believe this thread will be the one to drive it home? I'd be happy if I were wrong, but I feel like the community needs to do something more than give another finger wagging if we're going to keep from having another thread in a few weeks or months. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I have Adamant1's talk page watchlisted now. If a block comes down for disruption in the future, I will likely start a thread here on this board to request a community ban. Sure, a well-intentioned admin might miss the prior discussions regarding the behavior. But, a block isn't a ban. An administrator might block indefinitely, but it's still not a community ban. The next step is a community ban request, and having a longer block log isn't going to change that. The only thing it might do is change who initiates the community ban request. We had something similar happen recently with Francis Schonken where an indefinite block was turned into a community ban (see [39]). While a non-block conclusion of this thread would seem to be finger wagging as you say, I don't think it is. I think Adamant1 understands they are standing on razor thin ice at this point, and any deviation from good conduct will lead to a ban. If Adamant1 doesn't understand this, we'll be back here anyway, even if they are blocked indefinitely. So, the outcome is the same regardless and doesn't hinge on whether we block now or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
      • If you trust Adamant has learned and are prepared to handle any disruption in the near future, then I'm fine letting this close without a block. Your advocacy and user talk watching make me more willing to take the risk, so here's hoping you're right. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
        • To be clear; I'm not really advocating for Adamant1. I said in the last behavior thread about them that we'd be here again, and here we are again. I don't have significant hope that we won't here again. But, their behavior over the last week gives me a tiny bit of hope. We'll see. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Next Stop May Be ArbCom

The Arbitration Committee has the responsibility of judging disputes that the community is unable to resolve. It appears that this thread probably will not result in an indefinite block or a site ban. It may result in a final warning, and we know that final warnings are not always final. If this thread is closed inconclusively, the next issue may reasonably be filed as a Request for Arbitration rather than here, and User:Adamant1 should be aware that such a case is likely to result in an ArbCom ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• We haven't tried a longer block, we haven't tried a voluntary restriction, we haven't tried a topic ban, we haven't tried a namespace restriction... there's an awful lot in the scope of ANI before going to ArbCom. If there's no appetite for any of them here, that just means there's not consensus about whether there's disruption sufficient for one of those remedies, not that disruption is so great that it must go to ArbCom. I do not see this as a case along the lines of an "unblockable". That said, I think a closing admin could find consensus for any of several options above. If nothing else, Adamant said he'd agree to a voluntary restriction on deletion-related discussions. Maybe the warning plus documenting the voluntary restriction works for now (one of those "if nobody's very happy, maybe it's the best outcome" deals). For my part, I just hate to see community bans imposed in cases like this before trying less severe interventions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to point out (as I did on the user's talk page) that Adamant1 seems to have stopped the reflexive responses and bludgeoning, for the moment, at least. Assuming they are not simply otherwise occupied, or some such, this is a positive development. Cheers, all, and happy Wednesday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree that ArbCom will be the next step. There isn't a complex issue here of wondering whether Adamant1 has been disruptive and insulting. I think we can all agree that's happened. The issue is whether to ban them from the project or not. Whether ArbCom votes to do that or we do, it's still a portion of the community deciding that. We don't need a months long case to go over the particulars of this all over again to arrive at the conclusion we've already arrived at of Adamant1's disruption. I warned above that Adamant1's next misstep would be the end. It will be, and ArbCom doesn't have to be involved. I concur with Rhododendrites and Dumuzid. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• IMO we should refrain from meta-commentary and predictions of the future while threads like this are still open. The risk of speculating about how this will be closed or what will happen after it's closed or what arbcom would do is that these predictions may be incorrect. The harm is taking up editor time by asking people to read commentary that just doesn't help resolve the current issue, and if anything, distracts from or even unintentionally undermines resolution efforts by declaring the matter unresolved or unresolvable. I'm hopeful that however this closes, it will fix the issues, and there won't be an arbcom case or even another ANI thread or any unilateral admin action in the future. If any of those things come to pass, it'll be sad, but I see no point in speculating about that. Let's focus on what to do here and now in this thread: there are several proposals on the table. Also, this seems a good time to say the point of blocks, bans, and all other sanctions isn't to punish editors, or to reform editors, it's to stop disruption. Is there ongoing disruption, y/n? What is the least intrusive thing we can do to stop it? These are the relevant questions. Levivich 16:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Competence is required too. Without respect and appreciation for the fact that Wikipedia works through collaboration and consensus building, some members of the peanut gallery will often lose sight of the relevant questions. Although a mop can be used as a stick to bash someone, that doesn't mean it automatically should be. I too don't see any evidence that the community is unable to resolve this incident; rather, it is clear that the community is calmly and carefully considering if there is a necessity to take a nuclear option when other avenues have not been exhausted, or if the cost/benefit ratio is proportionate, along with other important policy arguments. That is working just as it is meant to and the discussion has not concluded. It seems counterproductive to: (1) create a subheading which speculates on what will happen after this incident thread is closed even though it has not been closed; (2) promote the last resort of Wikipedia dispute resolution despite the fact that this thread is still in progress in an early stage of dispute resolution and/or merely because the community isn't unanimous about a ban at this time; (3) prejudge the effectiveness of a warning or admonishment being used as a remedy by the community; (4) suggest to the subject of this discussion that a request for arbitration is likely to result in them being banned - and that too, without having any knowledge of what evidence, response submissions or discussion will occur between the subject and arbcom in the specific case. Frequently making comments without fully informing one's self comes at a cost. Approaching issues like Rod, Dumuzid, Hammersoft and Levivich have suggested in their feedback would be more constructive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to expand on this (not disagreeing with you); if (if) a case about this is accepted at ArbCom, ArbCom would once again violate WP:DR in taking it before it was ready to go to them. They've done that before though, and don't seem to show any particular remorse in violating that policy. Further, if they did accept it, they would almost certainly name the case "Adamant1". I've long written about this, but the cognitive anchoring of the case would mean that Adamant1 would not get a fair trial (among other reasons why that is impossible) and would almost certainly be banned from the project. The community can handle this, and we are handling it. I think the lack of unanimity at this point isn't a sign that we're incapable of handling it. Rather, there isn't a need to take the nuclear option at this point. If this comes up again, I think the community will find consensus to implement at community ban. No ArbCom is needed (nor, in my opinion, wanted given how abusive they are). --Hammersoft (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that there are still other avenues of dispute resolution that could be tried before ArbCom. Also, I want to mention that this editor has been discussed ad nauseum in what - 4 different threads? - including this one. So, I have to agree with Rhododendrites - a closing Admin might be able to extract an acceptable consensus on a sanction from the above suggestions. On the other hand, hopefully this isn't being too heavy handed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Talk to aoi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Talk to aoi was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on Maggie Mac Neil, since the block ended they have gone straight back to the article in question and removed sourced info calling it "hate". Given their current talk page it is pretty clear the editor is WP:NOTHERE and only here to push chinese nationalism. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Note the editor has now decided to call me a hater because I simply reverted their removal of sourced info. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

P-blocked from Maggie Mac Neil. Talk to aoi, you have a reasonable point here, but the answer isn't to edit war. You retain access to the talk page. I suggest you go there and make your arguments about why this doesn't actually have anything to do with her personal life and therefore doesn't belong in a BLP but instead at One-child policy. —valereee (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I will point out that I gave this user a discretionary sanction notice for BLP articles when the first edit warring block occurred. This may have gone without notice by reviewing admins as the user removed it from their talk page pretty quickly. I think the current partial block will stand just fine without using the DS though. If this behavior carries on in other BLP articles then it may become relevant. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't see that, although I probably would have still done the same thing. The account's only like three weeks old, and I'm not sure I see that they've edited other blps. Although now I look closer I also see a blp vio actually on their user talk. Hm. —valereee (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After looking at their contribution history (which I should have done before), it appears the only area this editor is causing problems is blp (so far limited to Maggie Mac Neil, but with a cmt on their talk page which may breach blp), so if the behaviour continues on other blps a topic ban would be preferable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP violations about Mark Skousen

At [40] an IP has stated that Mark Skousen isn't a faithful Mormon, and did not provide a WP:RS for their claim when asked, repeatedly. They are past level 4 warning for WP:BLP violations. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The evidence was provided repeatedly that he was involved with fringe groups in the religion, which is the original statement that tgeorgescu demanded. After providing that evidence, this user began harassing me and making threats of reporting on both that thread and my personal talk page, despite me providing the evidence they asked for. They falsely kept claiming that I had not. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

How about a verbatim quote from a WP:RS which explicitly shows that Skousen isn't a faithful Mormon? You were asked repeatedly to provide a WP:RS for your claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You asked specifically for evidence that he was involved with fringe groups. It was provided. Only then did you attempt to move the goalposts, and started spamming my page with warnings as threats, as well as spamming the talk page on the noticeboard with threats and false claims that no evidence had been provided. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

That's what you claimed: Please note that tgeorgescu falsely represented someone involved with fringe groups of the religion as a "Faithful Mormon," ... This means you have explicitly denied that he is a faithful Mormon. Provide evidence for your claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You asked specifically for proof that he was involved with fringe groups as the basis of the claim. I provided exactly what you asked for. You yourself based whether or not that claim met BLP criteria on whether such evidence was provided. Only then did you attempt to move the goalposts and change what had been requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

At [41] I wrote You denied that he is a devout Mormon, you have to provide evidence for it. No compromise is possible. Don't tell me that you have not read my message, since you have replied directly below it. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

That was only after you attempted to move the goalposts. When I first posted the claim, your actual response was "According to WP:BLP, you have to provide evidence for him being in the fringe groups of the religion ASAP." Which is exactly what I did. So your later attempts to move the goalposts and threats of reporting are a clear attempt at harassment and intimidation. I will now no longer respond to you until admins get involved, as I have already decisively shown that you moved the goalposts and lied about what was actually requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

At [42] I wrote the following: "You called Mark Skousen someone involved with fringe groups of the religion without evidence (guilt by association isn't evidence: I mean, he could be wrong, be he still is a devout LDS Church member)." Did not read that, either? I have corrected my typo at [43], before you had replied to it. You have also replied to Let me put it this way: many Catholics have false beliefs, but as long as they are not outright heretical, the Pope has no business chastising their false beliefs. from [44]. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Admins, take note that tgeorgescu is once again attempting to move the goalposts after the fact. The quote they just gave was responded to with one showing that it was not guilt by association, that continuing to openly advocating for the beliefs of the group decades after that has been disavowed and warned is in fact involvement with the group. Tgeorgescu did not dispute this, but then switched to their goalpost moving and warning spamming, while changing the question from then on to be specifically not be about that portion of the statement. They maintained that line of reasoning on this noticeboard. And now, in the middle of it, they switched back again, even though the sequence of their statements and comments is openly available for all to see and thoroughly proves their moving of the goalposts and changing of what they claim to have requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You have provided this source: https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/ Therein is simply Mark Skousen appearing on Glenn Beck's show in order to speak about the book written by Mark's uncle. No mention of any fringe groups involving Mark, in fact there is absolutely no mention of any group Mark would belong to. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu is once again openly lying. The article specifically mentions that the book was published as advocacy for a disavowed foundation. Calling on the group leader's nephew to present that advocacy decades after the disavowal is evidence of that nephew's involvement with the group. I am done for the night, I can take no more today of tgeorgescu's constant lying, moving of goalposts, harassment, and knowingly and verifiably false attempts at intimidation. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

How about a verbatim quote from https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/ ? Prove me wrong, for all to see! Provide a quote wherein https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/ says that Mark Skousen belongs to any group (fringe or not, but we're especially interested in fringe groups).

He surely belongs to several groups, but the given source does not claim that Mark would belong to any of the groups mentioned in it. Perhaps he does, but your source never stated that he does.

So, the claim that he belongs to any group (fringe or otherwise) is not verifiable in the source you gave us. If you think otherwise, provide a verbatim quote showing that I'm wrong.

Your source does not even verify that Mark is a Mormon (faithful or otherwise), let alone that he would belong to any of the groups mentioned in the article. And it certainly does not verify the claim that Mark was chastised by the LDS Church. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Tgeorgescu

tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in an extensive campaign of harassment against me today. While I was involved in a dispute with another user over some NPOV violations that they insisted on including in the Prosperity Theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology) article, this user spammed my personal talk page with warnings and accusations of being a paid poster. While I was busy creating the section on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology) that they demanded I create, they did this multiple times, and also then posted the accusation on the talk page. Once I had finished creating that section on the talk page, I responded with the information that I am not a paid poster and their accusation was false. They then joined in on the talk page harassing me and making numerous personal attacks on me alongside the user I had originally responded to. Even after another user that I do not know joined the talk to concur with my reasons for the removal of the section and its violation of NPOV, tgeorgescu kept making personal attacks, accusing me of attempting to censor criticism of my religion despite me repeatedly stating my support of leaving in sections of the linked article that didn't violate Wiki rules, and making false claims that no evidence had been provided. After a back and forth, this user finally opened a section on the neutral point of view noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard), and then immediately resumed personal attacks and false claims about me there after another editor there concurred with my reasons for disputing the inclusion of the specific section in the Prosperity Theology article. As I responded to their attacks and false claims in that thread, tgeorgescu began once again spamming my personal talk page with numerous different warnings, a clear form of harassment and attempt at intimidation. No other user supported them while they were doing this on the NPOV noticeboard, but they kept repeatedly responding to me with insults, accusations, and different warnings and threats to report on my personal talk page. This behavior is extreme and unacceptable, and I request that admins take action to halt it immediately. I fully admit that I insulted this user in response to their personal attacks on me, but it was always in response to their personal attacks, insults, and repeated false accusations and harassment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:300:13f:848a:7df8:a2c8:e34 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for your claims, e.g. for the claim that Mark Skousen isn't a faithful Mormon. I have repeatedly warned you because you were making unverifiable statements about a living person without providing any evidence that he isn't a faithful Mormon. See WP:BLP. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You demanded evidence to support the claim that Mark Skousen is involved with fringe groups of the religion. That is specifically what you asked for. I provided it. Only then did you start tonight's segment of your sapamming of my talk page with warnings and of the noticeboard talk page with threats to report and knowingly false claims that I hadn't provided any evidence. It's there for all to see. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You have explicitly denied that Mark Skousen is a faithful Mormon. You still did not provide any WP:Verifiable source for your claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I already provided the evidence that he is involved with fringe groups that you requested as the basis for that claim. Once I provided that evidence, only then did you attempt to move the goalposts and claim that's actually not what evidence was requested or required. I will no longer respond to you here until admins get involved, as you keep repeating this pattern of knowingly falsely claiming that I didn't provide what you requested, as a form of harassment and intimidation. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

At [45] I wrote You denied that he is a devout Mormon, you have to provide evidence for it. No compromise is possible. Don't tell me that you have not read my message, since you have replied directly below it. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu is now spamming the same comment on multiple posts, and it has already been addressed. This came significantly after they responded to the intitial claim with "According to WP:BLP, you have to provide evidence for him being in the fringe groups of the religion ASAP." Which is exactly what I did. So this user's later attempts to move the goalposts and threats of reporting are a clear attempt at harassment and intimidation. I will now no longer respond to this user until admins get involved, as I have already decisively shown that they moved the goalposts and lied about what was actually requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

At [46] I wrote the following: "You called Mark Skousen someone involved with fringe groups of the religion without evidence (guilt by association isn't evidence: I mean, he could be wrong, be he still is a devout LDS Church member)." Did not read that, either? I have corrected my typo at [47], before you had replied to it. You have also replied to Let me put it this way: many Catholics have false beliefs, but as long as they are not outright heretical, the Pope has no business chastising their false beliefs. from [48]. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, admins, tgeorgescu is spamming the same thing in different places, and actively moving the goalposts. The quote they just gave was responded to with one showing that it was not guilt by association, that continuing to openly advocating for the beliefs of the group decades after that has been disavowed and warned is in fact involvement with the group. Tgeorgescu did not dispute this, but then switched to their goalpost moving and warning spamming, while changing the question from then on to specifically not be about that portion of the statement. They maintained that line of reasoning on this noticeboard. And now, in the middle of it, they switched back again, even though the sequence of their statements and comments is openly available for all to see and thoroughly proves their moving of the goalposts and changing of what they claim to have requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Tgeorgescu, I agree with LindsayH that both GenoV84 and yourself were treating this IP editor with undue aggression. Being an LDS adherent is not a conflict of interest. Also, people still use WP:NPOVN? How eclectic. El_C 05:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: After the IP stated they do not do paid edits, I no longer pursued that lead. But in fact the whole dispute is Mormon in-fighting. The professor who stated that Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids is a faithful Mormon. So, in fact a Mormon thinks that another Mormon is libelous about Mormonism.
• And we simply got irritated by the amount of hubris from IP's talk page statements. They insisted they are absolutely right and we are absolutely wrong. They called us So you are fools, and also outright liars, if you attempt to dispute that. These were not bona fide attempts at WP:CONSENSUS, but they made clear that it is their way or the highway.
• The whole point of IP's edits is to show that Mark Skousen is a heretic and a slanderer of the LDS Church. It is a smear campaign, if we are to call a spade a spade. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Tgeorgescu, acting aggressively toward someone repeatedly would have that effect. I'm not saying it's optimal conduct, but it isn't one-sided, either. Anyway, you call it a "smear campaign" — is there a way for you to verify that without the need for an outside reviewer to wade through walls of text? El_C 06:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: At [49] they provided a (1, one) source for their claim that Mark Skousen isn't a faithful Mormon, in its turn that was a claim made at [50]. The provided source is https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/ . This source does not verify that Mark is a faithful Mormon, it does not verify that he is an unfaithful Mormon, it does not verify that he is a Mormon, it does not verify that he was chastised by the LDS Church, it does not verify that he belongs to any of the groups mentioned in this source. I have repeatedly asked them for a source that would verify their claims. I have asked them for verbatim quotes. They have never provided any other source for their claims.
• To put it bluntly, this is all the information about Mark from this source:

• In March, with the new book available, Beck invited Skousen's nephew Mark onto his Fox show, where the two men discussed splitting up the United States. (Mark would later say that between commercials, Beck told him that a friend had sent him "Leap" and that the book "changed his life.")

  — Alexander Zaitchik, Meet the man who changed Glenn Beck's life

• Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• There is not evidence of me running a smear campaign, because tgeorgescu is being openly disingenuous here. TGeorgescu only brought up the Mark Skousen angle and made up from thin air the claim that this was all more in-fighting after significant other harassments and personal attacks by them and GenoV84, and attempted to use it as a derailing after another user on the NPOV noticeboard agreed that the inclusion of the disputed section was problematic. TGeorgescu then responded with " Please note that the guy who stated Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids is a cheerfully libertarian professor of economics and a faithful Mormon. So, IP's ire is towards one of their own. It seems like in-group fighting." this is the first time that Tgeorgescu has introduced this opinion in the entire conversation throughout the day. I saw it for what it clearly was, a clear attempt at derailing after their opinion had already been rebutted by other editors who hadn't been involved firsthand in the initial dispute like Tgeorgescu was. Also disingenuous, as it tried to present the individual in question as a "faithful Mormon," as if he represented the mainstream views of the church, and seemed to be intentionally obscuring the fact that he is affiliated with fringe groups that have openly been disavowed and warned by the LDS church. So I responded to that by pointing out what tgeorgescu was misrepresenting, and that's when they demanded evidence. I provided evidence. They initially attempted to dispute parts of it as evidence, but they dropped that after a few posts.

• The article in question does in fact mention in different sections that the book Mark Skousen was advocating to Glenn Beck was initially made specifically as advocacy for a group lead by Mark's uncle that the LDS Church disavowed and warned. TGeorgescu is also lying in saying that they repeatedly asked for a source after this to verify Mark's involvement in fringe groups. Tgeorgescu instead suddenly changed to personally accusing me of smearing Mark with the words "faithful Mormon," the same words Tgeorgescu had used in the comment that this was a response to. That's a clear moving of the goalposts after I provided evidence. I did not engage with his further demands and threats that I immediately provide a source specifically with the "faithful Mormon" term or else get reported, even as they continued to spam my personal talk page with a whole heap of various different warnings and claiming it was based on me smearing Mark Skousen. I was not going to play along with someone who had already harassed me vigorously and personally attacked me repeatedly suddenly switching the goalposts as a means of deflection

• Once that occurred, they then changed what they had previously been saying and suddenly started spamming my personal talk page with multiple different warnings and accusing me both there and on the NPOV board of personally smearing Mark Skousen. Their strategy changed back and forth several times. Now we see that tgeorgescu has recently asserted "The whole point of IP's edits is to show that Mark Skousen is a heretic and a slanderer of the LDS Church. It is a smear campaign, if we are to call a spade a spade." This was newly invented by them in the last hour, and is easily debunked by reading through the earlier portions of the talk page on both Prosperity Theology and on the NPOV board. I made clear from the beginning that portions of the article that didn't violate NPOV and that didn't attempt to pass off unsupported opinion as fact were perfectly fine remaining in the article. Somehow, more than six hours later, tgeorgescu decided to make Mark Skousen as an individual the crux of the entire thing, after plenty of back and forth clearly showing that wasn't the case, and I hadn't brought up his status in the LDS Church at all up to the point, instead focusing mainly on how the quote from him was presented in the Wiki article as if it were evidence-based, when it was in fact pure opinion. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• So, what are you waiting for? Provide the verbatim quote which proves me wrong. You can't, because I have already quoted everything that source wrote about Mark Skousen. And none of it verifies any of your claims about him. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• I already summarized the parts that you openly lied weren't there. So here are some of them verbatim, spread out in different parts of the article. "Before he died in 2006 at the age of 92, Skousen's own Mormon church publicly distanced itself from the foundation that Skousen founded and that has published previous editions of "The 5,000 Year Leap." "Skousen was unbowed. In 1971, he founded the Freeman Institute, a research organization devoted to the study of the super-conspiracy directed by the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. (The institute later changed its name to the National Center for Constitutional Studies, which has offices in Malta, Idaho, and continues to publish Skousen's books, including Glenn Beck's favorite work of history, "The 5,000 Year Leap.")

• By the end of the 1970s, the death of Skousen's biggest allies within the Mormon church hierarchy cleared the way for an official disavowal of his work. In 1979, LDS church president Spencer W. Kimball issued an order to every Mormon clergyman in the U.S. stating "no announcements should be made in Church meetings of Freemen Institute lectures or events that are not under the sponsorship of the Church. [This] is to make certain that neither Church facilities nor Church meetings are used to advertise such events and to avoid any implication that the Church endorses what is said during such lectures."

• "In March, with the new book available, Beck invited Skousen's nephew Mark onto his Fox show, where the two men discussed splitting up the United States. (Mark would later say that between commercials, Beck told him that a friend had sent him "Leap" and that the book "changed his life.")" Anyways, I need to get some sleep now, so it will be a while before my next post of any type on this thread. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Friend, you're seeing things which are not there: the information about Mark's uncle is not applicable to Mark himself. He is not his uncle. The source does not claim that Mark is part of any of the groups mentioned therein. The source does not even claim that Mark is a Mormon. The source never claims that Mark was chastised by the LDS Church.
• The source does not mention Mark's religion. It does not mention any relationship between Mark and the LDS Church, be it belief or disbelief, approval or chastisement. It does not mention any group Mark belongs to.
• Conflating Mark with his own uncle is called WP:FRANKIE. I asked for WP:Verifiable information about Mark Skousen, not cock and bull stories about conflating him with his own uncle.
• This is a WP:CIR problem in regard to reading a written text. I don't know why this is a problem, since there are many free text to speech engines available. Why is this a problem? Because you have been smearing Mark for several hours and you still did not recant. Don't you think that unfaithful Mormon is a smear? It certainly violates WP:BLP if you do not WP:CITE evidence to that extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• While I disagree with your tone towards the IP, let me just say this - if they read the source that they provided, they would realise that the article is referring to Willard Cleon Skousen, not Mark Skousen. This is something called WP:SYNTHESIS. MiasmaEternal^TALK 08:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• @MiasmaEternal: I think they do not have a great ability of reading with comprehension. Either that or they are intentionally vexatious.
• Why the tone? The IP depicts themselves as having done nothing wrong, not even the smallest mistake, and me and another editor which reverted and criticized them as purposefully violating the rules of Wikipedia in order to smear the LDS Church (in fact, the IP, who is a member of the LDS Church claims that another member of the LDS Church smears the LDS Church).
• They also made the preposterous argument that only early conclusions are reliable and all later conclusions should be discarded, meaning all my statements made a hour or more after their initial edit are to be discarded: This was newly invented by them in the last hour... Somehow, more than six hours later, tgeorgescu decided to make Mark Skousen as an individual the crux of the entire thing... That a statement could be both new (recent) and true did not cross their mind. Oh, wait... isn't Joseph Smith a rather recent prophet? tgeorgescu (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• So this whole argument seemed to have started with an addition to Prosperity gospel which incorrectly (and with copyvio, which I've removed) asserted that Harper's had called Mormon financial teachings "the protestant work ethic on steroids." In fact Harpers didn't say that, Mark Skousen did. (I've removed that, too; no objection to something actually correct being added back in.) The IP objected to quoting Skousen on Mormonism, calling him at a noticeboard not a devout Mormon, then supported that assertion by providing evidence that (starting to get lost here) one of Skousen's relatives was considered fringey by the church? While that's not ideal, it's absolutely ridiculous for tgeorgescu to be treating this as if it were an attempt to insert libel into a BLP. I'm seeing a lot of problematic behavior here from tgeorgescu toward an IP who, while they may need to learn a few things, does not seem to be ill-intentioned. —valereee (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• It is looking like BLP is being used as a blunt instrument to browbeat a content opponent, at least that's the impression I got. First, the IP's good faith edit is reverted as "vandalism," then they're told that because they're a member of the LDS Church they have a conflict of interest about LDS content matters. I know I'd be upset if I were they. El_C 11:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Hi Valereee, I lost track with the wall of text about Skousen but I'll get back to read it later. I believe that neither the IP nor Tgeorgescu are ill-intentioned in their respective propositions; however, we can't simply overlook the fact that the IP's aggressive behavior and engagement in personal attacks, accusations, and blatant insults directed towards me and Tgeorgescu has occurred since the very beginning of the discussion on the article's Talk page and revision history, which continued to escalate throughout the discussion despite my repeated attempts to settle a dispute resolution and finally reach consensus together, with proposals about what we should do with the paragraph discussed and the cited source. The IP repeatedly claimed that the cited source misrepresents or smears the LDS Church's official stance on prosperity gospel, and ordered to remove the paragraph entirely. I told him/her to calm down and follow the rules, because pretending to be in a position to give orders to other people is extremely inappropriate and ridiculous (to say the least...), and is not the way Wikipedia works. After more quarreling, the IP proposed to reword the paragraph and I agreed to do so along with adding more quotation marks to it, in order to highlight the author's opinion expressed in the cited source. As a matter of fact, the IP never answered to any of my proposals even though I agreed with him/her to reword the paragraph. GenoV84 (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

GenoV84, further up, I've warned you against your own aggressive conduct in this dispute —misconduct that in some ways was worse than Tgeorgescu's— so, I dunno, maybe acknowledge that I said that. Because the warning is real, I assure you. El_C 12:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

GenoV84, it can be pretty confusing to edit as an IP, especially when you're new. Just within this thread, the IP has changed.

IP, there are many advantages to creating an account, not least of which is that when other editors can see your well-intentioned edit history, they're less likely to misinterpret your edits as vandalism. Do be aware that the fact others are being uncivil to you doesn't justify you being uncivil back. As we see at Talk:Prosperity theology, that just escalates the situation, which is counterproductive to persuading others to see your point. When another editor is uncivil, instead of dishing it right back out, ask for help. (If you'd let me know you've seen this, I'd appreciate it; it isn't possible to ping an IP, and since yours changes, leaving a message on your current talk also doesn't guarantee you'll see it. Another good reason for creating an account.) —valereee (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Yes, I have seen it. I have specifically avoided creating an account up to this point because I was concerned about harassment from exactly the type of editors that tgeorgescu and VGeno84 turned out to be. Honestly not sure if I want to have to deal with that sort of thing long term. And yeah, me dishing it back at them didn't help, but at the time, since it was two different editors with lengthy experience treating me like that, I assumed that there was some sort of unwritten rule I was unfamiliar wit that long-time editors like them were allowed to break the rules. It was only later in the day that I realized that both were just acting nasty and enough other users were pointing out issues wit their behavior that it was clear to me that they were in fact not allowed to be doing what they were doing.2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User_talk:2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 has user warning templates in the double digits that concern this dispute (several of which the IP editor has responded to directly). That is not what user warning templates are intended for. El_C 12:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I already did that. I replied to LindsayH after she posted a message on my Talk page about the warning templates that I left on the IP's Talk page; I recognized the fact thay I have been precipitous in labeling the IP's edits as vandalism, in fact I proceeded to remove the warning template and invited the IP to open a new section on the article's Talk page to discuss about the reason for his edits.

@Valereee: It can be difficult to edit as an IP, I agree about that. But the point is, even if initially the IP got angry due to my warning templates, that's not an excuse to insult other users anyway. In fact, I explicitly asked the IP if the warning templates were the reason for his/her aggressive behavior towards me. GenoV84 (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

False personal attacks... Seriously? The only person you seem to be preoccupied with on your talk page and the revision history of this article is me: "GenoV84 here", "GenoV84 there", "GenoV84 is this", "GenoV84 is that"... I never attacked you in the first place, while you seem to be quite upset and bitter towards me. For what? Because I reverted your edits while you never thought about opening a new section on this talk page and discuss about that paragraph until I suggested you to do so? GenoV84 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [diff] GenoV84, I think that sort of speaks for itself. WP:BITE is an important component of Wikipedia's WP:PAG ethos. El_C 13:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's the question that I was referring to when I asked the IP why he/she was being aggressive towards me on the article's Talk page, because I didn't figure out why he/she was behaving that way. As I said before, I recognized that I've been precipitous in my judgement, I made a mistake and removed the warning template, but I never meant to bite nor harass the IP. In fact, I invited him/her to open a new section on the Talk page in order to find a resolution and collaborate together. GenoV84 (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

GenoV84, I hope that by "invitation" you don't mean this, because as far as invitations go, it isn't great. Stressing also that I like my evidence in the form of diffs. Anyway, please feel free to point out if elsewhere you had said to the IP editor (expressly) something to the effect of: 'sorry I called your edit vandalism when I reverted it, let's discuss.' Possibly I missed it. El_C 13:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

No I didn't apologize for it, I removed the warning template and invited the IP to open a new section on the Talk page: Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you think that the source itself or the content of the paragraph should be changed, you can open a new section and discuss about it on Talk:Prosperity theology. Thanks. GenoV84 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC). GenoV84 (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, so you didn't acknowledge your own error beyond converting the vandalism warning with a WP:POINT one, then you invited the user to the talk page. You are not required to apologize, of course, but saying something to the effect of: 'I recognize that my vandalism warning to you was in error' — that's sort of the least I'd expect from you. El_C 14:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've been precipitous in my judgement and I didn't handle this discussion in the most appropriate way, although I meant to do things right. I should have dealt with the IP in a more thoughtful and polite manner since the beginning, as I said I didn't mean to offend or harass anyone. I will proceed to offer my apologies to him/her. GenoV84 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GenoV84, I appreciate that. El_C 14:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: So, what is wrong with my reasoning? Mark Skousen stated that Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids. The IP stated that rendering such view is purposefully smearing the LDS Church. But of course, the smear argument breaks down when we understand that Skousen is a faithful Mormon. That's why the IP had to claim that Skousen is not a faithful Mormon. If they did not say that, they would have admitted they are wrong. So, it boils down to: according to the IP Skousen is a heretic and an slanderer of the LDS Church. So, in order to claim that we smear the LDS Church, the IP had to smear Skousen. If there is any flaw in my reasoning, please point it out. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I'm not the one who edited the article, that was Valereee (diff). El_C 18:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu once again misrepresents the entire case. I objected to the fact that the quote was used in the way it was in the article to attempt to connect Mormonism's strong work ethic with all of the baggage and issues of prosperity theology. It was even prefaced in the article with "However," and was inserted directly after the quotes from Dallin H. Oaks condemning prosperity theology. That's such a clear and blatant attempt to influence readers to think that Oaks is hiding something and the LDS Church is firmly connected with all the baggage and issues of prosperity theology. I did indeed say after that that there was no reason to include that line in the article at all, as it still seemed like an attempt to warp POV by GenoV84 and Tgeorgescu, given that there were portions of the Harper's Magazine article already in the "Relationship with other movements" section of the article that presented the factual basis for the assertion that there were similarities between some elements of LDS beliefs and Prosperity Theology. Tgeorgescu got really insulting and accused me of censorship and said that I wasn't allowed to oppose the inclusion of any criticism of religion in the article at all, despite the fact that I had clearly already demonstrated I wasn't attempting to remove assertions that provided evidence of similarities in the "Relationship with other movements" section.

Tgeorgescu eventually tried to bring up their assertion that Skousen is a faithful Mormon as some sort of magic bullet that eliminated all of the issues with the usage. Besides the obvious issues with that approach, I pointed out that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church. Then tgeorgescu became apoplectic and attempted to change what the entire argument had been, and continues to misrepresent what I actually did. They even keep attributing nefarious motives to me that are easily disproved by what I actually said earlier on in the talk section of the Prosperity Theology article before tgeorgescu attempted to move the goalposts. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You have still presented absolutely no evidence that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church. That's a WP:BLP violation. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You were already warned by admins as attempting to misuse BLP here to try to browbeat a content opponent. This line of argument you are using has already been rejected. What I presented was not "absolutely no evidence." Admin said that it might not be ideal, but that it's enough to make your accusations of BLP violations inappropriate. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope, you mentioned absolutely no WP:RS which WP:Verifies your claim that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church.

And even if we admit that most Mormons do not vote for the Libertarian Party, being a libertarian is not a heresy. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Admins, please take note of the continued dishonesty, repeated intentional misrepresentations, and attempts at browbeating that tgeorgescu is still involved in even here. I will not directly respond to tgeorgescu from here on out, as it is just feeding into their continued misbehavior that amounts to a form of harassment, and they keep persisting in the same behavior they have already been warned about. Severe action needs to be taken against them for what they continue to do. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

If you think that WP:RS WP:Verifies your claim, you have a serious WP:CIR problem, namely reading comprehension (you cannot make heads or tails of a written text). Or you are being intentionally vexatious, that's also possible. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Admins, please note the severity of the baseless personal attacks, insults, and harassment tgeorgescu continues to engage in even in front of the admins. Users like tgeorgescu and what they are openly doing is exactly why I have been hesitant to make an actual account. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

So, what are you waiting for? Prove me wrong! How many times do I have to ask you? Prove me wrong for all to see! tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Admins, please note that after tgeorgescu was already warned by an admin that they were wrong and their claim of a BLP violation was false and being inappropriately wielded as a weapon in an attempt tobrowbeat me, they continue openly lying and stating that their assertion is completely true, while harassing me and attempting to demand repeatedly that I prove what was already shown. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

So, what do you wait for? Provide a verbatim quote which WP:Verifies your claim that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church. You cannot eat your cake and still have it. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Break

@El C: Please give them an ultimatum to WP:Verify their claim or get blocked. This is getting tedious. So, either because of a reading disability or because they are intentionally vexatious, the IP is publicly humiliating Mark Skousen without providing evidence for their claim. And nobody seems to care. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

No doubt because of its explosive connotations, the Mormon church has officially distanced itself from the White Horse Prophecy, stressing that it is not part of approved doctrine [...] For what it’s worth, however, Mark Skousen cites the prophecy as the motive behind his uncle’s publishing and lecturing career (from the source in question: https://harpers.org/archive/2011/10/pennies-from-heaven). Maybe that's the connection being referenced...? Though I don't know if "official distancing" necessarily = being viewed as "fringe" by LDS orthodoxy. Doesn't seem like a BLP violation to posit in the course of discussing the subject matter, in any case. El_C 20:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: That WP:V that his uncle was fringe, it does not WP:V that Mark is fringe. Mark is not his own uncle.

Besides, the IP did not WP:CITE Harper's, but they cited salon.com. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please explain to us why his uncle was fringe in your eyes? Also what is wrong with Salon.com?CycoMa (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not claim there is anything wrong with salon.com. I just stated that it does not WP:V the claim that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church. If you want to find out why his uncle was fringe, read the two articles (briefly: he, meaning the uncle, was a conspiracy theorist). tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, it was my understanding that they both followed the White Horse Prophecy. I haven't read the Salon piece, I read the Harpers one cited in the article. That's why I mentioned it. Anyway, maybe it'd be best that you do something else for the immediate moment... I don't think being so intensive (to the point of repetition) is advancing the debate at this point. Much of it is probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard, in any event. El_C 20:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C Now that this has been settled, can tgeorgescu's repeated harassment, insults, personal attacks, lying, and misrepresentation be addressed and handled? 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes two high: those two articles prove eventually (at most) that Mark bought into a conspiracy theory. Neither WP:V the claim that he is not a faithful Mormon. Buying into a conspiracy theory does not preclude him from being a faithful Mormon. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatever Mark Skousen believes, it does not mean either that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church or that Mark is not a faithful Mormon. E.g. belief in conspiracy theories does not preclude one from being a faithful Mormon. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, again, maybe give it a rest...? Two uninvolved admins have participated in this thread thus far, myself and Valeree. Sorry you take exception to our conclusions, but it is what it is. El_C 20:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Admins, please note that tgeorgescu is continuing on with the same line of argument even after being told by an admin to stop. Please also note that the phrase "faithful Mormon" was first used by tgeorgescu, not me. They used it on the NPOV noticeboard after another user agreed that there were major issues with the disputed section that included the Skousen quote. Tgeorgescu attempted to use the phrase "faithful Mormon" as a sort of magic bullet that erased all of the issues pointed out. When I pointed out even a small issue with that line of reasoning (Skousen's involvement in fringe stuff denounced by the LDS Church) this is when tgeorgescu derailed everything and went on a crusade attempting to deflect from everything else and change the subject to relentlessly accusing me of BLP violations while harassing and insulting me.2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) "Faithful" is a subjective word. If I claimed to be a devout or a practising believer, that would be easily disproved. If I claimed to be a faithful one, that would require some sort of an inquisition. As a historical example, both Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople declared themselves faithful Christians, but they excommunicated each other in 1054. Narky Blert (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

2601, you seem to be having difficulty with the concept that Skousen's uncle being involved in a fringe group does not mean that Skousen himself is involved in a fringe group. That is what tgeorgescu has been trying to explain to you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

No, not at all. You intentionally leave out that Mark consistently being used as the spokesman for those fringe theories does tie him to them. As El already mentioned, the Harper's article does indeed itself suggest that Mark is also a proponent of the white Horse Prophecy. 2601:681:300:13F:F8D2:2902:104D:60BC (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

What you say could be true, but we don't accept that without evidence. Neither source paints Mark as a proponent of that prophecy. And its relegation to the fringe is very recent, due to fear of external criticism. Historically, LDS leaders have endorsed it as true belief. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he gets called on as a spokesperson for the prophecy very much is evidence. He's not a theological scholar or historian, he's a libertarian economist, and as such has no reason to be called on to explain the theory unless he's directly involved with it. El C, who wasn't even familiar with it before this, already mentioned that the Harper's article very much gave the impression of him as a proponent as well. Also, the prophecy being relegated to the fringes by the LDS church is not recent. For example, the prophecy was first retroactively claimed in 1900, the President of the Church dismissed it in 1916, one of the church's main scholars in 1966 documented its creation and existence as false and deceptive, and in 2010 not only did one church historian document issues with its creation in 1900, the LDS church itself officially warned of it and clarified yet again that it was never Church doctrine. So, throughout nearly its entire existence, positions of authority in the Church have dismissed it, and it was not embraced as true by the church. 2601:681:300:13F:F8D2:2902:104D:60BC (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

None of what you have replied is verifiable in the two given sources, except for libertarian economist. On the contrary, one of the sources claims that No doubt because of its explosive connotations, the Mormon church has officially distanced itself from the White Horse Prophecy, stressing that it is not part of approved doctrine, even though numerous Mormon leaders from Brigham Young on down have casually treated it as such.

If you don't produce verbatim quotes from WP:RS, we have no reason to believe you on your word of honor. That's not how Wikipedia works. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It is verifiable, from Skousen's own words in the article. He says ""Because there’s this prophecy from Joseph Smith that one day the Constitution would hang by a thread and the elders would rise up. And so he thought it was important that they be educated." Notice that Skousen is presenting the prophecy as fact and openly attempting to justify his uncle's advocacy of it as if that were a fact, not as a prophecy whose authenticity has been repeatedly disputed or dismissed by the church. He didn't say "Joseph Smith is claimed to have prophesied...," he openly claims that Smith said it in just the manner that has been repeatedly denied and dismissed by the LDS Church for nearly a century. That firmly ties Mark Skousen himself with the fringe that pushes the White Horse Prophecy despite the LDS church having repeatedly denied their claims. As far as the second line of the Harper's article you just listed, there are numerous sources spanning nearly a century that debunks it and shows repeated dismissals and denials of the authenticity of the White Horse Prophecy over that time period by LDS authorities and scholars, as well as exhortation by those authorities towards church members to not be involved with it (https://archive.org/details/mormondoctrine00mcco, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol49/iss3/6/,https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/cobabe-whitehorse.pdf, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/2010/01/church-statement-on-white-horse-prophecy-and-political-neutrality.html). So that isn't evidence for your claim either. 2601:681:300:13F:F8D2:2902:104D:60BC (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's so much here that is about content, but I just read the Harper's article where the quote appears. In context, it's clearly framed that Mark is explaining what his uncle believed; the snippet "There's this prophecy" is supporting why his uncle believed constitutional education was important. There's no indication that Mark believes or disbelieves it; he's merely stating the fact that there was a prophecy and saying that was the impetus for his uncle's career. "There's this prophecy" is sandwiched between "one of his callings was to educate" and "And so he thought it was important". I don't see a reasonable reading of that section of the article to support any personal belief's of Mark's (unless it's to support "he believed that his uncle believed..."). Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

On the content call I think tgeorgescu is right, as it is my experience that they usually are in this field. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

On the talk section of the Prosperity Theology article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Editorialized_opinion_inserted_into_Criticism_section_as_a_violation_of_multiple_rules), tgeorgescu has made edits to their comments at the end of the section in order to add some of the false accusations, misrepresentations, and line of argument/personal attacks that they were told to stop here. Part of it was done after they were already told here to stop. This is clearly an attempt to poison the well on any further useful discussion there despite being told to stop this, and comes after they were rebutted by multiple other users who were initially uninvolved, both here and on the NPOV noticeboard. 2601:681:300:13F:F8D2:2902:104D:60BC (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Tgeorgescu, I am coming very close to sanctioning you. I've already warned you against using BLP as a blunt instrument to browbeat a content opponent. For the last time, stop using the word "smear." It has possible legal implication, which in turn has the effect of stifling debate by creating a chilling effect. I don't understand why you continue to ignore my warnings by doing so, but it reflects poorly on you that you do. Any further such WP:IDHT will have consequences. I highly advise you (again, 3rd time now) to go do something else. El_C 04:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @El C: Tgeorgescu didn't even remove what they were warned about or walk back any of the false accusations made in their edits of the talk section on the Prosperity Theology article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Editorialized_opinion_inserted_into_Criticism_section_as_a_violation_of_multiple_rules). They simply just a few minutes ago put a strikethrough on the word "smear" and did little else, still leaving it there to create the assertions and accusations they were warned about. As this is the first time I've ever been involved with the admins, I don't know if that's actually standard for cases like this, or if it's an attempt to get around what they were repeatedly warned about and keep poisoning the well on discussion there. From my inexperienced view, it sure looks like the latter, but I realize that you know far better than I do when it comes to this. 2601:681:300:13F:F8D2:2902:104D:60BC (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
    • According to the customs of Wikipedia, that means I have retracted the claim that you smear Mark Skousen, since deleting posts is usually not done. By quoting out of context you still have not convinced me that the claim is verifiable. He explained his uncle's views, none of the sources explains if Mark himself is a believer in that prophecy. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Query to IP

IP, what preferred user talk page should editors employ for your account/s? Would you like it to still be User talk:2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34? Note that it isn't linked from any of your other IPs — i.e. a /64 offers no such functionality (outside of block log weirdness).

Anyway, it just isn't practical for editors to keep shifting from one user talk page to another each time you get assigned a new Wikipedia IP account. I'd note that registering an account would easily resolve this issue, though of course it isn't an actual requirement. El_C 11:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't know. Why it has shifted so many times in the past few days after it had been consistent for a couple months is something I have no clue about. As I mentioned previously, the fear of the sort of harassment I faced from tgeorgescu is exactly why I had avoided making an account so far, and the fact that he's still able to interact with me after all of that has done nothing to quell those fears. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• IP, that makes zero sense. Right now, anyone is able to geolocate you via your IP. But once you register an account, your IP becomes hidden. El_C 18:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have a constant, permanent page this way that I have to worry about harassment on even after this dispute has faded. If I make an account, there's a single page constantly available as a target. Given the way tgeorgescu and GenoV84 used even my first IP talk page to spam double-digit amounts of various warnings as a form of harassment and intimidation, and that it's not considered okay for users to remove those from their own talk page, that's not something I want to have to worry about. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• IP, the relevant policy permits you to remove anything you see fit from your user talk page, including blanking it outright. Also, I already said that those warnings in the double-digits constituted user warning template abuse, so why would it be used against you. If anything, those who issued those warnings to you are the ones that are in the hot seat.

In any case, feel free to remove anything you'd like from User talk:2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34, regardless of what you decide. I'm just trying to nudge you to register an account because I think it'd be in everyone's best interests, not least your own. HTH! El_C 18:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, I had read another incident on this noticeboard where a user got in trouble for removing warnings others posted on their talk page. I know you said those double-digit warnings constitute abuse, but you didn't actually do anything other than giving a warning. No blocking them for what they did, giving them a temp ban, preventing them from interacting with me, etc. So it certainly seemed to me like they were getting away with it. At least I know now that I am allowed to remove all of that kind of stuff, so that does help ease my concerns some 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E

• IP, I realize that when looking here, you might think that because I've blocked over 8,000 users, I'm trigger happy, but actually I'm not. Unlike those user warning templates that were inappropriately issued to you, my warnings actually have teeth, because I'm able to enforce them with sanctions. The thing is that blocking (or other sanctions) aren't needed yet, in my view. I'd stress that, by policy, sanctions on Wikipedia are WP:NOTPUNITIVE. Anyway, now that a final warning has been issued, sanctions will follow any further misconduct towards you from those users. But they both said they understood, so here's hoping it'd be calm waters and smooth sailing from this point on. El_C 19:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• El_C Tgeorgescu just resumed part of the line of argument on the talk page of the prosperity theology article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Editorialized_opinion_inserted_into_Criticism_section_as_a_violation_of_multiple_rules) that they were told here didn't work. They seem to believe that as long as they leave out the word "smear" they are allowed to keep repeating the same thing over and over as an effort to prevent further constructive discussion on the matter. I've already addressed what they're claiming, you and other users have already addressed what they're claiming, and they still keep insisting on it and using it to try to derail discussion that attempts to move past that. They are using it as a sort of magic bullet to shoot down any other points about the discussion and try to prevent discussion leading to further changes to the article. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• IP, you're writing too fast for me. Please have mercy! Anyway, as an uninvolved admin, it isn't my place to intervene in content disputes, only to ensure that the editorial process proceeds absent policy violations. I haven't reviewed the material closely, but my sense is that the three of you have more than said your piece at this point, so it'd probably be better to let other editors review the discussion and have their say. Hope that makes sense. El_C 20:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• El_C Sorry, I've responded here as Tgeorgescu has made additions and edits to the talk page there. Tgeorgescu is doing there what they were told to stop. They are making it impossible for further constructive discussion to proceed there. That poisoning of the well after being told to stop presents other editors from having their say in a reasonable manner, as it attempts to forcibly distract from what points were actually made in order to push allegations and a line of argument that they were told to stop. I made one comment there after the process here had mostly concluded, to try to present a jumping-off point going forward now that the behavior parts of the talk section had been handled. And tgeorgescu immediately tried to derail it by again doing part of what they were told to stop doing. It appears to be an intentional strategy to prevent any change or removal by the community of the section tgeorgescu wants kept in as-is, and that does fall under what you warned here, so some action needs to be taken to prevent it. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• IP, I get it. They really wanted to have you sanctioned, with little cause. Now you wish to see them (or rather, Tgeorgescu, since GenoV84 seems to have wisely taken a break from the dispute) sanctioned in turn, with some cause, I grant you. But I really don't think you need to say anything beyond something to the effect of: 'I feel I've already substantiated my assertions, this feels repetitive.' Again, let other editors review the discussion and opine on it. Your comments thus far ought to stand on their own merit. It's just that I'm wary of censoring anyone, even when repetitive. El_C 20:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• El_C It's more that Tgeorgescu's continued attempt to make the entire discussion about their allegations about me and how I view Mark Skousen, when that's not even what is currently being discussed, is both an attempt at derailment and continued harassment of me after they were warned to stop. Them continuing to do so prevents my comments being able to stand on their own merit, as it doesn't even address them and instead keeps attempting to steer the discussion to "None of that matters, because IP only wants it removed because of a personal grudge against Mark Skousen." Which isn't the argument being made, never was, and tgeorgescu continues to attempt to make it so even after being warned repeatedly to stop. That's pretty blatant continuing harassment of me by them, in addition to all the monkey wrenches it's still attempting to throw into the content dispute process. I see what they are doing as an attempt at censorship (trying to prevent discussion on any changes or alterations of something that the community has already agreed has issues by repeatedly attempting to make the thread about allegations and speculation they have made about me personally), and that preventing them from doing so is in no way censorship. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

IP, I put "personal grudge" into Ctrl-F, both here and on the article talk page, but found nothing. So I don't know where that quote is from. I prefer my evidence in the form of diffs, I'd stress. That way, I can tell who said what when. El_C 20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C Sorry, that was paraphrasing. I'm also not experienced enough to understand how to use diffs properly yet, so I'll be presenting some of the things that tgeorgescu has posted since being warned, as they are currently written. I apologize if that seems inadequate, I'm not currently capable of more.

From the talk thread: "@LindsayH: Let me translate from English to English: the whole point of IP's edits is to show that Mark Skousen is a heretic and a slanderer of the LDS Church. It is a smear campaign, if we are to call a spade a spade. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC) So, what is wrong with my reasoning? Mark Skousen stated that "Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids". The IP stated that rendering such view is purposefully smearing the LDS Church. But of course, the smear argument breaks down when we understand that Skousen is a faithful Mormon. That's why the IP had to claim that Skousen is not a faithful Mormon. If they did not say that, they would have admitted they are wrong. So, it boils down to: according to the IP Skousen is a heretic and an slanderer of the LDS Church. So, in order to claim that we smear the LDS Church, the IP had to smear Skousen. If there is any flaw in my reasoning, please point it out. Their argument is that by juxtaposing the public declarations of two notable, faithful members of the LDS Church we are smearing the LDS Church. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)" Then today, when I attempted to address the disputed portions that were still in the article and bring up some of the issues that had been pointed out with them by users other than me in (and didn't even bring up Skousen other than briefly mentioning that his quote had already been removed by Valareee), this is the entirety of what tgeorgescu responded to me with "Let me be very clear: I have retracted the word smear about you because it can be construed as a violation of WP:NLT. That's all. It does not mean that it would be WP:Verifiable anything you have claimed about Mark Skousen, excepting libertarian economist. I should have used words that do not have legal connotations. I still did not grant you're right about anything else than libertarian economist about Mark Skousen. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)" We can see that tgeorgescu keeps refusing to engage on any of the actual points or issues, even those brought up by other users, but has instead posted multiple times solely an attempt to make this entirely about allegations and accusations about me. That latest response, where the Skousen quote wasn't even debated in what they responded to 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

So, I have retracted anything that could be construed as a legal threat. That's what El C said was wrong with my edits. I still believe you have produced no WP:Verifiable WP:RS that Mark Skousen is anything else than a libertarian economist: you have produced no evidence that he believes in that conspiracy theory, you have produced no evidence that he is a conspiracy theorist, you have produced no evidence that he is affiliated with fringe groups, you have produced no evidence that he has heretical views in respect to the LDS Church. So, let me be clear: I don't claim he isn't those, just that you have provided absolutely no evidence for your claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C Tgeorgescu's still at it, even here. Even after you told them to stop, even after you told them that the Harper's article does provide evidence of Skousen being affiliated with the White Horse Prophecy, even after I broke down Skousen's words in the article to show how they provided evidence of his affiliation with the White Horse Prophecy, tgeorgescu refuses to stop and keeps attempting to make it all about Skousen and me, in a manner full of intentional misrepresentations and openly lying that constitutes harassment even after being told to stop. They refuse to allow any of the other salient points to be addressed and keep returning to this even after being repeatedly warned not to 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

So? The claim that you have smeared him has been retracted and remains retracted. Don't ask me to tell the lie that you have produced evidence for any of your claims about him, except libertarian economist. Since that indeed would be, objectively seen, a lie (untruth). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C The harassment by tgeorgescu and repeated, blatant lying for the sake of continuing on with that harassment is still happening, right here. Their ignoring of repeated warnings to stop is still happening right here too. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

IP, it really would help matters along, if you'd create an account. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@IP: So? Provide a verbatim quote from one of those two sources which proves that I'm lying. Till now you have produced no such evidence.

Several people tried to explain you that he is not his own uncle and that he cannot be held accountable for the views of his own uncle and that none of the sources explains what Mark himself believes about the White Horse Prophecy. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

"Because there’s this prophecy from Joseph Smith that one day the Constitution would hang by a thread and the elders would rise up. And so he thought it was important that they be educated." Mark Skousen's words, not Cleon Skousen's. I will not be addressing tgeorgescu directly any more as they continue to openly lie and harass, as this evidence was already presented above but tgeorgescu dishonestly tried to claim that it is equal to "no evidence." The context of that statement still presents the first sentence there as Mark's words, not Cleon's. It doesn't say "My uncle followed an alleged prophecy that claims...," it says "There's this prophecy from Joseph Smith...," which in context still shows Mark presenting it as fact, firmly affiliating him with the prophecy. El C already told tgeorgescu that the article supports this, but they refuse to listen. The repeated lying, harassment, and intentional misrepresentations by tgoergescu must stop. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Quoting out of context won't do: those are the views of his uncle, nowhere that source claims that Mark believes what his uncle believed. Yup, it's Mark telling what his uncle believed. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C Continued harassment, openly lying, and intentional misrepresentation by tgeorgescu here. The quote was not given out of context, and the quote itself differentiates the first sentence as what Mark is claiming versus the second sentence being presented as Mark quoting his uncle's opinion. Tgeorgescu continues to try to intentionally abuse and misuse wiki rules to attempt to browbeat others, even after being warned to stop. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

No. It's as simply as this: in context Mark explains what his uncle believed. Nowhere Mark himself claims to believe or disbelieve in that prophecy. An WP:OR matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Why won't you create an account & sign in? GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C this user, who wasn't previously involved in this discussion at all, has suddenly started repeating some variation of this demand/accusation. They also posted on my personal talk page "Why won't you create an account & sign in? What are you afraid of? GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)" The timing of it alongside tgeorgescu's renewed harassment sure seems suspicious. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Mark's belief/disbelief in the White Horse Prophecy has not been recorded in any of those two sources. He simply speaks about what his own uncle believed.

So, IP, unless you show us that Mark's belief in the prophecy is a matter of public record, we have no reason to believe what you say.

This has been confirmed by Schazjmd at [51]. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2021 (UT

Nothing about tgeorgescu's claim was confirmed, especially as this revision was added only recently after tgeorgescu started their renewed harassment here today, making it highly suspicious. Also, tgeorgescu was already told by El C that the Harper's article does support Mark's affiliation with the White Horse Prophecy, this revisionist lying tgeorgescu has engaged in today already had no leg to stand on with that before it even started today. Tgeorgescu has been openly caught repeatedly lying and intentionally misrepresenting the actual posts in the thread, while falsely trying to claim that those they are dishonestly attacking and misrepresenting can't be believed. They also keep making demands that others have already shot down as invalid. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you having WP:IDHT problems? Why won't you create an account & sign in? GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@IP: either prove that I'm lying or beat it. According to El C the problem with the word smear is WP:NLT. I have addressed that problem. What El C did not ask me is to say that you have provided evidence for your claims (you obviously didn't). Saying that you did not provided WP:V evidence for your claims isn't WP:HARASSMENT. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

El_CContinued harassment, lying, intentional misrepresentation, and demands from tgeorgescu here. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You have two options: either prove that I'm lying or stop saying it. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

For those reading, here's an example from this noticeboard that shows that tgeorgescu's recent claims about me having presented no evidence are openly lying. "Tgeorgescu, it was my understanding that they both followed the White Horse Prophecy. I haven't read the Salon piece, I read the Harpers one cited in the article. That's why I mentioned it. Anyway, maybe it'd be best that you do something else for the immediate moment... I don't think being so intensive (to the point of repetition) is advancing the debate at this point. Much of it is probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard, in any event. El_C 20:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC) An admin told them directly that the Harper's article supported the connection of Mark to the White Horse Prophecy, and also told them to drop this line of argument. Notice that this also rebuts tgeorgescu's recent fabricated claim that the only thing the admins told them to do was stop using the word "smear." The accusations that tgeorgescu is making against me are easily disproved, and the fact that they continue to engage in it despite that exposes further the campaign of harassment and intentional misrepresentation they are currently engaged in here. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's so much here that is about content, but I just read the Harper's article where the quote appears. In context, it's clearly framed that Mark is explaining what his uncle believed; the snippet "There's this prophecy" is supporting why his uncle believed constitutional education was important. There's no indication that Mark believes or disbelieves it; he's merely stating the fact that there was a prophecy and saying that was the impetus for his uncle's career. "There's this prophecy" is sandwiched between "one of his callings was to educate" and "And so he thought it was important". I don't see a reasonable reading of that section of the article to support any personal belief's of Mark's (unless it's to support "he believed that his uncle believed..."). Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

To those reading, note that tgeorgescu couldn't even dispute that an admin already stated the Harper's article provided evidence, well before tgeorgescu falsely accused me here of refusing to provide evidence. They instead brought up a recent addition to the noticeboard made after tgeorgescu had resumed their campaign of harassment and accused me of refusing to provide any evidence. The lying there is quite blatant. They tried to act like this recent (suspicious) post made the previous admin quote never happen, and constituted me refusing to provide evidence. In fact, the quote shows that an admin already signed off on evidence having been presented, and told tgeorgescu so, while also telling them to lay off this line of argument. This makes the attempt at lying by tgeorgescu even more blatant, and easily disproved. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

As I have told: either prove that I'm lying or beat it. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Observation

From what I've read, the IP seems to be displaying WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, possibly WP:COI & definitely WP:SPA issues. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

El_CThis user appears to have been brought in by tgeorgescu to aid them in their campaign of harassment. Besides their behavior on this board that began only after tgeorgescu renewed that harassment here, they also made posts on my personal talk page that included taunting me with "What are you afraid of." They also accused me of violating IDHT specifically for not making an account. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You complained against me, you complained against GenoV84, you complained against GoodDay. I think that you forgot to complain against Schazjmd. That would be an anonymous editor complaining against four established editors. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

GenoV84 and tgeorgescu were already warned by admins for their behavior in this matter, and GoodDay and Schasjmd only came in very recently after the thread had been open for multiple days and tgeorgescu started a revisionist harassment campaign here earlier today, and no admin has been on this post since their recent arrival. So for those reading, notice the personal attacks, intentional misrepresentations, and lying by tgeorgescu here, who even attempts to chest-thump and pull rank in the process despite having already been warned by admins as attempting to misuse and misrepresent the rules for the sake of browbeating me. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I was reprimanded for using the word smear, which has WP:NLT implications. I have cleared that issue. I wasn't reprimanded for saying that you did not produce WP:V evidence for your claims.

Stating that you have indulged in WP:OR is by no means WP:HARASSMENT. Your claims about Mark Skousen {{failed verification}}. You see, there is even a template for that. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Tgeorgescu, at least you, GenoV84 and to some extent GoodDay (here and here) have engaged in extreme newcomer-biting behavior against this IP, so it really is no wonder that they are complaining. I suggest GoodDay and you emulate GenoV84 in their wise decision to focus on something else. If you don't, I would support blocking you for 48 hours. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• IP, as EI C says, the idea that you'd receive more harassment by creating an account is the opposite of the truth. Creating an account protects you from off-wiki harassment because it hides your IP, and it makes you less likely to be harassed on-wiki because it lets everyone see your editing history in full from that moment forward. It makes it easier for people to communicate with you. It lets you develop a reputation for constructive editing and collaborative relationships with other editors. Unless there is some very compelling reason not to create an account -- like maybe you can only edit from your work computer and your employer prohibits it -- there is no downside for a well-intentioned editor to creating an account.

IP and @Tgeorgescu both: OMG give it a rest. No one wants to read all these repetitive accusations of each other. IP: also stop with the lengthy posts. The longer the post, the fewer people will read it and the less of it they'll read.

For closer: my take on this is:

1. The IP has asserted that a source proves something it doesn't. This may be completely innocent, as the IP likely has a strong opinion on what they're trying to prove (tl;dr version: that M. Skousen isn't a good Mormon and shouldn't be quoted about Mormonism.) The IP likely needs to be warned that a passionate opinion can in fact constitute a COI, and that if they can't edit neutrally around Mormonism, they probably shouldn't edit around Mormonism until they learn how to edit neutrally there.
2. tgeorgescu has been biting this newbie mercilessly and has continued to in this ANI despite warnings.

—valereee (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

My motivation was that the IP came across as intentionally vexatious (e.g. boastful claims of being absolutely/objectively right). If my judgment was wrong, I apologize. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The harassment of me started before that, when both GenoV84 and tgeorgescu hurled a range of accusations at me ranging from censorship to vandalism to being a paid editor, solely for editing the article in question even though I presented a valid reason for doing so that was acknowledged by other users such as LindsayH. It was only after they continued on with the lines of personal attack instead of addressing the actual subject matter in question that I made the statements that tgeorgescu claims as justification for their harassment of me, and I did so because they refused to provide supporting evidence or address the actual evidence regarding the disputed section that had been presented by multiple users, and they instead kept attempting to make the entire discussion about personal attacks and allegations against me. Tgeorgescu escalated this significantly afterwards and insisted on continuing to do so here, even after being warned repeatedly by admins. That is not a case of their judgment being wrong, it is significantly past that.

As far as the claim that I wasn't editing neutrally, that is also untrue. At no point did I claim that this was all about Mark Skousen or my views of him, tgeorgescu attempted to bring up Skousen being Mormon as a magic bullet that eliminated all of the issues multiple different users pointed out with the disputed section. Before that, I repeatedly pushed for the Harper's article to remain in "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article, where it was presented neutrally and with the proper POV. El C also already backed up my assertion that the Harper's article does provide evidence of Skousen's connection to the White Horse Prophecy, even though that's not even the core of what this dispute is about in the first place. If any admin would like to talk to me personally about this, free of the framework that tgeorgescu kept insisting on while harassing me repeatedly, I am open to that. MojaveSummit (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's a disgrace that none of the parties to this dispute have edited Talk:Mark Skousen. The experienced Wikipedians might reflect on that. I understand from the IP address' comments above that they don't want to register an account because they want to be able to abandon their editing history and approach each matter with a clean slate, and I'm a bit concerned about that, to be quite honest. It's an approach that inoculates them against many of our ways of dealing with conduct problems on Wikipedia. I can see grounds to semi-protect Mark Skousen, encourage the registered editors to please kindly use the damn talk page, and all dial down the hostility to a more collegial level.—S Marshall T/C 13:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have registered an account now. Your understanding of my motivations was way off-base. I wanted to avoid harassment from users like tgeorgescu, that's why I had avoided creating an account, especially after they spammed my IP talk page with warnings as a form of harassment. I was under the mistaken impression that I had to allow that sort of harassment to remain there. Multiple admins assured me that this is not the case. My concerns about this were adequately addressed by the admins, so I made an account. I was never, ever trying to hide my edit history, and have been very open here about letting each IP address of mine be connected to each other throughout this discussion. Also, if you read the entire discussion, you'd have seen that I maintained throughout that tgeorgescu was trying to deflect from the actual issues pointed out by multiple other users with parts of the disputed section that weren't even about Mark Skousen by attempting to make it all about accusations about me and Mark Skousen. There was no reason for me to head to the talk page about Mark Skousen, that's not what the core of this dispute was about, despite tgeorgescu's efforts to retroactively make it so. Plus, that page is about his political/economic background, which isn't even the aspect that tgeorgescu was harping on here. MojaveSummit (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  @MojaveSummit, thank you for registering an account. This will make it much easier for others to communicate with you. —valereee (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I have apologized for WP:BITE behavior, not for demanding evidence for problematic claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible WP:CIR user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I've seen some problematic things from this user- mainly (also starting off with) unsourced content and incorrect/bad formatting of spaces (this, this, this, and many other edits of theirs).

As shown on their talk page, they've had quite an amount of warnings in just the past month. One of these warnings was also for copyright/plagiarism issues- I will note that while it is not present, they seem to have done so yet again at Blue's Big Baking Show, which is what prompted me to finally come to ANI for this (see this vs. this). The user has also recently been creating non-notable (and unsourced) articles, including the previously mentioned Blue's Clues & You! episode, Rena Rouge, Hawk Moth, Gabriel Agreste, Otis Césaire, Wayhem, and Ella & Etta Cesaire among others.

Even if this is not a CIR case, they are very much becoming disruptive at this point- either a stern final warning or a block may be necessary now. (Also see the user's filter log.) Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocking indefinitely, any unblock would be contingent on acknowledging the numerous warnings that led up to the block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sandman1238 blanking sourced content, no discussion

• Sandman1238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sandman1238 has a habit of blanking sourced content without explanation. Has never edited a talk page, including their own, despite multiple warnings about this. I'm thinking a p-block from article space to see if we can get them talking. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm just an unfrozen caveman lawyer, but that seems pretty legit if they're not communicating. I don't see any mobile editing tags on their contribs, so I don't think it's a matter of not seeing that people are trying to communicate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinite partial block for Article space. Any admin feel free to unblock once concerns have been dealt with. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Violation of WP:A/I/PIA in the creation and development of Wehda Street massacre

First, my apologies for not originally bringing this here; I was regrettably unaware of this forum. Fortunately, one of the editors at AFD was kind enough to point me in the right direction. In addition, apologies if I have made any mistakes with the creation of this notice.

The page Wehda Street massacre was created[52] on the ninth of July by user User:Osps7. At the time, Osps7 had approximately 450 edits, and thus was not extended-confirmed, meaning the creation and subsequent edits were in violation of WP:A/I/PIA. Osps7 was aware of the restrictions imposed by WP:A/I/PIA, having been made aware of them[53] by User:Shrike on the 17th of October, 2020, after having made edits[54] to Palestine Emergency Law in violation of WP:A/I/PIA

Subsequently, users User:Rsawikza and User:Belal2795, neither of which meet the 30/500 restriction, made significant contributions to the page. There is no evidence that Rsawikza was aware of the restrictions at the time of any of their edits, but Belal2795 was at least for the edits made on the 28th of July[55], as they occurred after having been notified[56] by User:Selfstudier of the restrictions.

The edits of the users, beyond being in violation of WP:A/I/PIA, introduced significant WP:NPOV issues to the page. In the case of Rsawikza, there is reason to believe that some of these issues were due to their disagreement over what constitutes neutral, as evidenced in the description for an edit made on the 18th of July[57], which stated "as well as tried to introduce more "neutrality" by introducing more of Israel's public messaging". This was in response to an uninvolved editor placing a "neutrality disputed" template on the page.

The issues themselves are too numerous to list here, but they most prominently include consistently describing the event as a massacre, despite the word not being used outside of quotations by any reporting that I have reviewed, while other examples of biased word use including describing the 11-day conflict as an "11-day attack on Gaza". Other issues include presenting statements by involved parties such as Hamas as fact, while presenting statements from involved parties such as the IDF prefaced with words such as "claim", in violation of MOS:CLAIM, and the omission of relevant information such as statements from the Israeli military that hypothesize that the considerable damage inflicted beyond the street was due to secondary explosions, nor when it discusses the lack of warning provided does it mention the statements, again from the Israeli military, that Israel believed based on previous strikes of a similar nature that the damage would be localized and not pose a threat to civilians.

Due to the extensiveness of these issues, it is my belief that in regards to the page it would be best to exercise the option provided by WP:A/I/PIA to delete the page and allow it to be started again, this time in accordance with WP:NPOV - hence why I originally brought it to AFD before being informed that AFD was not the appropriate forum to consider deletions based on rulings.

BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal, I don't understand what you're asking. The AfD is on right now. What does based on rulings mean? (Rulings? What rulings?) If you think the page's title should be changed, the WP:RM procedure is for that. If you wish to change the page's content to conform with neutrality, the way to do that is through normal editing. If you're asking for sanctions to be imposed on Osps7 retroactively, we don't do that. Belal2795 was issued the DS alert yesterday and have not edited the topic area since. Rsawikza has yet to be given such an alert, so there can be no arbitration enforcement applied to them until this happens. El_C 05:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal, please do not alter your comment after it has been responded to (by me just now, above) without making a note of it (like with a diff showing the change). I want my comment to follow the same one I responded to, not one which was altered afterwards. El_C 05:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:El_C. First, apologies for the edit. When I started the edit, you had not yet responded and I did not realize a response had been made until after the submission; you will notice our submissions are just two minutes apart.

Second, another apology, for my miscommunications. "Based on rulings" is almost certainly the wrong way to word it, but I am referring to deletions based on rulings (arbitations?) outside the scope of notability, specifically in regards to reasons such as those created under arbitration as they were for WP:A/I/PIA.

In regards to sanctions, I would be asking for the standard ones for knowing breaches of WP:A/I/PIA - Belal2795 was informed approximately eight hours before their most recent edit on the 28th of July.[58], while Osps7 was informed several months before. I also don't believe such an action against Osps7 would be retroactive , as their actions post-date the implementation of restrictions. However, I don't know what retroactive means in this context as opposed to the general context, so I am very likely mistaken on this.

I would also raise the question of whether Rsawikza is able to edit topics related to this area neutrally, based on the NPOV issues with their submissions - issues shared by the other contributors mentioned - but enhanced by the quoted description of their edit.

Finally, apologies for any awkwardness in regards to this request, and please be patient with me; I am relatively new to Wikipedia myself, and am only here after being directed by an editor at the AFD that I was in the wrong forum. Are there guides in regards to submissions on these pages that I can read? I searched for them before posting, but unfortunately could not find any. BilledMammal (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal, sanctioning Osps7 right now for what they did before would be retroactive by definition. Likewise, notwithstanding Belal2795's violation, considering the timeline, sanctioning them at this point would be excessive. But if they do it again, then yes. As for Rsawikza, you're sort of placing the cart before the horse there. Until they reach the required WP:500-30 tenure, their neutrality or lack thereof in this area isn't really pertinent yet. Finally, I don't think circumventing the ongoing deletion process by deleting the page via arbitration enforcement fiat would be an appropriate action to undertake. Hope that makes sense. El_C 06:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:El_C for the explanation; almost all of that makes sense to me. The one exception is Osps7; by that definition it would seem to me that all sanctions would be retrospective, as they all sanction someone for past actions and behavior? Or are you referring to the fact that while Osps7 was not in compliance with the 500/30 when they made the page and subsequent edits earlier this month they are now? BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal, what I'm getting at is that in the case of Osps7, those violations would now be deemed Stale. El_C 11:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense; thank you. For future reference User:El_C, would you mind letting me know the period within which these matters should be raised such that they would not be stale? BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at User:Osps7's contribution history, and I think there are contributions in violation of WP:A/I/PIA that are not stale. In particular, Bab Al-Sahira Cemetery, which Osps7 created six days ago when they still had less than 500 edits. In general, I notice that almost all of their edits since they were warned by Shrike were in violation, but the rest are definitely stale and not particularly relevant except to speak to general behavior. BilledMammal (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello dear BilledMammal. I really don't understand you! I've been editing Wikipedia for 7 years! I have high powers in the Arabic Wikipedia, and my presence in the English Wikipedia is an attempt to expand knowledge, and I know the meaning of impartiality. I am very interested in neutrality. But you obviously focus a lot on this topic for some inexplicable reason to me. Why didn't you make edits to the article? Why didn't you try to make it neutral? Edit the article and make it neutral! I am very familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and when I wrote the term "massacre" it was based on a report from Amnesty International, and it came also based on international news reports. I hope you don't exaggerate things, and before creating discussions on this topic, edit the article, and edit it to be more neutral. Osps7 (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Osps7. First, I hope you don't mind, but I adjusted your indentation as it appears your reply was aimed at the general topic than the discussion with El_C. If I was wrong, please don't hesitate to move it back. In regards to editing the article, I did originally start down that path, but after spending a decent chunk of time on it and not getting very far, I came to believe we would be better off starting with a clean slate, hence the AFD. Should the AFD fail, I will try again when I can commit more time. In regards to the Amnesty International report, there is no AI in the references provided, and a search for an Amnesty International publication discussing Al-Wehda Street reveals just this one, which does not use the word "massacre" in quotations or otherwise. Can you provide the report you are talking about? BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Um, I think everyone involved, including the newcomers, now know all about Arbpia, 30/500 and so on, so we could usefully move on at this point. Name issue may be dealt with via RM in the usual way no need to clutter this page with that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Gold Cup vandal

@Bbb23: This 190.163.211.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalizing articles about Gold Cup after Canada was defeated. Flix11 (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Flix11: Do not ping me again to report vandalism. It is WP:POINTy and yet another example of your abuse of process. You are pushing the envelope on a number of fronts, and I am very close to blocking you for it. BTW, your ping did not work because you did not do it properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've restored this thread after Flix11 improperly removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Flix11: What seems to be the trouble? What was the purpose of this post? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Deepfriedokra: The IP vandalized pages after the match between Mexico and Canada which saw the latter lost to a very-late goal. He repeatedly saying corrupt officials and reverted all counter-vandalizing acts. Flix11 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Flix11: I think the purpose of partial blocking you from AIV was to stop your disruption there. I think your pinging Bbb23 unnecessarily as you did here was indeed pointy. I think it would be best if you lay off AIV and reporting vandals for a while. And especially, I think you should avoid provoking Bbb23. That means not reporting vandals and not pinging Bbb23. You seem to be doing good work elsewhere. Perhaps you should focus on those other areas. (Not WP:SPI). Best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

New editor leaving offensive welcomes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Example

This looks like the same person I reported back in April, here. Squeakachu (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's one sad LTA. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:2600:1700:1EF0:3EE0:F11D:E21:5C75:2C30

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:2600:1700:1EF0:3EE0:F11D:E21:5C75:2C30. Disruption after 4th warning. I am reporting this to this page.----Rdp060707|talk 05:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Reported to WP:AIV. Next time, use that forum instead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The return of problematic IP range

• Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:784C:2400:2479:DE97:3200:F6FB
• Did their usual disruptive edits: [59]
• Previous reports: 1 and 2

Requesting IP range block plus indef semi-protection of Maryse Mizanin. Wario-Man ^talk 02:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 (only two edits) for a month and semi-protected the article for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent POV-pushing by Wikiman2021language

• Wikiman2021language (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Said user is on a campaign aimed at "Iranifying/Persianizing" Pakistan-related articles, while simultaneously "Pakistanifying" other articles. Although warned on numerous occassions, he/she is not willing to stop:

1. Added Nowruz to the List of Sindhi festivals article. No source, edit summary or explanation.[60]
2. Tried to turn Urdu, an Indo-Aryan language, into a language belonging to the Iranian languages tree. No edit summary/explanation.[61]
3. Tried to inflate population figures for Tajiks in Pakistan without source, explanation, or edit summary.[62]
4. Added "Dari Persian" to the Gurjar article. No edit summary/explanation.[63]
5. Tried to turn Urdu, an Indo-Aryan language, into a language belonging to the ancient Iranian Avestan language. No edit summary/explanation and no RS source.[64]
6. Changed "Indian Subcontinent" into "South Asia" accompanied by Wikitravel. No edit summary/explanation.[65]
7. Added "Pakistan" to the infobox of the Persian language article accompanied by a non-RS Lonely Planet link. No edit summary/explanation.[66]
8. Added heaps of unsourced content to the Persianization article. No edit summary, source or explanation.[67]
9. Warned on numerous occassions.[68]-[69]

Looking at the compelling evidence, I think its safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

LouisAragon, these edits may well constitute NOTHERE (or a variation therein), but I wouldn't call two warnings numerous. El_C 14:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Generally, I would agree. However, said user, who has made numerous violations of WP:RS, WP:VER, WP:BRD and WP:OR, has not resorted to the talk page even once, nor replied to the warnings even once. Even though he/she surely gets notified when his/her edits get reverted. Hence, in such occassions, I do find two specific warnings on his/her talk page to be "numerous" and frankly, quite generous even. If said user had made even "one" mere gesture of approach, I would have also found two warnings to be insufficient. His/her editorial conduct however, as we speak, is not a net worth gain to the project, and frankly its time consuming for editors who have to revert these disruptive edits over and over. However, rather than an indef, a final warning by any admin would do the trick as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Sure, I gave them a {{uw-error4}} warning. But for future reference, that's something you can do yourself. I can't speak for other admins, but I generally dislike going from blue-to-block unless especially egregious. El_C 05:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Consistent creation of unsourced articles by Russel641

Russel641 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Russel641 seems to be a user with very good intentions, however they have a problem with continued addition of unsourced articles about television programming which do not seem to meet the inclusion criteria. Every one of his articles has either moved to draft space, deleted or redirected to a list article. He has several warnings and requests to stop creating unsourced articles but has not engaged in any sort of discussion about the concerns. I'm not sure if it is possible if they don't engage in some sort of corrective action that they have their page creation permission removed until they can demonstrate proper citations and inclusion criteria through the WP:AFC process. There edits to existing articles seem to be helpful and I would hate to see them blocked outright as I believe they could be a valuable contributor to the project. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue here seems to be communication, or rather, a lack thereof. He has 427 edits, yet has only made 4 edits to any sort of talk page, all of which were page moves.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that is the reason I thought I had to bring it here for some sort of administrative enforcement to either force them to engage in some sort of communication or go through the AFC process until they understand the requirements for inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I see a lot of mobile edits; a lot of mobile users don't even realize that talk pages exist, ime. I don't think it's possible to specifically restrict article creation rights once a user is autoconfirmed. Maybe a block from mainspace would get their attention? -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I prefer using the desktop version when on my mobile or tablet for this reason the WMF really need to sort it out for those editors who don't do this. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Found sock, so take action

Hi admin and @Nick: i have found a sock editor who is editing an article which was created by him/her. And the username is Run n Fly. He/she is editing from an ip address after his/her block. And the ip account link is user:2402:3A80:1123:234D:7940:BDB1:A88:59B8. This ip has commented on the afd discussion of Rajanya Mitra. And Rajanya Mitra is his/her first edit from this ip and also the editing pattern is same with Run n Fly. So Do check and take action against it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bapinghosh (talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bapinghosh: the user of this IP has been identified as a sock based on their editing pattern here. However, according to the patrolling admin, the IP range they are on is too wide to be blockable. If the IP is used again for similar edits, you can revert them for block evasion. Apart from that, there is nothing left to be done. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

(Not an admin, just a clerk) @Bapinghosh and Apaugasma: I see Ohnoitsjamie blocked the /42 (thanks) which has defensible collateral; my comment was primarily because if I recall correctly, the assignment on that range is a bit... suboptimal. There are assigned subnets, and they are noted in the WHOIS, but they are lies not very stable; these two IPv6 edits from a bit over a week ago are also them (the first one certainly is, the second one is likely); neither are caught in the current rangeblock and both are on different subnets. Short-ish rangeblocks will probably do the trick some of the time, but the only long-term solutions I can currently make out are page protection or blocking the entirety of 2402:3a80::/32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), which would mean that we'd be blocking all of Vodafone India's IPv6 customers. For what it's worth, a good chunk of the projectspace edits from that range are Amkgp, and they have a rather distinctive writing style if you know what to look for. They also tend to return to the same articles, especially when they are put up for deletion (plus they seem to be interested in COVID-19 related topics). --Blablubbs (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

You could try a page protection request if they are hitting only one or two targets. 2600:1011:B10A:BF57:E464:5DF7:31A9:8A79 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: thank you for the suggestion Bapinghosh

IvyBeautyQueen chronic behavioral problems

A quick perusal of Special:Contributions/IvyBeautyQueen shows nearly every one of their edits in the past month has been reverted. They've been warned for five specific problems by two different editors on their talkpage [70][71][72][73][74]. They haven't responded to any attempts to communicate and educate. Their edits happen to fall under WP:GS/PAGEANTS.

Can something be done to stop the constant disruption by this user? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• P-block from article space to try to get this user's attention, though I'm not sure it'll be productive. —valereee (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Kenydevburman - Disruptive editing, Spamming and probable sockpuppetry

• Kenydevburman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lovemyindia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mrinalbarma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kenydevburman is a SPA who over the last 3 weeks has been attempting to create a page on Mrinal Dev Burman, from the user names this appears to either be an autobiography or there is some significant COI involved. By my count they've created this page 5 time now, all being extremely promotional and completely unsourced. In addition to being extremely promotional their editing has numerous technical faults that are creating a huge amount of mess that other editors are having to clean up, such as cut and paste moves, creating duplicate pages with the same content and moving pages to inappropriate namespaces and titles (they've moved their article to MediaWiki talk:Kenydevburman/sandbox twice now). They also appear to be socking as Lovemyindia, another SPA that is exclusivley focused on making promotional biographies of Mrinal Dev Burman, this account has made 3 of them at this point. Since this editor seems to be narrowly focused on promoting Mrinal Dev Burman with little interest in actually building the encyclopaedia can I suggest a block would be appropriate at this point? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum - I've just spotted Mrinalbarma, another SPA that seems to be exclusively promoting Mrinal Dev Burman (5 more biographies from this account), would it be worth getting a checkuser involved here? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kenydevburman and add any further evidence. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range still at it

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1072#Possible range block? for my previous report here.

IP range is still at it, once again adding unsourced speculation about a 2022 KCA ceremony, despite nothing being announced yet. Would a block be possible here at all? At this point, it seems like the /32 range would be the one to block. Thanks again in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

They used an edit summary in regards to this (for once!): "Back off! Wait for the next year's awards, you understand?"- seems like they don't understand what original research is and don't understand WP:CRYSTALBALL either.

For those who don't follow Nickelodeon/KCAs closely, there has been no announcement whatsoever regarding a 2022 ceremony. Some of the first results on Google include this and this, which are simply fan hopes/wishes. Magitroopa (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I blocked each of the following for a month (the /43 had previously been blocked for 2 weeks). 2001:8003:b10b:3700::/64 + 2600:1003:b440::/43 + 2601:14f:c000:7b0::/64. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Back on Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards at 2600:1003:B464:8672:E074:1DCC:A90:4FB3. Magitroopa (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I blocked 2600:1003:B464:8672:0:0:0:0/64. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Mass revert by User:Ekuftle

Not sure why User:Ekuftle reverted all of my edits. I double-checked before doing any updates to make sure they were as per policy. Please check for example this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleartrip&action=history which Ekuftle reverted. Here I just removed a duplicate ref which was with the original ref not sure how this is vandalism. This was just an improvement to the article. Acveo (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Acveo, if you don't inform Ekuftle about this complaint, as is required, how would they know about it so as to be able to respond? Anyway, I've done this for you. El_C 14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Acveo is a newly-created WP:SPA that has only been making puffery edits disguised as "improvements" on companies exclusively within the hospitality and tourism industry. Agoda is one such obvious example, this isn't the first time that this has happened as you can see in the revision history. Does WP:COI get any more obvious? Do I also have to talk about the fact how suspicious it is that an account that's barely more than 24 hours old has the means to use ANI almost immediately after? Ekuftle (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I also have to point out about this user named Okadiputera, another SPA only created earlier this month, making identical edits of companies within the hospitality and tourism industry. Ekuftle (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Ekuftle, Your own account seems pretty new and you are accusing other users for WP:SPA. I have to agree with Acveo here your revert edits like these are actually vandalism in itself. Sanketio31 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sanketio31: Please re-read WP:NOTVAND. Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and misusing the term can result in unpleasant consequences. Tiderolls 17:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am Okadiputera. I am very disappointed that you have accused me of being a SPA. I have already explained on section on your talk page that I am not a new editor. My previous account was User:Raymondeuro, which I retired last month due to privacy concerns, to be replaced with this one. Again, I am an editor primarily interested in Hospitality and design and my primary motivation on Wikipedia is to improve on articles on those topics as those are topics I find interesting. You will not see my writing on topics like Astrophysics because frankly I do not have any interests or knowledge in that field. I don't find it hard to believe that a person can have a specific set of topics they are interested in, and as such I am disappointed about your false accusations. I have decided to retire my account and leave Wikipedia due to frequent context-ignorant reversions for the edits I have made; I have been burnt-out and found it a waste of my time to keep defending my works via AfD or XfD, with them are often being labeled out of context as Spam, considered having a COI or assumed to be a SPA when I have followed protocol and cited all my claims with secondary sources and explained change summaries in the article talk page. I had assumed good faith when I made those edits, but frankly my recent experiences have not reflected that. Okadiputera (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ekuftle and Acveo, on a related note here: you both need to start consistently using edit summaries that clearly explain your reasoning for your edit. The edit summary is often at least as important as the edit. Please go to Preferences>Editing>Editor and check the box for a reminder. "Improvements" is not sufficient. Many experienced editors often leave edit summaries that are longer than the actual edit. If you were both leaving detailed edit summaries to explain your reasoning, we probably wouldn't be here. —valereee (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• This is probably better taken to WP:COIN, but I agree that at a glance Acveo's edit history looks unusual - especially this, which is almost certainly promotional. It seems too unusual that a new editor would focus their attention so laser-tight on a few (mostly fairly obscure) brands. --Aquillion (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruption at List of people banned from entering the United States

List of people banned from entering the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 17 July this edit was made to this article. This is effectively a revert to the 31 December 2018 version of the article, in order to add a paragraph to an entry that was no longer in the article. When I noticed what had happened I reverted to the current version of the article (since it's clear a revert to the 31 December 2018 version isn't acceptable) yet 65.48.156.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Mefoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keep restoring the super-old version despite the discussion at Talk:List of people banned from entering the United States#Denzil Douglas and reverts. FDW777 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a week. Let me know if it resumes. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Can i start an article with " Hindu Religion ?"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can i add following sources:

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/hinduism (Kalki Bhagavan (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC))

@Kalki Bhagavan: There is already a page on this subject at Hinduism. I would recommend familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies before editing; WP:INTRODUCTION is a good place to start. If you have other questions, please use the WP:TEAHOUSE rather than this noticeboard, which is not for general editing questions such as this one. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

72.174.71.134 hoax edits

72.174.71.134 has spent about a year alternating between actually helpful edits and completely unreferenced WP:OR edits. Recently they upgraded to blatant hoax edits. They created an entire non-existent television series at The Detective (novel) and slipped it into The Die Hard franchise article[75] as well as filmographies of Danny Glover[76] and Kathleen Quinlan[77] They will even make a helpful edit at the same time as a hoax edit like here with an edit summary that casually ignores the hoax edit. They wait days between edits so it is not possible to make an AIV report. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This IP user has been somewhat disruptive with these hoax edits, particularly in the Die Hard (film series), as you can see in that user's contributions. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Now they jumped IPs to 72.174.131.123 and restored the same hoax edit about the non-existent "Easter" soap opera.[78] Notfrompedro (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Longterm WP:BLP violations at Tyler James (English musician)

Going on for months, it seems. Please block vandal(s) and protect the article, a 172 IP range. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide any specific diffs? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. In lieu of range blocking, which I'm not technically proficient enough to configure confidently. BTW, nice to see you, IP, it's been a minute. Got some pier laughs for you here, which I thought you, especially, would appreciate. El_C 12:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Pier reviewed. Wow. Thank you, El_C. Now I've got to do some serious reading and research. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Scienk rules, IP! BTW, speaking of the highly under-rated Steve Cropper, here's a good one of him with Albert King and Pops Staples. Story: I got to see Albert King open for the The Allman Brothers Band mere days before he died. RIP Albert King, an American treasure. Gotta add both of em to the Shut Up 'n Play Yer Guitar songspam series... El_C 15:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have the time, now, but I will listen later, El_C. Thank you! 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• That's a fine version of Tupelo, El_C. Different from John Lee Hooker's understated approach, which I've always liked. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Same. Can't recommend The Folk Lore of John Lee Hooker enough. And on that note, here's a gem for you to listen and watch. But I better stop before I get both of us banned from ANI! El_C 05:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Behaviour of Adamdaniel864

Really hate to be a tattletale, but I've crossed paths with Adamdaniel864 on a few occasions, and I feel there's something not quite right there, and possibly getting more worrisome. Would appreciate if someone could take a look at their behaviour, even if it's only to conclude that all's actually well and I should go back to minding my own business. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, if I'm reading this correctly, it looks like Bish got it covered. El_C 13:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, my main purpose with this editor is to stop them sharing their personal details, including age and real name, all over the place, and redacting the posts where they have already done so. Secondarily, I hope they'll stop going on at the unfortunate Bonadea — I don't even understand what that's all about. [Through gritted teeth:] I believe they mean no harm. Bishonen | tålk 14:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC).

@El C and Bishonen: thanks, both. Yes, those were probably the most pressing concerns, although not all by any means. But AGF and all that, I won't push any further. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem — I helped! Everyone loves Bonadea, and those who don't, are haters. Anyway, I guess we'll see which way on the WP:AGF–WP:PACT continuum the wind blows. El_C 15:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I notice the user is blocked on the Croatian Wikipedia.[79] That could be the reason they're editing here, I suppose. Bishonen | tålk 06:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC).

Nine years of Ray Carney POV fandom from Israel

• 77.124.110.240 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.126.68.137 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.125.203.207 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Ray Carney
• John Cassavetes
• List of directors associated with art film
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#Constant MoS breaking edits

Film professor Ray Carney is a polarizing character in the world of film criticism. He is abrasive and combative, dismissed by many of his peers, but a bunch of his students are ardent supporters. One such supporter who is "inspired by his writings" has been using IPs from Israel to push Carney's viewpoint on Wikipedia, to make his career appear more prominent. The person was blocked many times in 2013. After being blocked they immediately switched to a new IP to evade the block.[80][81] They straightened up for the next few years, working with Double sharp and WhisperToMe to get a bunch of film articles built, and more recently with IvanScrooge98. But the old pro-Carney POV has returned in force, spamming a long list of Carney's writings into many articles, and citing Carney's personal blog more than 100 times in a list article.

History of Israel IP disruption and blocks

The person from Israel began editing in late 2012, as far as I can tell. The person went through a great many articles to remove the label "art film" because Carney did not think highly of the film or the director. They defended criticism of Carney by using Carney's own blog. After being frustrated with many reversions about the art film label, they attempted to get the category of Art films deleted, which in fact happened six years later through the efforts of others. The Israel IP person went throught multiple articles arguing about the label "postmodern writer" based on Carney's assessment. Five IPs were blocked seven times. In 2014 they were reported at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive849#Anon on a category and simple fact deletion_rampage. Nothing useful was accomplished there. List of involved IPs Jul 2021 – 77.124.110.240 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jul 2021 – 77.126.68.137 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jun 2021 – 77.125.203.207 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Apr 2021 – 87.70.17.10 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jul–Aug 2020 – 87.68.138.39 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 2020 – 87.70.151.105 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Oct 2019 – 87.71.89.69 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Sep–Oct 2019 – 77.127.84.126 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Aug–Sep 2019 – 87.70.46.222 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Aug 2019 – 77.125.180.102 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jul 2019 – 87.70.76.247 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jul 2019 – 87.71.9.224 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jun 2019 – 87.70.11.235 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jun 2019 – 87.70.1.16 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Apr 2019 – 87.71.44.208 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Apr 2019 – 87.71.101.56 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Apr 2019 – 87.70.119.154 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Mar 2019 – 87.71.126.165 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Mar 2019 – 87.71.59.133 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Mar 2019 – 87.70.90.152 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Feb 2019 – 87.71.116.21 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Feb 2019 – 87.70.155.211 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Feb 2019 – 87.70.143.226 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Feb 2019 – 87.70.17.227 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jan 2019 – 87.71.86.87 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jan 2019 – 87.71.79.183 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jan 2019 – 87.71.94.101 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Dec 2018 – 87.70.137.42 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Oct 2018 – 87.70.38.185 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Oct 2018 – 87.71.85.205 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Sep–Oct 2018 – 87.70.97.132 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Sep 2018 – 87.71.98.19 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Aug 2018 – 87.71.15.215 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jul–Aug 2018 – 87.71.36.141 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jul 2018 – 87.70.77.206 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jun 2018 – 87.70.9.159 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jun 2018 – 87.71.50.54 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jun 2018 – 87.71.84.208 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Mar–Apr 2018 – 79.176.44.173 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Mar 2018 – 79.181.45.241 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May–Jun 2017 – 79.182.75.201 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Feb–Mar 2017 – 79.179.210.149 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Feb 2017 – 79.181.101.79 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Dec 2016 – Jan 2017 – 79.182.14.153 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Nov 2016 – 79.181.185.155 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Oct–Nov 2016 – 79.177.10.202 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Oct 2016 – 79.178.129.90 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Oct 2016 – 79.177.7.194 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jul 2016 – 79.178.154.164 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jun 2016 – 79.181.255.37 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 2016 – 79.179.3.240 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Mar–Apr 2016 – 79.181.250.53 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Feb–Mar 2016 – 79.176.43.206 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jan–Feb 2016 – 79.176.208.216 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Dec 2015 – Jan 2016 – 109.67.195.14 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Aug–Sep 2015 – 46.116.230.76 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Aug 2015 – 46.116.224.135 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jun–Jul 2015 – 85.250.185.30 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 2015 – 89.139.164.154 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Feb–Mar 2015 – 85.250.154.5 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jan–Feb 2015 – 46.116.252.70 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Dec 2014 – Jan 2015 – 89.139.164.40 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Nov–Dec 2014 – 85.250.146.10 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Nov 2014 – 89.139.184.183 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Nov 2014 – 85.250.135.134 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Nov 2014 – 85.250.155.74 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Oct–Nov 2014 – 85.250.144.239 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Oct 2014 – 85.250.131.248 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Oct 2014 – 85.250.140.173 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Oct 2014 – 85.250.184.198 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Sep 2014 – 46.116.250.57 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Sep 2014 – 46.116.247.178 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Aug–Sep 2014 – 89.139.184.202 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Aug 2014 – 46.116.239.142 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jul–Aug 2014 – 89.139.184.192 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jun 2014 – 46.116.224.227 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Feb–Mar 2014 – 46.116.221.185 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jan–Feb 2014 – 46.116.250.15 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Dec 2013 – 46.116.244.176 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Nov–Dec 2013 – 89.139.177.244 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jul–Aug 2013 – 109.186.234.86 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jun–Jul 2013 – 85.250.172.193 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May–Jun 2013 – 89.139.168.33 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Apr–Aug 2013 – 85.250.173.131 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Mar–Apr 2013 – 89.139.163.176 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Mar 2013 – 89.139.163.96 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Mar 2013 – 132.66.73.14 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Feb–Mar 2013 – 89.139.190.17 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Feb 2013 – 85.250.172.192 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Feb 2013 – 46.116.221.155 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Jan–Feb 2013 – 85.250.174.137 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Dec 2012 – 46.116.195.223 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Nov–Dec 2012 – 85.250.184.93 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) List of blocks JBW blocked Special:Contributions/89.139.168.33 for a month Bbb23 blocked Special:Contributions/89.139.163.96 for 72 hours Sergecross73 blocked Special:Contributions/109.186.234.86 three times. Sergecross73 blocked Special:Contributions/89.139.177.244 for three months, referring to the previous IPs. Ad Orientem blocked Special:Contributions/87.71.84.208 for 60 hours. List of Carney promotional statements "Is someone paying Wikipedia editors to exclude Carney from the public?" "Can anyone please tell me why Wikipedia is so hostile to even mentioning Carney?" "Do you seriously belive that Lynch, Hitchcock, Coppola, Scorsese, etc. made art films? Carney is not just some professor, he is the world's foremost authority on art films. Read his website (people.bu.edu/rcarney), especially about those I've removed" "Removed the comparison to Scorsese - any comparison between Cassavetes to Hollywood hacks is grossly inappropriate (for reference, read anything by Prof. Ray Carney" "Speilberg, De Palma, Coen, Kubrick, Welles, Tarantino, etc. are by no means 'artists' but, as Prof. Carney rightly says, mere tricksters..." "Carney is essentially the world's preeminent academic film critic." "Lynch is considered a seventh-rate hack by serious scholars of art film, e.g., Prof. Ray Carney (see people.bu.edu/rcarney)" "Again, Lynch is considered a seventh-rate hack by serious scholars of art film, e.g., Prof. Ray Carney " "Never head of this film or its director being included in the pantheon of art films by experts such as Prof. Ray Carney." "Someone removed Prof. Carney's important critical comments without providing an explanation." "Who 'reviles' Carney for his attacks on Hollywood schlock?" "Doesn't matter what these sources say. Prof. Ray Carney, the world's foremost authority on Cassavetes, has repeatedly distanced this film from Hollywood genres such as 'crime films.' Visit people.bu.edu/rcarney or read his books" "Added Prof. Carney's new blog to the list of external links" "Trying to get Carney's definition of Pynchon into the article. Let's see how it'll work out..." "Carney's a very important art critic" "...you'll see the Prof. Carney refers to both of these seventh-rate Hollywood hacks"

The recent June 2021 contributions of Special:Contributions/77.125.203.207 show edit warring over multiple articles, all of which is a violation of WP:REFSPAM. The Israel person is adding Ray Carney books as "Further reading" to a great many articles. For example, this refspam at the film article Here Comes the Groom was reverted by Danbloch and Drmargi four times, resulting in a lengthy discussion on the talk page: Talk:Here Comes the Groom. This kind of stuff has been going on at least since 2014.[82]

Much less important are this person's MOS violations in book titles, discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#Constant MoS breaking edits. Unfortunately, the reported MOS violation of curly quotes ignored the larger problem of using both quotes and italics on a book title. For what it's worth, the Israel person said "Done what you have asked, hope that it is fine now." But with the next dynamic IP change, they ignored their earlier curly quotes and failed to correct the problem.[83][[84]

The person has also been adding unreferenced dates of birth to lots of BLPs.[85][86][87][88][89][90][91] They said on my talk page that they found the DOBs through googling and from other language Wikipedias[92]—not from reliable sources. The same sentiment was expressed here in this edit summary. When reverted, they have edit-warred the DOB back in.[93]

This person has done some good work on Wikipedia but they have also been disruptive with pro-Carney POV, edit-warring on multiple articles, and violating BLPs with unreferenced date of birth. They showed their disdain for Wikipedia policies by evading blocks and ignoring their MOS violations after promising to fix them. They continue to stick to dynamic IPs rather than creating a username. What, if anything, should we do about this person? Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

From the above, the four IPs active in 2021 were 77.124.110.240 + 77.126.68.137 + 77.125.203.207 + 87.70.17.10. Only the first of those has been active recently. It might be difficult to get much input on this but it looks like a long-term problem and I propose treating this accordingly and will block the first IP for a month and do the same for any other IP that becomes active and appears to be the same user. I'll wait before doing that in case an optimist wants to tutor the person and raise an objection here. Please ping me in 24 hours if I haven't done anything by then. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Johnuniq. I think it's important to keep this person's past performance in mind when dealing with their future work, which is why I went to the trouble to trace many (not all) of the involved IPs. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I blocked that IP. Let me know when they next appear (I know they said they have quit Wikipedia). Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

IP apparently on copyvio spree

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

Last several edits are copy/pastes from sources, and could so with admin attention/cleanup. (Is this the best place to report this, BTW?). Alexbrn (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but this seems like the right place to me. I have given them a warning and have started reverting some of the copyrighted content. ProofRobust ProofRobust 12:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to go now so I would appreciate if either you or someone else investigates/reverts the rest of their edits. ProofRobust 12:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is a bit off topic, but I've always wondered: are there tools to help with this kind of thing? So if (as sometimes happens) a user visits 100 article and adds the word "poo" to the lede, is there a way to unwind that ... even if it's for admins only. Otherwise, it seems to me malicious users can waste a disproportionate amount of time. Alexbrn (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn: There are various mass rollback scripts (e.g. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js) and there's also Special:Nuke for mass deleting pages. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  • There are a variety of tools. One of these tools is User:CluebotNG which is a bot that automatically reverts vandalism and reports users who have repeatedly vandalised and ignored warnings to WP:AIV where an Admin can review the report/block the vandal. ProofRobust 16:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Reverted and revdel'd (←Alexbrn) a bunch. The {{uw-copyright}} warning that's been given probably suffices, for now. Please update/relist if the violations continue. El_C 13:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Alexbrn: Writ Keeper's mass rollback script, mentioned above, is a powerful tool for rolling back all the edits of a user. It's not admin-only! But you have to use it "with caution". The edits will only be rolled back if they are the last in the history, but then in the kind of situation you describe, they usually are. Note also that you have to see the edits in order to roll them back: if you only have the last 50 edits displayed when you deploy the script, then only those 50 will be rolled back. That caught me out at first. Bishonen | tålk 16:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC).

I have blocked the IP for 48 hours and deleted the copied texts. -Graham Beards (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks everybody! That script sounds useful, if scary. Alexbrn (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• It's also likely COI-refspam (compare what they added in this spate vs last December). I dropped a {{uw-refspam}} for when they return. DMacks (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Sennagod and WP:BLP policy with regard to the Layla Love biography.

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

Layla Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sennagod first appeared on Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago, with a query at WP:BLPN over the Wikipedia biography of Layla Love - an American photographer. Sennagod seemed to have doubts over whether Love met Wikipedia notability criteria. I looked at the article, which certainly appeared somewhat promotional, removed obvious puffery from the lede, and replied to Sennagod's query, stating that in my opinion, despite the puffery, Love probably met Wikipedia's notability criteria. [94]

This clearly didn't satisfy Sennagod, who then went to Talk:Layla love, starting a section suggesting that Love was using a 'fake name' - apparently there is an actress in the adult film industry who shares the name. Furthermore, it seems that Google has confused the two, using text from the Wikipedia photographer biography in their 'Knowledge Graph' alongside a photograph of the actress. I explained to Sennagod that Wikipedia had no control over Google, and that nothing could be done about that here.

From then on it went steadily downhill. Sennagod is apparently set on getting the Love biography deleted - a not entirely unreasonable position to take, as whether Love meets notability standards is a reasonable enough question, given the sources cited. What hasn't however been reasonable, in my opinion, is the way Sennagod has gone about this. I have repeatedly tried to explain that notability depends not on whet Wikipedia has to say about a person, but what coverage in external sources does. Sennagod had tried Proposed Deletion (twice), and started an AfD discussion - again reasonable enough, allowing for a misunderstanding about how PROD works. What isn't reasonable though - or permissible per WP:BLP policy in my opinion - is the way Sennagod has been using Talk:Layla Love as a platform to make all sorts of accusations and insinuations about the subject of the biography, basically accusing her of misrepresentation, while presenting nothing in the way of evidence beyond pure supposition (it should be noted that we have no evidence that Love was responsible for the article at all). Beyond the 'fake name' claim, Sennagod has accused Love of lying with regard to photographs of Pink and Bjork, [95], of fabricating a nonprofit organisation [96], and of lying about the involvement of Gloria Steinem with the nonprofit. [97] Likewise, Sennagod's AfD nomination [98] contains numerous allegations about the subject of the biography - allegations that simply shouldn't appear there, since they are unsourced speculation, based, like most of what else Sennagod has to say with regard to Love on a clearly hostile interpretation of 'original research' through Google - evidently Sennagod thinks that something not being findable through a Google search is proof enough that it didn't happen.

I have repeatedly tried to explain to Sennagod how Wikipedia determines notability, and asked that the denigration of the biography subject be stopped, as not only off-topic but contrary to WP:BLP policy, to no avail. The denigration continues, along with numerous personal attacks on other contributors. The latest posts to Talk:Layla love include accusations of "deception" with regard to "selling clothing" [99] and of a contributor "trying to put in false information to associate the subject with a celebrity". This has clearly gone too far, in my opinion, and I would suggest at the very minimum Sennagod needs to be blocked from the Love article, its talk page, and the AfD, and topic-banned from the entire subject. The AfD is ongoing, it could go either way, and I think Wikipedia is quite capable of deciding the notability issue without the efforts of a contributor who clearly has some sort of personal grudge or other improper motivation, and who has been using Wikipedia as a soapbox to pursue it. Regardless of whether Love's work merits an article, she doesn't deserve this sort of abuse, as WP:BLP policy makes entirely clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - About four days ago, Sennagod filed a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, saying that the article about Layla Love should not exist. I advised them that they could nominate the article for deletion, and closed the request as not including any other users. (It was also otherwise not the type of dispute handled by DRN.) I have not yet reviewed the Layla Love article well enough to !vote in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - A nomination to delete a biography of a living person is itself subject to the policy on biographies of living persons and should not contain unverified statements about the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The statements aren't just 'unverified' - some imply dishonesty approaching criminal behaviour, while presenting no meaningful evidence whatsoever. If they weren't so patiently ridiculous, I'd have asked for them to be RevDel'd. Comments like that don't belong anywhere on this website, regardless of who they relate to. I'd appreciate it if someone would actually comment on the substantive issue here, which is what is going to be done about this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I have given Sennagod a BLP discretionary sanctions alert. The editor is now aware of the consequences of any BLP violations occur going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

And on it goes: see Sennagod's latest edit. [100] A clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. Sennagod cannot possibly know what took place in private conversations between Love and Steinem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for 31 hours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

And yet again, Sennagod is engaging in battleground behaviour etc over the Layla Love article. Restoring the AfD notice to the article, after the AfD closed as 'keep' [101], editing the AfD discussion after closure. [102]. Clearly the short block achieved nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Given Sennagod's behavior after the AfD decision to Keep, Cullen328 imposed a permanent block on this editor's ability to edit Layla Love or the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

IP's concerns about Billinghurst

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin please kindly review @Billinghurst:'s actions. I am pinging them because I can't tag them with an ANI-notice on their talkpage since he's blocked his own talkpage from being edited. I find that odd in of itself since admins are typically always open for communication and usually very receptive and helpful. And this is exactly the type of problem I'm having with Billinghurst as he refuses to communicate after multiple attempts by me to engage with him! And now I believe he is abusing his powers by blocking my ability to edit my OWN talkpage at 197.46.126.67. If you look at the edit history at that talkpage, when I had the IP 197.46.126.67, I had blanked a portion of my own talkpage yet this admin is hell bent on forcing his way or the highway. It appears that because my IP has since changed, he's taken the oppurtunity to use that as an excuse to force his way (despite that I already made the revert on my own talkpage when I still had the IP in question). Simply put, since when are we not allowed to blank our own talkpages? Would appreciate some feedback and for his admin peers to review his conduct. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

In this diff, 156.204.57.243 reverted a message left by someone at User talk:197.46.126.67. A random IP (156.x.x.x) is not permitted to claim ownership of another IP's (197.x.x.x) talk. If you want to impress people with your wikiknowledge, you will have to make an account and use it to remove messages from your own talk. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

What Johnuniq said. You can't claim ownership of an IP talk page when editing from another IP. Register an account and get your own page. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I don't understand what you mean by "impress people with my wikiknowledge"? Which part of my complaint gave you the impression that I have special wikiknowledge that I aim to "impress" others with? What kind of an accusation is that? Please stay on topic. With regards to claiming the IP talkpage, I understand your point, but a sockpuppet investigator I presume could determine that I am in fact the owner. Regardless, Billinghurst also doesn't have a monopoly over the talkpage either. Why did he revert the IP's own edit of his own talkpage and then block access to it? And if I'm not the owner, what if the owner suddenly wants to edit their own talkpage now? They can't! Because of Billinghurt's overzealousness to get his way or the highway. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• As 156.204.57.243 declared they were 197.46.126.67, they are also guilty of edit warring exceeding 3rr with 4 reverts in the past 24 hours at Religion in Canada: [103][104][105][106].--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  Furthermore, they were warned of edit warring and 3RR before the last revert.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eostrix: I was thinking of not addressing you since I don't want to shift the topic of discussion, but I felt it pertinent to mention that I was reverting clear vandalism as sourced material was literally being unjustifiably removed from the page. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see clear vandalism, but a content dispute over the percentage of Muslims in various parts of Canada. Your reverts do not fall under WP:NOT3RR(4) of reverts of obvious vandalism. The edit warring is manifest.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

When I attempted to contact the editor on his talkpage (with the old IP) to notify him, they simply reverted their talkpage refusing to discuss the matter and insisted on continuing to vandalize the page by removing the sourced content. I added two sources that updated the statistics from the 2001 census to the 2011 census, and they simply revert without any justification. The vandalism is manifest. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

82.16.147.172 repeatedly removing image (again)

82.16.147.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has resumed removing an image of Priti Patel from British Indians, following the expiry of the block that resulted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1072#82.16.147.172 repeatedly removing image. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

TBF, is she really the most representative image to have on there? If you want a current senior British politician, arguably Rishi Sunak is a better choice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking closer... Since it's for a section titled "Social issues - Political" it seems even more off. I'm sure a lot of reliable sources would agree that Priti Patel is a political/social issue, but not sure her face is a good image for the section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I partial-blocked the IP for edit-warring, but I don't have any objections if there's a consensus to change it to a photo of Rishi Sunak. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is discussing the matter on the article talk page. That's sad. Since both are very senior officials in the current UK government, so why not include photos of both? Just a suggestion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

In British terms, the Great Offices of State are: Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary. Sunak and Patel occupy two of them. Why indeed not include pictures of both? Narky Blert (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a case where behavioral issues need to be separated from content issues. As far as the behaviour goes, this should be something that is discussed on the article talk page, if there is a disagreement, rather than edit-warred over, so a block may be appropriate. For the content, I entirely agree with Narky Blert. Why can't we have two images when two people of Indian origin occupy such major positions? Are we more restricitive of what people from ethnic minorities can achieve than even the Conservative Party? In this case Sunak occupies what is usually regarded as the senior position but Patel attracts more controversy, but that's all by-the-by. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

In case there is some confusion, AFAICT, there is no content issue or dispute over to whether to include Rishi Sunak or Priti Patel. The IP first removed Priti Patel's picture with the reasoning being "Everybody is sick of seeing her face" then edit warred over it [107]. They messaged User:Cordless Larry to say " removing unnecessary pictures of Priti Patel's face is an entirely constructive public service. Please find a different example of a British person of Indian descent to use". They then changed tact and said "Reverting addition of photo for which no valid reason has been given". As this also didn't work, next they changed tact and started to argue that Priti Patel "British Indian Ugandan, not British Indian. As such, her being used as a representative of British Indians is inappropriate." with similar arguments about the definition of British Indian to follow. For these last two edits, they tried replacing her photo with File:Dadabhai Naoroji, 1892.jpg. It was User:ProcrastinatingReader above who first suggested using Rishi Sunak instead with comments following above. The IP has never suggested it, and it seems clear their opposition is solely because they dislike seeing Priti Patel for some reason. If people want to talk content issues here I'm not British but personally, given both are extremely senior politicians in the UK government, even if Rishi Sunak arguably has a slightly more important position, I'm not sure if there is reason to choose one over the other. As for both, I'm not convinced it makes sense to choose 2 current members of government as the sole representation of British Indian involvement in politics, as if they've never done anything before. Frankly, the IP's idea of Dadabhai Naoroji as an addition would probably be a better solution. If people do want to keep the IP happy, the solution would likely have to be Rishi Sunak (whether with or without Dadabhai Naoroji) or something, but would definitely require the removal of Priti Patel's photo. And solution should also consider WP:NOTGALLERY etc. Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. My point is just that I don't see how the picture makes sense in that location, or why it's the best image to have. I think the IP has a reasonable content concern, if not for the most policy compliant reasons (it seems the IP's concern is that Priti Patel, perhaps because she attracts more controversies as Phil says, isn't representative of "British Indians"). But I don't entirely understand why they were blocked over it. Wouldn't the users restoring Priti Patel's image equally be edit warring? It's largely editor discretion on which image to use, there's not really a policy making either position any more valid than the other. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with someone suggesting an alternative or additional photo on the article talk page, but the IP editor was edit warring without any policy rationale or consensus for changing the image, and their edit summaries suggested their objection to the image was personal dislike for Patel. I think a block was appropriate on behavioural grounds. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) My opinion of Patel is unprintable, but I leave it at the door. She is beyond doubt one of the most prominent British Indians today. Narky Blert (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: that seems a very generous reading of what the IP has said. I find it very hard to see anything from the IP other than a hate of Priti Patel's face and attempt to come up with reasons to remove. They may be entitled to that hate, but they aren't entitled to try to remove the image for that reason. So while I'm normally very wary of someone complaining about edit warring and a lack of discussion when the talk page is empty (as it means the person complaining also hasn't tried), this is one case when I see an exception as the IP was just making crap up to remove something because of a personal dislike. Of course we cannot ignore policy backed reasons for the removal if they could find one even if it isn't their personal motivation, but in this case I think it's fair to expect they should be the one to start the talk page discussion. As for the content issue, I stand by my view that there is zero reason why Rishi Sunak is more representative than Priti Patel. Still as Cordless Larry said, the talk page is the place for that discussion. I'm not going to start one since I DGAF. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Patel is not British Indian according to your own definitions, it's irrelevant what my motivation for pointing that out is. CordlessLarry's motivation for keeping her picture there is no more or less motivated reasoning than mine. As you can see by his contributions here, he's not thinking about the facts, he's thinking about how best to punish someone for disagreeing with him. However, he's wrong. Unless you'd all like to change the name of the page from "British Indians" to "citizens of the UK whose ancestral roots are from India" as per his statement. Please note that, as I pointed out already, according to Early_human_migrations this includes the entire planet (minus peoples who stayed in Africa or moved from Africa to the middle East, then back). I'll remind you that it takes two to "edit war" and Larry is as culpable for it as I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.147.172 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

"Citizens of the UK whose ancestral roots are from India" comes from the opening line of the article. On Patel being British Indian, see Talk:British Indians#Priti Patel. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

User:CemasoV

User:CemasoV is WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:HTBAE, and possibly WP:SOCK. Please see following edits:

[108] Personal attack and uncited information in one post.

[109] This was the exact same Aspersion from IP as above previously, so likely same user. Thanks,

Albertaont (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(added by ip not me) Personal attack by ip not me

uncited information? : what is this: (source: https://heightzone.com/hou-zhihui-gender-explained-is-the-weightlifter-a-transgender-man/ )

this personal attack is not belong me :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hou_Zhihui&type=revision&diff=1036520241&oldid=1036506272

this added by ip:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.191.37.108 CemasoV (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

i add source :

Gender

Before the start of the 2020 Olympics, there were rumors that he was a transgender man. The veracity of this claim has not yet been proven.[110]

The issue of the athlete being transgender has been widely reported in the media. But this Chinese user started threatening me with a very bad tone. While he could check the sources. CemasoV (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

CemasoV, you are trying to add unsubstantiated rumors in violation of the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which says quite clearly Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Please follow this policy and never add rumors or gossip to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a scandal sheet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, yes . i agree with you. I was in a hurry about that athlete. I had to wait for full approval. I agree with you. I will not enter the articles of athletes from now on. Because it was not my preference either. I saw this in the news. It was bold on social media. I thought I would mention it on Wikipedia. But then I realized and deleted my text myself. --CemasoV (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Albertaont and User:AlbertOfWords

User:Albertaont is WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:HTBAE, and possibly WP:SOCK. Please see following edits:

User:Albertaont and User:AlbertOfWords

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_at_the_Olympics&diff=prev&oldid=1035397680

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AlbertOfWords

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Albertaont

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Veritaes_Unam

also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ekuftle

In all articles, he deletes information about doping or cheating Chinese athletes.

This user has used ugly words in the edit summary using her other account and is now a creditor. CemasoV (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Albertaont

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Albertaont

He has also threatened several other users in his recent contributions. Instead of interacting and behaving friendly and without checking resources. I did not see the IP edit at all. I just undo my edit. After that, because the content had not been approved yet, I deleted the content myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hou_Zhihui&type=revision&diff=1036535529&oldid=1036535513

He also tried to eliminate evidence of fraud and doping in his country (China). CemasoV (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range and possible intervention

I left a message at NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs)'s talk yesterday as I was unaware of this 'partial block' feature. ANI seems to be the correct place to report this.
IPs in the above range are very active in topics surrounding India, especially reality TV programs. Although, the edits do not seem to be made in bad faith they are nonconstructive and to a certain extent disruptive. Of the top of Special:Contributions/2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32:

1. 1 : Clearly promo
2. 2 : Name replaced with that of a rival political party under the guise of "Corrected the mistakes in names".
3. 3 : Years and names changed without offering explanation
4. 4 5 6 & more on Bassi, India : Either pure vandalism or test editing in mainspace. The article requires a rollback by the way.
5. 7 : Adds Malayalam text to an English article

There are many more contributions in that list that need to be at least looked at, if not completely undone. They have made few useful contributions but the mess left in the wake far outweighs any of them. Some intervention is required. 2405:201:4013:8B6A:F4AB:FF1E:65FE:10C2 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/personal attacks/refusal to communicate by IP

Middelburg, Zeeland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 89.205.141.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:1c00:703:cb00:8d4b:d15f:2c89:bae5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (plus a few more in this range)

An IP editor continues to change "city" to "town" in this article based on the evidently false claim that there is some kind minimum population requirement for a place to be called a city (in the Netherlands? in general? not sure). There is no such requirement and Middelburg is widely known as a city. The editor, however, refuses to discuss the issue and communicates only in uncivil edit summaries, some of them outright personal attacks: "annoying uneducated individual" and "you're such a brat". I've warned them about disruptive editing and personal attacks here; again about personal attacks here; and here I tried one last time to just get them to discuss the matter. Unfortunately, this edit just now shows that is not going to happen. I think there's nothing more I can do and some kind of administrative action is required. Lennart97 (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Article protected and IP range-blocked. Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Lennart97 (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

TPA Revoke

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we get someone to revoke TPA of this user: User talk:A Bird 112. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalizard101 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP changing birth years

Hi, I've never posted here before so please forgive me if it's the wrong place to do so. I have noticed some strange editing patterns from anonymous User:60.48.33.53, who has been falsifying birth years (without comment) on a number of articles, including Michel Aupetit (diff), Pete Simpson (diff), Josef Tošovský (diff), and Miloš Zeman (diff). A glance down IP's contributions shows several other birth year changes, some of which have been reverted, some not. According to the user talk page, the IP address has previously been temp-blocked as part of a sockpuppet investigation. Just thought someone should be aware of this as there are senior political figures included in the unreverted changes. Jdcooper (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jdcooper. This appears to be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Malaysia. Thanks for pointing out that they are active again. I will revert their latest edits. Best regards, Citobun (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/60.48.33.53 for a month. A little strange because some of the edits looked good but some that I checked contradicted the reference. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Johnuniq. This is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Malaysia. They have been active many years and for the most part their date changes are random/incorrect. Citobun (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They do indeed geolocate to Kota Kinabalu, same as another IP blocked on July 15. Logging at LTA sock list with reference to this ANI.D'oh! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Homophobic abuse on talk page following indefinite block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all, as you can see from User talk:Moody2019, there has been some quite unpleasant abuse following a sockpuppetry block. Please could an admin look into this? I don't feel comfortable addressing this myself. User has been blocked as they have been found to be using multiple accounts to manipulate AfD consensus. Of course, they are not too happy with the resulting block. Thanks in advance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• DeTPA'd by Black Kite --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joplin201017

Joplin201017 (talk · contribs) added unsourced stats on Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia on 09:07 UTC, while the first numbers reported here on 09:42 UTC. Its predecessor, Javito1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) constantly did this as well. Reverted as always, but no response, nor improvement. Not even an edit summary. I reported to WP:SPI days ago but no response at all. Maybe because I do not request CU, just as Bbb23 told me to, otherwise I will get blocked. Flix11 (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Flix11: the source I used came from CNBC Indonesia, with data matching The Ministry of Health today. Apologies as I forgot to include an edit summary on my edit today (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Chris Chan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Chris Chan has finally managed to go mainstream with their recent arrest for incest, and there's now global interest and multiple lengthy profiles from credible secondary sources, see:

[111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]

However, due to past attempts on the part of ChrisChan herself and her fans to create multiple articles in the past, nearly all article names relating to her are under admin control dating from 2009-2019 see:

Chris Chan
Christine Weston Chandler
Christian Weston Chandler

There is a draft at Draft:Chris Chan. It's time to create the page, redirect the others, protect them and let the masses get to work. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 07:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dev920: can you explain to us how you're sure this doesn't violate WP:BLP1E if it's a singular recent event? Especially given most of the sources you've provided above are shitty sources a number are clearly non RS e.g. Daily Mail, the Sun. IBTimes and most of the others are yellow on WP:RSPS? Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Also at least two of the examples you linked above seem to have often been created as attack pages, so not likely something created by "fans" are you alleged. Indeed one of the sources mentions Kiwifarms in the title and I have the vague memory the subject has been a long time subject of trolling from Kiwifarms. So your claims seems highly questionable. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

ChrisChan is not and never has been a low profile individual. She has 50,000 subscribers on YouTube and 25,000 on Twitter. She is a living meme and has been for decades. The issue has been that much of the content available is from unreliable sources and written by trolls (ie Kiwi Farms). We now have content signed off on by actual journalists with bylines to verify this individual's longstanding status as a person of interest and if you don't like the Sun, that's fine, just Google and pick any of the others. This story is going to continue to spread now it's hit the tabloid and given the arrest happened four days ago, I would expect that the more detailed profiles are due to follow. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 09:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Then we should probably wait until there are more detailed profiles to see if there is some lasting notability. Right now it's pretty solidly in the WP:BLP1E arena. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dev920: WTF? 50k subscribers and 25k followers on Twitter is nothing and goes no way to demonstrate that someone is not a low profile individual. Even plenty of people with a few hundred subscribers are very far from notable. So where are these sources you keep talking about? If this is so clear cut, why on earth didn't you link to the BBC, the New York Times etc in the first place? Why instead did you link to such utter crap in you first comment? This has nothing to do with me. I'm fairly sure I did not participate in the discussion that found The Sun unreliable. I don't think I even gave a clear comment on any of the Daily Mail ones. You are the one claiming all the sources exist yet have so far failed to provide them. We are not responsible for finding sources for you, when you are the one arguing that someone is notable. Either you do the work or bugger off, especially since this is ANI and gives rise to major BLP concerns and you're still very far from demonstrating how any of this gets around BLP1E. Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow, is this the standard of behaviour of admins these days, cussing and whinging? No wonder WP is struggling to retain new editors. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 12:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dev920: what admins are you talking about? In any case, AFAICT, the only one who is whinging is you, who keeps insisting that all these great sources exist, but it's someone else's responsibility to find them. As a non admin highly concerned about BLP matters, I will not apologise for demanding an editor who comes to ANI and claims a highly contentious article about a living person is notable, but utterly fails to demonstrate this notability needs to do so before demanding we take action. If that scares you off, so be it. Editors who come here to harm other living persons should not be welcome. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I came here because I wanted to read an overview of Chris Chan that was NPOV given all the drama, and found it missing from Wikipedia. I don't intend to write the article, or have any interest in your feelings about the sources I provided. I just happen to know where to ask to get the page unsalted, so I did. Newyorkbrad has suggested waiting for the more detailed profiles, and we can do that, I just think it's a failing of an encyclopedia not to cover this topic when everyone can read plenty of material about Chris Chan from elsewhere if they want to tap her into Google. She won't be any less notable because you're incapable of civility. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 15:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

As one that's been on the Internet since before the Endless September, I can tell you there are lots of things that I can readily search on and read up about that WP does not document, but because the documentation for these relies more on Internet forums, non-RS blog sources, and other stuff like that. Just because Google throws out a lot of hits doesn't mean that it is an appropriate target for WP to write about. I do think we can write an article, but now is not the time to consider that due to a combination that we have BLPCRIME here (charged but not yet convicted) and that any article on Chris Chan is likely to draw an army of trolls to disparage her further in the midst of this investigation. --Masem (t) 15:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose unsalting at this time. BLPs focused on individuals notable primarily for being harassed should not be encouraged. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Related to this, a few additional eyes on Ruckersville, Virginia would be appreciated as well. Already had a pretty severe BLP violation in an edit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Rather bizarrely just cropped up at Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland. DuncanHill (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the background and current circumstances, implementing an edit filter sooner than later might not go astray... --Jack Frost (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if better sources emerge, I'm with Newyorkbrad. Having looked at it briefly, I think we can keep the draft for at least a few days while ensuring we keep any of the harassment out. If a few weeks or more likely months from now it's clear the sources are there to get around the various BLP concerns, we can consider moving the draft to article space. The alternative is that the case is notable but the subject is not and the draft will need to be renamed before/while moving. Either way when this has happened we can consider what redirects we need. OTOH, it may be clear at some stage, whether in a few days or weeks that neither are notable and we delete the draft and keep the salts forever. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

That said I looked at the draft and noticed this [118] in the edit history which is concerning suggesting there is a potentially WP:COPYVIO as the text was taken from an earlier draft or article, but the attribution history is lost likely violating our CC licence. If we keep the draft, the attribution history should probably be recovered albeit keeping the revisions hidden if necessary for BLP reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Given the circumstances I would expect that the only "masses" who would get to work on this very badly sourced article would be the same trolls who have been harassing the subject for the last 14 years. Shame on you, Dev920, for encouraging this. The only person displaying a poor standard of behaviour here is you. We only want to retain new editors who can distinguish a proper reliably sourced article from trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Pinging Masem, who can more eloquently than I explain why this notion is a WP:BLP, WP:N and WP:RECENTISM nightmare.

As for my part, I'll share a slightly re-worded and clarified version of what I said at GW's talk page:

Oh hell no. I'm very familiar with the Chris-chan saga, and there's simply no goddamn way WP could write up a neutral BLP on her under the current circumstances. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

Editor's insistence in deadnaming the subject doesn't bode well at all. I'd oppose unsalting the article space right now. Isabelle ^🔔 13:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't seen Christine oppose being called Chris as a nickname. It's a unisex name used by women like Chris Evert.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not the deadname of concern. Its the male name that's even listed above. --Masem (t) 13:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Christian Weston Chandler was protected in 2009, this was years before she first identified as a women.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• And at that point, before she revealed her self as trans, her notability would significantly be in question. Clearly we'd be able to identify that she transitioned, but there's no indication that reliable sourcing recognized the deadname. (I know what sources are there and again, this is "gossip rag" terrority we'd not use for BLP). --Masem (t) 13:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• (ec) Of the 11 sources in the draft, only the 1993 one mentions her deadname. Yet, she is deadnamed at least four times in the draft. Thrice in this ANI. From reading about this and listening to other users, it would be prudent to wait and see how the story develops. Isabelle ^🔔 14:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see, you're referring to the current draft.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This probably goes beyond my usual rants on RECENTISM and more to the fact that as you state, right now it looks very difficult to write a neutral article using quality sourcing about this person; the combination of trans-related issues and the recent arrest would have trolls coming out of the woodwork. This may be the type of thing in a few months, after the arrest has become a memory that we can talk about an article. I'd also agree the current sourcing is not great. There's a few good sources but also a hefty weight on some known "gossip rags" like Insider that I'd avoid completely in a case like this. --Masem (t) 13:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, interesting, I've never read WP:DEADNAME before and I see that it recommends not redirecting pages (my suggestion, not creating the article there) "if the person was not notable under the original name". I guess one should err on the side of caution and not resurrect it, in that case. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 15:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There was a previous draft under Draft:Chris-Chan, which someone deleted yesterday. This was meticulously sourced and of a neutral viewpoint, using sites like Newsweek, Yahoo News, NBC, etc. Is there a way to recover the content in this? I still don't understand why it was deleted and it was more thorough and well-written than the current version.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There is not; those edits were not just deleted but oversighted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Way to RECENT and at this point how could this possibly done without violating BLP and BLPCRIME? If we removed the alleged crime would we even have this article? Springee (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like an obvious WP:BLPCRIME violation to me, and of course there's the whole principle of BLP (summarised once by JzG as "don't be a dick"). Oppose unsalting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This reminds me of another internet cause-celeb from years ago Brian Peppers. The only reason they were famous online was a mugshot of him and the way he looked in it. Much in the same way as Chris Chan, they were mocked online incessantly, and page creation was salted nearly a decade ago. Outside of this arrest, is Chris Chan notable in anyway, or are they just fodder for internet attacks? Even if this page was created (which I do not support), it would be locked down almost immediately I would think, and become a timesink from vandals. So no, page should not be re-created. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: Yet another draft? This is ridiculous! Please can we get this one deleted and salted too? Even if the allegations were true, which is incredibly unlikely given the alleged source, this is an extremely vulnerable, non-notable, private individual who is being hounded by an organisation which has already driven people to suicide. Previous attempts have been made to entrap or frame her in criminal activity. We want absolutely no part in this! See additional discussion over on Talk:Kiwi Farms. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted and salted the draft article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here, I'd like to express my contempt for whoever it was above who justified the existence of this article because the article subject has been a "living meme for years". --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, at least nobody justified the existence of an article by comparing her to an infamous serial killer. Oh wait. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Grievance against Oversight

Yesterday someone oversighted Draft:Chris-Chan under the false pretense that it was attack page, negative, or unsourced. This occurred after User:GorillaWarfare deleted the article per the same faulty reasons. The article was meticulously sourced and of a neutral viewpoint, using sites like Newsweek, Yahoo News, NBC, etc. As one of several editors who were working on it, I take personal offense to these claims. We went out of our way to make sure this was non-pov, reliably sourced, etc. Unfortunately because this was oversighted there is no way to recover the content.

The only thing I can think of that would lead them to this conclusion would be if someone vandalized the page before they viewed and oversighted it. If that is the case, they still did not do her due-diligence by looking at the history and seeing a legitimate version of the draft existed. An oversight was completely inappropriate for this scenario and a huge overstep of administrative powers.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

About 1% of the people at ANI can look at oversighted material; admins can't, only fellow oversighters. So I don't know what you want done here at ANI. FWIW, while I suppose GW is human an can make mistakes like anyone else, my uncorroborated gut instinct here would be that this is not one of them. Your best bet, I suppose, is to email the oversight team and ask for another oversighter to give a second opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Addendum: probably ought to consider this comment an "involved admin" comment, since I've now deleted another version at Draft:Chris Chan. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

What Floquenbeam said: this isn't something that should be discussed here, very few of the editors/admins here can see the deleted draft so we can't comment on whether or not the deletion was valid. I am also of the opinion that it is highly unlikely that GW is mistaken about this, but if you think she is, e-mailing the oversight team (instructions at WP:OVERSIGHT and asking them to review is your best option. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

In regards to what I want done here, I would like to recover the content and have it explained to me how in anyway it was negative, pov, or non-notable, and could not be used as a draft page. This is what I believe should have been done in the first place instead of an oversight, and I think that if people saw the actual content that was there, they would agree this was the wrong step to take and an overreach of powers.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Just as a comment, Newsweek, post-2013, is not considered a reliable source due to change of ownership and output approach. --Masem (t) 14:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"Meticulously sourced" and "Newsweek" should never be that close together. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: There is no such thing as a legimiate draft on this subject. Any attempt to make a BLP about this subject is harrasment of an extremely vulnerable private individual. The aim is to make her "notable" via Wikipedia and the material was correctly deleted in my view. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Question, who is "we"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I think that the 'we' is referring to the group of editors who were working on the article. Quite a few experienced editors in good standing have done work on the draft in the last 48 hours. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A pertinent question would be what sort of work those editors did. If they were removing BLP vios and poorly sourced content, that's a very different story than if they were using high-quality sources to add content.

And of course, if they were adding BLP vios and poorly sourced content, we might want to revisit that "in good standing" part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Correct. I couldn't tell you their usernames because I'd need to look at the edit history, which is unavailable due to the ovrsight. There were several different contributors all doing this in good faith, trying to create a legitimate and non-bias article.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, in terms of contributor names, edit summaries, etc., the edit history is viewable by any admin, since the draft was deleted by simple deletion. Only the draft content itself was oversighted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the draft page has been deleted with all of its revisions suppressed. I'll look further into it in order to see exactly what caused this to need to be suppressed. Unfortunately, I can't elaborate further about it here. Also, GorillaWarfare only deleted the page. She was not the one who suppressed the deleted page revisions. Again, I cannot elaborate any further than that, since the suppression logs are restricted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)  Administrator note - for what it's worth, GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) did not suppress that page, she only deleted it (c.f. public deletion log). The page was the subsequently suppressed by another oversighter. To request a review of the suppression, you may contact the oversight team here: Special:EmailUser/Oversight. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • So she was the one who deleted the draft but did not oversight it? If you can confirm that my understanding of that is correct, I will remove her name from the subsection title.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Hoponpop69 - Your understanding is correct. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Changed to reflect that. Who was responsible for the oversight then?Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I actually am an oversighter, though not the one who carried this out. Honestly, I really can't think of any good that would come from letting more people see it; aside from the content being an extremely depressing comment on humanity or lack thereof (a comment on the source material, not any Wikipedia editors), there's zero chance that will ever be an article. This person has been burned quite enough without Wikipedia throwing yet more gasoline and lit matches on what are obviously some deep scars. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying even if there's enough notable coverage of Christine, there will still not be a page?Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There clearly was not enough notable coverage in that draft, as I thought was clear, and honestly I have to wonder why you're so worked up over this. Does the name Joseph Welch have any meaning to you? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I interpreted "there's zero chance that will ever be an article" as meaning there will never be an article, not that there will never be an article based on that draft. If I provided a list of sources about Christine, could you tell me which are and aren't notable coverage?Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Hoponpop69: Perhaps next time you should ask someone to verify your suspicions before making completely unevidenced assumptions about my involvement here. I am a member of the oversight team, but I had nothing to do with the draft being suppressed (though I do think it was a good call). I neither suppressed it myself, nor requested it be (though in hindsight I should've done the latter).
  To catch up on questions here from my talk page and from this ANI: I see that you've repeated a few times that you think I deleted the page because I saw it at a vandalized revision. I can clarify that that is not true (and any oversighter is free to verify this if they like): the revisions immediately prior to me deleting the page were a bot edit by Citation bot, six content change edits by Susmuffin, one by SiliconProphet, and then two by Hoponpop69 themself. None of them appeared to be vandalism.
  Your claims here and on my talk page that the page was "meticulously sourced and of a neutral viewpoint, using sites like Newsweek, Yahoo News, NBC, etc." are misleading at best. As has already been pointed out above, post-2013 Newsweek articles (RSP entry) are "not generally reliable" per WP:RSP. In this particular case, the article refers to Chandler first as "Chris Chan" and then repeatedly refers to her throughout as "Chan" as though that was her surname, so I think that underscores the questionable nature of this particular article. The Yahoo! News article is a syndicated version of the Insider article that was also used in the draft—whether the duplication was intentional to make the subject appear more notable than she is or just an oversight, I can't say. Insider (RSP entry) is also no consensus at RSP. NBC is not used in the draft article at all, and as far as I can tell they have never published an article about her. If this is "meticulous sourcing" in your eyes, I have many questions about your competence to be editing BLPs. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I am unsure what draft you are referring to as a number of them have been deleted in the past several days, but I think it is a different from the one I am referring to. Other than the article title, which I suggested be changed to "Christine Weston Chandler", the surname Chandler was used throughout it. Furthermore, this was the NBC article that was used [119]. If you did not see that, you are looking at a different version of the draft. Let's both try to assume good faith here.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • That's a local NBC affiliate, and not necessarily something of the reliance like NBC News. Its not that we can't use local sources but for something like this related to BLPCRIME, we'd want wider coverage since crime reporting is considered routine aspects of local news. --Masem (t) 15:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict × 2) I have only deleted one page (and a handful of redirects), as is publicly verifiable in the deletion log. That is the one that you have been posting on my talk page about, and accusing me of suppressing and deleting without doing my due diligence, and that is, obviously, the one to which I am referring. Trying to pass off a local NBC affiliate as "NBC" is frankly just more evidence that your definition of "meticulous sourcing" is completely different from what we expect on BLPs (and on this site generally). Regardless, neither NBC News nor any NBC affiliates were included as sources in the draft article that I deleted.
      If you re-read my comment, you will see that my comments about using "Chan" as though it was her surname is referring to the Newsweek article, not any draft.
      I don't know what "Let's both try to assume good faith here" is about when you have shown none towards me yourself. I am being quite civil with you, and "assume good faith" does not mean "accept what you're saying as true when it's provably not". You are apparently unable to understand (despite basically unanimous agreement here among outside admins and oversighters) that this draft was completely outside of the bounds of what's acceptable here, and that is a problem.GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I apologize if I came across as uncivil. Can you confirm that you were viewing the same draft that I am referring to? Because there have been a number over the past couple days, and because you said there was no NBC source in it, I believe you are referring to a different one.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) As I have already said above, I am referring to the one draft that I deleted (and which was subsequently oversighted), which was titled Draft:Chris-Chan. I deleted it at 18:43, 3 August 2021 and you began the section on my talk page (User talk:GorillaWarfare#Chris Chan Draft) at 19:34, 3 August 2021. I can't read minds so it's possible that you are thinking of some other draft, but in a conversation that began as a discussion of the single draft that I deleted, I am referring only to that draft. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I see several of my colleagues have already commented above, but FWIW, I am an oversighter, I looked through the suppressed revisions, and I absolutely endorse the suppression. I think the suppressed revisions quite clearly meet OS criteria 1 and 2. I would be happy to elaborate to my colleagues on the OS list, if this ever becomes a matter for discussion; it seems rather unlikely, seeing as nobody has raised it yet. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Socking and disruption

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Dravidianstock2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've opened a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sweetindian for a 6 day old account Dravidianstock2 who is an obvious sock. Currently the SPI is heavily backlogged and the user is on a disruption spree, so I am forced to report it here.

• Adds content without sources or edit summaries[120]. When another user changed it, the user reverts it with a summary Please use minumum common sense. You will be blocked for making disruptive edits without providing a source.[121]
• Continues the edit war of a sock[122][123] with a circular source with an edit summary,..This is basic sense. Ask any random person in Dept of South Asian studies, Harvard university[124]
• Calls other users "deceptive"[125], An biggest enemy of wiki[126]
• Removed comments of other users from other talk pages.[127]
• Changes content in many articles without sources or explanation.[128][129][130][131][132]
• Makes misleading edit summary.[133][134].

The disruption is still going on. Requesting admins to look at the SPI. ThanksSUN EYE 1 12:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is their reply to the ANI notice, calls me a party cadre who works for its IT-wing.[135]
• They had altered this ANI report[136][137][138] and made personal attacks against me on my talk page.[139]SUN EYE 1 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with everything disabled. El_C 12:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Beyoglou harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is harassing Wikipedians.[140][141][142]--V. E. (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 00:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Good block El_C. I reverted their removal of sourced material without explanation. Of their other two edits, one appears to be a correct fix of a mis-capitalization, and the other is this addition of info. This last one will require review from people more closely involved in the topic, to see if it should stand. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

N0MINAY

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

N0MINAY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an admin please escort this user to the door? The userpage and recent edit summaries tell it all - clearly WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 13:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

144.171.219.9 Block Evasion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sock of 144.171.220.142 (talk · contribs) and needs to be blocked. ProofRobust 17:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP range 2604:3D08:5A82:5500

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At least three IPs beginning with 2604:3D08:5A82:5500 (and potentially more) have been adding incorrect information to the Iain Glen article. The most recent is 2604:3D08:5A82:5500:A88B:C690:BFD7:9082.

Glen appears on the television series Titans as the character Bruce Wayne. He does not appear as Bruce's superhero alter-ego, Batman. Therefore, the editors of Titans-related articles have agreed that Glen should not be attributed to playing Batman and such information is inaccurate. However, the IP range has been ignoring my edit summaries regarding this and continues to restore mention of Batman on Glen's article.

I'm inquiring if there's a way to prevent this IP range from adding the incorrect information. Bluerules (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concern by IP about Walter Görlitz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

hello,

so first of all i've received nonsense warnings on my talk page with the "you may be blocked" nonsense for conduct that did not violate the policy.

at most, i can see one warning being valid when i attempted to improve the boston page in earnest *chortle*.

the other borderline situation was when User:Balon Greyjoy and i were discussing a specific point. however @VQuakr: showed his utility and defused the situation. nor did i violate any rules.

it was just a passionate defence of a stance that, when VQuakr provided a thoughtful response, immediately made clear what was needed to legitimise the contribution further.

the boston edit was purely playful and i mean, sure if you really want to count it then you can.

aside from that, my conduct has been an asset to this website and i'm quite offended by the "final warning" placed on my page by walter gorlitz.

i admit once or twice i have been playful, but there have been comments about the utility of my contributions.

i understand problematic conduct subjects me to WP policy, regardless of my usefulness. this is clear.

he is stating my response to the RfC, which opposed my recommendation to insert an influence{s,d} attribute to the musician infobox, was a personal attack.

i noticed from walter's block log that he has often engaged in conduct that weaponises wikipedia policy to his advantage. i feel threatened by his conduct because to me it feels like a statement "you better be walking on eggshells, or else".

i thought my response here was thoughtful, on topic, substantive and ultimately reflective of an editor who accepted the ruling and moved forward.

but walter wanted to call this a personal attack and dishonestly inflate my warning count.

he states that telling someone to "lighten up" is a personal attack. this is not acceptable.

i want to report him because i don't think it's appropriate to threaten other people without a legitimate basis. 198.53.108.48 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

K not an admin but ... Good Luck with this Pal ... and Look up the word "boomarang" and maby think about making an Account ... Jena (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

in spite of what user Jena Fi is saying, i note that very recently in the Darknipples discussion above the administrators have not spoken highly of another user misconstruing contributions of another editor as a personal attack.

the conduct here is no different. and the application of WP:BOOMERANG does not hold up here. i did not attack or threaten walter and thus the invocation is highly suspect.

can anyone run a CheckUser on the account? the editor interaction analyser comes up empty, but it's just strange. maybe some admin can comment on who Jena Fi is, but I find the random activity strange. 198.53.108.48 (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No. Acroterion (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

well gee, thank you administrator Acroterion! :P

thanks to all the WP:TOOLS, i did a search on jena fi and i can't quite make out the intentions of this person.

of course perfect grammar is not a requirement to be a wikipedian. just the right intentions and that golly-gee-gawrsh positive attitude (with a few air uppercuts and a skip in their step).

i don't know whether to laugh or cry at the erratic grammar. maybe you administrators, being such celebrities with that authority, are no strangers to the concept of a "lurker" who sporadically chimes in like this, but i was just a little irked. i'm aight^* now.

• "aight" as in i am no longer unsettled by the erratic user's sudden participation. 198.53.108.48 (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I just Like to read this board for fun ... the Admins know me, they know i don't make truble, but I thought I would give you a warning before the Admins ran a check user on you... Jena (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

IP, I find it interesting that you pinged me here after your incivility at that talk page such as [143], [144]. It suggests to me a lack of awareness regarding how inappropriate your behavior is. More concerning to me are the WP:ASPERSIONS violations that you jumped to more or less instantly as soon as your bold edit was contested, such as [145] and [146] (not to mention the example in this thread). Assuming you get out of this particular thread unblocked, my advice to you is that you can edit without receiving bunch of talk page warnings, or you can constantly push the envelope of what constitutes the bare minimum level of civility required to edit here. But you can't do both. As a side note, you will draw less attention to yourself if you learn to properly thread and paragraph your posts. For whatever reason disruptive editors tend to struggle with formatting, and as a result posts that are poorly formatted tend to get more scrutiny, regardless of their merit. VQuakr (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The user making this spurious report seems to have experience here. They know what a checkuser is, one can only guess how. I assume they also know about our standards of civility. Given that they have been given a notice on their talk page and have seen it I am assuming they do going forward. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

in other words ... they are not new, and are usoing an IP cause ... gonna take a wild Stab in the Dark hear... they were blocked before... Jena (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potentially illegitimate logged-out editing

I grew suspicious of 109.79.167.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) when they cited a humorous essay as the rationale behind their refusal to register as a user after saying they were editing Wikipedia anonymously as I am entitled to do and not making any claim to being different people. While irritating, I understood it did not violate WP:ILLEGIT. Now I'm seeing that Nyxaros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has accused them of being a banned user. Is there a way to prove (or disprove) this? KyleJoan^talk 02:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Presumably 109.79.161.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also the same editor. At some point, after many months and many IPs, the complaints "you don't seem like a new editor" are just silly. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

But does that prove they were not a banned user prior to editing under the different IPs? KyleJoan^talk 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I edit anonymously. KyleJoan doesn't like me, and although I don't appreciate the accusations I can politely agree to disagree with KyleJoan. I am under no obligation to use fakenames and collect barnstars, I choose not to login, I wouldn't characterize is at "refuse to" I'm simply not required to.

Nyxaros (talk · contribs) aka Sebastian James (talk · contribs) is rude and hostile and has long been so (which is why it was so easy to recognise the same user despite a name change), and continues to be unpleasant. His user page claims he is "no longer here" which is plainly not true. Nyxaros is lashing out.

You can't disprove a negative. I can apologize in advance to the admins for wasting their time because there's nothing to see here. I had an account long ago and I abandoned it. I disagree with people and discuss, but these accusations of sock puppetry are baseless. -- 109.79.167.172 (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

And how do we know that account of yours from long ago is not banned? KyleJoan^talk 03:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't.

Even if I found the old account and showed it to you or the admins you would probably think I had some other account. You can't disprove a negative.

I am surprised that someone would think my edit pattern is indicative of some grand scheme or devious intent that would cause anyone to bother with a sock puppet. I should probably be doing something else more productive with my time but we could probably all say that. -- 109.79.167.172 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @KyleJoan: if you don't have any evidence the IP is banned, and you don't suspect them of being a sock of any specific user, please stop making accusations now. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I have not accused the IP of anything. The fact that they're not able to outright say their editing does not violate WP:CLEANSTART seems like an issue, so I believe it's natural to wonder why they've never exercised the option to privately disclose their previous account to an admin with the CheckUser tool and shut down any suspicions. KyleJoan^talk 03:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

KyleJoan, you say that you didn't accuse the IP of anything, though effectively you did, then you proceed to continue with the accusation ("natural to wonder") in the same comment where you say you didn't accuse them. I have no idea about the veracity or lack thereof of this IP, but a little self-awareness, please. There's a limit to what one can do with semantic plays. This would be quite different if you were to pose a general query about what if anything should be done with an IP editor who has knowledge of CLEANSTART —indeed, hardly the most intuitive policy to find— without naming said IP immediately (or, naming them, but with actual evidence). El_C 12:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruption on Alexei Navalny by brand new accounts

The article is currently subject to 1RR and is facing disruption by a wave of new accounts since yesterday as seen in the history. After a particular edit is reverted, another new account is created and shows up to restore it, and repeat. A brand new account made this edit on the article, which I reverted and explained in the edit summary. This discussion about the subject's nationalism also has been well discussed on the talk page not long ago. That account has not made any more edits (in fact all of these accounts disappear after a new one is made), and another brand new account restored that edit and made another edit that can be viewed as a BLP violation. This was reverted by RenatUK. Another brand new account appeared to restore it and try to include more sources, which I reverted and again explained why, and now another newly created account has shown up to restore it and make more changes in the article. I can only assume this is one person (a message was left on my talk page by the most recent account to say that I was "wrong"). Mellk (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the three users as obvious socks, someone needs to semi-protect the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh. I was sure I did, but I guess not. Anyway, now Done. El_C 14:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Mellk (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

2a00:23c7:5884:5a01:358c:3157:3bcc:b83b/44

2a00:23c7:5884:5a01:358c:3157:3bcc:b83b/44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I was wondering if someone can block for a while this Glasgow-based IP-range (calculated by me by combining five different IPV6 by using this tool). The user is persistently targeting several articles relating mostly to ancient Egypt, with edits ranging from inserting/changing dates, adding purely speculative family relationships, or other personal deductions, all devoid of reliable sources and/or in clear disagreement with already existing ones. You may find that reaching the warning limit is pretty useless with such a plethora of IPs. Lone-078 (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment A link to their contribs list was added to the top of this report. Looks like trouble is afoot; AGF violation against Apokryltaros (talk · contribs) after they had reverted their edits. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment I refrained from re-reverting partly to avoid edit-warring, and partly because I've dealt with this persistent, sanctimonious editor before, and decided to wait until it gets a rangeblock.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I care not. I'm reverting as many edits as I can. It's at least since April that this individual has been polluting this encyclopedia with lies on a daily basis. People like that make me sick. Lone-078 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic-based aspersions and labelling

• I would still ask all respectful editors (especially those of Armenian origin) to keep yourselves objective and not pour out your anger to the pages of Wikipedia.
• I just wanted to express my protest on the fact that some of the heavy editors to this article (many of which turn out to be Armenians - just claiming obvious fact!) may be biased towards the subject of this article

As well as labelling a self-identified Kurdish editor as Armenian and blind-reverting their edits on numerous articles with summaries such as:

• restoring original preview to the article before destructive edits of an Armenian sockpuppet user
• restoring native Turkic name to the article (previously was removed by an Armenian sockpuppet)

User seems not here to build an encyclopedia. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

forgot to link them, Mastersun25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Did not mean to offend anyone. I reverted some of the edits of the reported used that seemed to be very disruptive to me. Ironically, the banned user accused me of sockpuppetting, turned out to be sockpuppet himself. Now this user accuses me of ethnic bias, having edit history of a typical xenophobe. [147] [148] [149]. Please respectful editors pay attention to this fact as well. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the above mentioned blocked user pretended to be Kurdish, which is also obvious if you visit his edit history page as well as his other accounts. I want to say one more time that my recent edits were not at all disruptive and had no other aim than to restore a NPOV versions of some articles that were previously edited by a banned user who disruptively pushed his POVs. I also did not violate any of Wikipedia's rules. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mastersun25, it doesn't matter what a user's ethnicity is. It only matters what the edits are. Please stop referring to editors' ethnicity, ever. You are new here, so you may not realize that this is considered very unhelpful. We talk about the edits. We don't talk about the editors. —valereee (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The ethnicity of the user should not be mentioned at all. Unfortunately at the moment there is an ongoing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and this fact creates bias for users of certain backgrounds, as you can see in this very discussion. If I really did offended someone with that, I really apologize. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I also want to mention that the above user tried numerously to get me banned, unreasonably casting aspertions on me [150]. I think that the one who should be reported is him, not me. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mastersun25, there are conflicts all over the world right now, and we still do not allow editors to call one another xenophobes or to point out that they are a certain ethnicity or have a certain political stance in order to call into suspicion their edits. If the edits are bad, they're bad. It doesn't matter whether a bad edit is made by an Azerbaijani or an Armenian. Both are capable of making good and bad edits. Talk about the edits, not the editor. —valereee (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that I should not have mentioned editors' backgrounds and already apologized for that. I won't be doing this from now on as I learned that there were certain WP rules on that. But my edits weren't disruptive if you check my edit history. Also I wasn't engaged into edit wars regardless of what these two users are saying since I never violated a three-revert rule. Also I want to pay attention to the fact that this is not the first time when these two users work in tandem against me. I AM NOT SURE, but there might be canvassing involved. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

It's actually WP:CANVASSING, and you're free to file an SPI if you want to. Keep in mind, it isn't going to look good on you when the SPI fails (and it will). But I don't think that should be your primary concern. Just a thought, maybe take a closer look at your edit history, just a bit more attention you might notice some more important issues at hand. Maybe you'll even notice you breaking several policies and playing "I was on the verge of breaking 3rr but actually I didn't" game (mind you, not a good mentality for an editor if they're here to build an encyclopedia). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You're still doubling down that your edits "weren't disruptive", and generally speaking, "if you check my history" isn't an argument (in fact in this specific case, it works against you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This ANI is about ethnic-based aspertions. As I said, I realized that it was bad to mention people's ethnic backgrounds even if it would explain certain behaviors on Wikipedia. I can assure you that I won't be doing it from now on. What else do you want to hear from me? If you have problems with my edits, we can always discuss on the talk page or feel free to fill another ANI report. But also please remember that sometimes I won't be able to reply fast since I might be busy irl and use Wikipedia only once a week or so. --Mastersun25 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You already doubled down multiple times that your edits "were not disruptive", and you didn't reply or read any of my message(s) on your talk page from the looks of it. Also there aren't "one subject" only ANI cases. If your recent disruptive conduct is also relevant to the case and for ANI, then it should be presented. Btw, your disruptive reverts also were mentioned and cited by the OP, so I don't know what you're talking about (even by your logic). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I love how hard you try to accuse me of something that in your opinion is a disruptive edit completely omitting the fact that the edits I reverted back were made by a troll account who literally spent days and nights here removing every single mention of Azerbaijanis in the history of region [151] [152] [153], claiming that "Azerbaijanis do not have history" [154], created second account EXCLUSIVELY to remove Azerbaijani names from Iranian Khanate articles [155], denying genocide of Azerbaijanis during Karabakh War [156] [157] and finally getting banned for both disruptive behavior and sockpuppetry [158]. Yet the behavior of this person never bothered you nor you have ever voiced your objection to his extremely destructive and non-objective edits, you really believe you are the one to teach me how to behave on Wikipedia? I am not going to make excuses to you personally since you are not the authority here, if the respectful administrators say that my behavior and edits are inappropriate, I will take their opinion into consideration but you can leave as many comments as you want so can your friend Kevork who seems to be editing same articles you do. Cheers --Mastersun25 (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I love how hard you try to accuse me of something that in your opinion is a disruptive edit completely omitting the fact that the edits I reverted back were made by a troll account who literally spent days and nights here removing every single mention of Azerbaijanis in the history of region [1] [2] [3]:

I am not trying much at all, in fact, I already presented your problematic edits both in here and in your edit page (it's quite easy actually, just a glance at your edit history for today is enough), which you omitted to discuss and replied with unrelated to your edits pages. Regarding to your presented diffs in general, it would be nice that you show diffs that live up to your overly hyperbolic descriptions of them here.

The user was banned for battleground behaviour, and sockpuppetry 4, how your diffs (except the last one) relate to their ban you have yet to explain (just like your descriptions of them). Also for the 10th time, being banned doesn't mean that you should go around and revert their every edit you find left and right, often times with your revert only reason/description being "banned Armenian sockpuppet" 5. I already notified you of WP:GRAVEDANCING but judging from your response, you are very battle focused, and probably didn't even read any of my messages.

I am not going to make excuses to you personally since you are not the authority here, if the respectful administrators say that my behavior and edits are inappropriate, I will take their opinion into consideration but you can leave as many comments as you want so can your friend Kevork who seems to be editing same articles you do:

You're are not making excuses to me. I'm fairy certain your battle like mentality doesn't allow you to understand that. This is ANI, the community will look at your conduct and they along with the admins will decide if you're able to reasonably contribute to wikipedia or not.

As I already mentioned 2nd time now, you should really stop with the aspersions as you already made nonsense claims of "canvassing". Bear in mind, that unfounded misconduct allegations qualify as personal attacks. You're now doubling down yet again, with weasel words such as "seems" on top of it. Kindly consider this as a last warning because my patience also has its limits, and you will be reported.

All in all, judging by the user's replies, I'm even more inclined to think that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I saw @Mastersun25 reverts today on quite a few pages I previously edited. I already gave the appropriate notices in their talk page, and left a friendly message notifying of their disruptive conduct. Here are some of the more problematic examples of their edits:

WP:GRAVEDANCING 1, 2,, 3 – Keep in mind, the now banned user BaxçeyêReş wasn't banned for sockpuppetry at that time, and @Mastersun25 after not engaging in the talk pages for a long time [4], [5], [6] suddenly chimes in today with a mass revert spree.

WP:EDITWARRING with two different users Ilham Aliyev: Revision history.

And as apparent by their replies here, doubling down on their disruptive conduct and casting aspersions of "xenophobia" with completely unsupported diffs. I didn't want to engage in the mess they've created, but I feel like I have to seeing their continual denial of wrong doing and baseless accusations. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The user keeps edit warring even after this ANI Verin Shorzha: Revision history. Despite me notifying them of AA sanctions in their talk page, they disrupt the page by adding unsourced name that fits their POV, and putting cn tags without even looking at the source (everything is supported by the source itself) diff. I don't think they learned anything from here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ZaniGiovanni and Kevo³²⁷. Based on a review of their edit history, it seems the user is here to push a very clear agenda and not to genuinely build this encyclopedia. Not to mention, most of their edits are unsourced. Even after being reverted, the user continues to restore unsourced content, as in the case of Gardabani. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Editor behaviour over Twinkle response

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Back on 18 July Juanpumpchump edited Dave Courtney to change "celebrity gangster" to "Alledged ex gangster" - with the edit summary of "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar". I reverted it here with the summary of "RVT personal opinion" and as the edit summary also seemed deceptive, left a level two Twinkle response on his page - "Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Dave Courtney. Thank you."

Juanpumpchump reverted this warning with the edit summary of "Autistic morons self opinionated message removed", as well as a response on my talk page, which he then embellished here

I responded with another Twinkle reply - NPA - for the "Autistic morons" comment.

Another response from Juanpumpchump today on my talk page accusing me of the one doing the attacking, ("clearly personally attack another Wikipedian") and that "if any one else on here would like to step in an administer in a neutral position then I am quite happy for that"

There is nothing in Juanpumpchump's editing history to suggest that they're a vandal editor, presumably they don't like Dave Courtney (or me - understandable,) but nevertheless, behaviour around that specific edit seems to warrant comment, especially as Juanpumpchump has welcomed it.

Prepared to be trouted for pettiness, but is it now acceptable to accuse editors of picking up on faux-edit summaries of being autistic morons? Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

On the behaviour issue it is unacceptable to call another editor a moron, and even more unacceptable to use "autistic" as a term of abuse. I know several people with autism and their intelligence and good sense ranges in a similiar way to my non-autistic friends. On the content issue I have difficulty undertanding how either "celebrity gangster" or "alleged ex-gangster" can be called an occupation. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, I think it's a lot like "instagram influencer." The world makes fools of us all. On the PA, clearly Juanpumpchump's behavior is unacceptable. I would recommend reviewing admin's consider a very short-term block.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I've placed a 31-hour block for the egregious personal attack, which they apparently are unable to see any issue with. Juanpumpchump, Chaheel Riens acted perfectly reasonably here in asking you to provide references when making changes to articles, and did not attack you; you were the one who acted inappropriately with the "autistic morons" comment and the follow-up on their talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely unacceptable to refer to other editors as "autistic morons", or to use that anywhere as a term of abuse or disparagement, and such usage on Wikipedia should be treated as seriously as racism or misogyny and lead to an immediate block. RolandR (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I endorse RolandR's post. I am not quite on the autistic scale, but I know online two people who identify as such. Neither is a moron; one is a PhD. This sort of insult is utterly unacceptable, anywhere. Narky Blert (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

31 hours is VERY generous. That comment has no place here, period. Juanpumpchump if I see a comment like that from you again, you'll be indef'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam gave the same warning on their talk page, and I will add my name to the list of admins who will place an indefinite block if the behavior recurs. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

41.242.138.2 being outrageously offensive

Could someone sort out this [159]? No one should have to put up with that sort of abuse, and no one should be writing stuff like that (elided) I'll go and think of something polite to put on 41.242.138.2's talk to warn them I'm bringing their statement here. Elemimele (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done That's WP:LTA/NS. They often return, but ignore them apart from a) instantly throwing them at WP:AIV, and b) requesting protection at WP:RFPP if appropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuzz:, thanks, it's the first time I'd had the pleasure of making their acquaintance. Elemimele (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblocked 41.218.192.0/20 for a spell. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that they seem to have hopped around several IPs in the past day: 41.210.18.9, 41.57.217.124, 154.160.11.26, 195.29.55.190, and 197.220.169.154. CodeTalker (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

They are active again at 41.203.232.171 and 103.155.118.24. Never mind, looks like these have already been handled. CodeTalker (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi I went to the Teahouse for help and I received a response from Cullen328 on August 1, 2021. My questions were about the 2017 Biography for Barry C. Sherman. On August 2, 2021 Cullen328 told me not connect with him or Wikipedia. He used large letters in his salutation, Longel AGAIN, ........ and he said the subject with reference in Contents 5.2 of possible suspects there needs to be a Published source. I do not know exactly what he means by Published source but he's closed the door said I'm not suitable to Wikipedia. Plus, I was not happy with Cullen328 reference why did he think of Tim Minchin? Can you make sense out of this situation or do you think I should stop using your website?--Longel (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to agree with Cullen328.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So you're a "psychic" who wants to add their personal views on homicide cases to the respective Wikipedia articles? ValarianB (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Cullen328 is right. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-admin explanation, as this should really have been dealt with at the Teahouse stage and not made itself all the way here): Roughly-speaking, Wikipedia doesn't report what happened. It reports what the newspapers say happened. In a homicide, a detective might know who's guilty, but WP won't report what the detective knows. It will only report what the New York Times says the detective knows. It's the same with you, @Longel; you may know who did it, but unless the New York Times (or similar) reports your knowledge second-hand, it's not going to get into WP. You may find this illogical, but the reason is this: Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and it doesn't assess the reliability of all the primary information that's out there. We don't know if you're a good psychic, or if the detective is a good detective. As a tertiary source, we decide that the New York Times is a good secondary source (whom we trust) and we rely on the New York Times to screen its primary sources of information and only report things that are probably true (assessing primary sources is not a trivial task). So yes, if you want to report what you know personally, Wikipedia isn't the right place to do it. Elemimele (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Longel: others have already given you good advice but to emphasise one particular point you especially need to stop making claiming about living persons without a reliable secondary source. While Barry Sherman died more than 2 years ago so BLP does not apply to them, you are making claims about "suspects". The people you mentioned are already in our article as they've been sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources. However it's still completely inappropriate for you to make any claims about them or other living persons based on your own supposed knowledge rather than what reliable secondary sources say. The fact that you keep claiming it's psychic knowledge lessons the concerns, however you still need to stop for BLP and other reasons. Note that this doesn't mean talking about Barry Sherman or other things that don't involve living persons coming from your 'psychic knowledge' is okay. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Relevant links are:

• WP:TEA#Barry Sherman
• User talk:Cullen328#Barry C Sherman Biography 2017 Ontario Canada

@Longel: Wikipedia can't just take people's word for things; claims like that have to be cited, because it has to satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Unless you're able to provide sources which can verify and are considered notable reliable, your experience on here is going to be a frustrating one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments here. Anyone who reads my interactions with Longel will see that I discussed things with them politely and tried to be informative, but they came back over and over with the same nonsense until I asked then to stop posting on my talk page. And then they posted again. I don't know what else to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly Cullen, I don't think you needed to say even that much in order to forestall any concern about your conduct here, the source of the disruption (by way of a WP:CIR shortfall) is so obvious. Mind you, I really respect how Elemimele, Nil Einne, and Tenryuu have approached their responses to the OP, turning this situation into a teachable moment by explaining how our policies would apply here even if we lived in a reality where psychic visions were considered a credible source of knowledge in a more general sense. That is to say, they have dodged the question of the type of WP:OR being employed by the OP, so that they can emphasize the more central fact that it is indeed OR, thus anchoring the explanation in the important policy distinction rather than getting bogged down by the particularly...dubious provenance of the information. I wholly support what they did there.

That said, given those three veteran contributors took the time to frame the discussion in terms theoretically helpful to the OP, I will instead make my observations more blunt and oriented to you and the community at large: putting aside the deficits with the OP with regard to WP:V/OR (which is an issue we can and do teach new editors to understand constantly, as a community) there's a pretty big question as to whether this editor is (and is ever likely to be) WP:HERE to work on the encyclopedia in the conventional sense and willing to tackle the work with an approach and skillset that we would regard as basically competent. If their idea of contributing to our project is to add their "psychic" observations to the article, I have considerable doubts that simply explaining original research to them will suffice to transform them into a someone who understands what Wikipedia is and is not. Wrap in the pretty obvious and substantial WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and I think you arguably would have been in the clear to block this editor at early points in your interaction, likely without pushback from most experienced editors.

I suppose at this point it would not be very appropriate to block the editor if they take every last bit of the feedback here seriously and stop trying to add this unsourced, BLP-violating, original research nonsense to any article or even talk space -and- back off on their aggressive posturing with regard to you. But if there is the slightest bit of further disruption (and given the facts here, I'm suspecting there will be), a CIR block should come swifttly and in the indefinite variety. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• To answer your question, @Longel: yes, I think you should stop using this website. Your worldview is fundamentally in opposition to a fact-based encyclopedia. But I imagine you already knew I was going to say that? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  Some years ago, a British tabloid newspaper sacked its astrology correspondent. The editor's letter of dismissal began, "As you doubtless already know..." Narky Blert (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Longel: BTW, since no one pointed it out yet, it was User:Valjean not Cullen328 who mentioned Tim Minchin. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen the comment in question, but to answer the OPs question as to why Tim Minchin was mentioned in this context, I would suspect it has something to do with this, or one of Minchin's other songs/spoken word works that take aim at non-empirical/faith phenomena. It's not exactly the most on-the-point way to address the shortcomings for on-project purposes, but given the circumstances, I'm not surprised someone said something along these lines. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extreme BLP vio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greetings all. Could I get an admin review of this edit? Given the issues here, it appears to merit more consequences than the usual vandal, with a possible revdel also. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Revision-deleted as purely disruptive material (WP:RD3) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Users adding images to articles at a high rate of speed

Yesterday, I noticed Siwema_Nikini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was adding images to the very top of articles (i.e, the first line of the articles) with the nonsensical edit summary "#WPWP #WPWPARK". Someone asked the user what they were doing but did not receive a response. The most recent edit under that account was roughly three hours ago.

I just noticed the account Mary calist mlay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making the exact same types of edits on my watchlist at a particularly high rate of speed. In the last seven hours, they've added images to more than 250 articles, all with the same nonsensical edit summary (except now they've added "#WPWPTZ" to the list of hash tags). I did a spot check of the edits and while most of the recent image additions have been to the top of articles, many have been to the bodies of articles too. I left a message on the user's talk page[160] but they have so far ignored it and continued adding images to articles. I also noticed that the editing of both accounts have overlapped -- the switching of accounts was apparently not account abandonment.

The images being added aren't wrong, at least from what I can tell (I'm not familiar with most of the features being referenced). In fact, some of the edits probably improved some of the articles. However, a lot of the edits seem unnecessary and they're being done at such a high rate of speed (with a misleading edit summary too under at least two accounts). Given their unresponsiveness to talk page messages, the use of multiple accounts, etc., and because I'm getting tired, I think this might merit another set of eyes. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a prize at stake. WPWP = m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021. WPWPARK and WPWPTZ are community identifiers listed on those pages. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it, please disregard. (It would be nice if the edit summaries were a bit more descriptive so others who weren't familiar with this knew what was going on.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) m:Guide on how to use WPWP Campaign Hashtags#How to use the #WPWP Campaign hashtag - 'The hashtag is not a substitute for a "a descriptive edit summary". The hashtag, #WPWP or the community-specific hashtag must be added to the edit summary box of pages edited alongside a descriptive edit summary.' A friendly word of advice might be in order. Narky Blert (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed Hormorkunmy doing the same thing. They have re-introduced an incorrect image to the Matthew Cream article, which was removed earlier this year. I have a COI so I am not interested in editing the article, and had actually forgotten that I saw it happen, until this thread popped up. (Will notify Hormorkunmy of this thread.) Daniel (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note I removed the Matthew Cream image, and also put in a rename request at Commons, to hopefully prevent this from happening again. I notice that multiple editors have raised the issue in the past that the image does not depict the subject. (And my own research suggests the same.) Levivich 17:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Levivich! Daniel (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Purely for info - we have edit filter 1073 (recent hits) tracking all edits using the WPWP tags. firefly ( t · c ) 13:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Which includes some of my undos, as I've added the tags and "photobombing" in the edit summaries. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

More editors are joining in. Many of their contributions are helpful; some are not. At the risk of promoting a leaderboard, this list summarises the edits. It would have been nice to have some input into or at least notice of this initiative. Certes (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think we need to start giving out blocks if editors are noncommunicative and add images in a disruptive manner. A contest taking place is not a free pass for behavior that we would not tolerate otherwise. --Rschen7754 17:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the same redundant image from Mogadishu University no less than four times - each time it had been added by a different user. Apart from that, I have reverted a number of other image additions, and warned several users about disruption.

Some weeks ago, I started a thread at m:Talk:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021#Cryptic edit summaries, and the replies there by T Cells (talk · contribs) are not entirely to my satisfaction - for example, there is no assurance that the contest organisers will check the participating edits, let alone revert the bad ones. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

T Cells did ask all part taking organizers of the different languages and communities to do so, but they might not check this on a daily basis. One global organizer (= T Cells) cannot be held responsible for all edits done in the total campaign, and individual users are always responsible for their own edits. If a user cannot or will not converse (even on a basic level) with the rest of the language community even though they keep on doing disruptive edits, I think a block is indeed appropriate. It is against the competition rules to add images to Wikipedia's without a decent description in the language of that Wikipedia, or for instance to add pictures in bulk, like adding complete galleries. The goal of the competition is to add unused images to articles without any images, and on a secondary level to maybe create a more cultural diversity in images used in an article if appropriate - but always keeping in mind proportionality of the amount of images in relation to the article text. Ciell (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of these edits just don't seem right. Like look at this. Article is about HMS Havock (H43), but the picture is of HMS Hasty (H24) with the caption of "sister ship HMS Hunter"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

More edits by same user that I'm unsure about (ie, they could be fine, but just unsure of appropriateness myself): [161], [162] (adding a picture of apparently a U.S. Navy ship to an article about an Imperial Japanese one), [163], etc. Most seem fine though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Similar issues at HMS Exmoor (L61) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where two of the editors involved in this stupidity have added a completely incorrect image in the last 24 hours, despite the image including a very specific note about which ship it refers to. I don't see why the time of other editors should be wasted cleaning up the mess this is creating. FDW777 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue with this contest is it values quantity over quality. TBH I don't think it's reasonable to expect the contest organisers to check 51,000 edits, but our volunteer corps can't either, so this is a conundrum. I think overall more edits are helpful than not, but the bad edits can be quite a problem. Apparently the comment by the organisers suggests local blocks for issues disqualify from the contest, so that should be an incentive to ensure accuracy. If the community wants, we could also do a local edit filter throttle reminding users of local policy requirements if they're adding images too quickly. Or we can just tough it out and deal with individual users if there are problems. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Should we be allowing someone who is banned from English Wikipedia to organise a contest that includes edits to English Wikipedia articles? Doesn't that violate the spirit of WP:PROXYING? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think next year the English Wikipedia must opt-out of the contest, and we must make it very clear. Yesterday the #WPWP edits which were on my watchlist showed an error rate of about 50% (bad quality, bad captions, sometimes the image did not show the subject of the article). I understand that some people need money and hope to earn some in this way, but for me 50% error rate is close to the point when I would just blank-revert everything without looking at individual edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed, couldn't we just set that filter mentioned above to disallow? --Rschen7754 18:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

    Rschen7754, we could, and to be honest given the amount of disruption this event seems to cause I wouldn’t be against it. We could alternatively start by throttling such edits via filter and displaying a warning to users that images have to be relevant/useful, and to use edit summaries. firefly ( t · c ) 21:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed this is a mess—blindlynx (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I came here to post about this, It seems like a huge chunk of the things flagged 'likely to have problems' at recent changes are these edits. The sheer volume makes it difficult to go through and check for quality and correct formatting without having a dedicated proj doing this and that seems like a waste of time—blindlynx (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• See also Aminwa_21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mohamed mfuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—blindlynx (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• And Emmanuel Obiajulu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has made just shy of 2000 edits according to that quarry link above. I've already had to harp on him twice for adding captions to stuff that's popped up on my watchlist. The rest is far too much for me to check. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• In checking his last 15-20 edits I've already had to revert 3 additions as being completely the wrong species. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I would add to the above list of problems that some images are being added with text captions that just repeat the filename of the image, which may be unintelligible. BD2412 T 21:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yup, that's one of the things I had to ask Emmanuel to stop doing. Some of the captions he was jamming in were German. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Or sometimes without a caption or a caption identical to the name of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been an issue for a good 2-3 years now. I said it before and I'll say it again IMHO this "competition" should be banned entirely here. I'm sure a minority of those who participate in this probably do so constructively however the vast majority don't. All's this stupid competition does is incite disruption for the sake of a prize and it also creates mess for others to clear up. Ban it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Davey2010, problems "for ...2-3 [elsewhere, "many"] years" can't be attributed to the WPWP campaign earlier than its first run: July 2020 (last year). -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Deborahjay, That's really really weird - I swear this has been going on for longer than 2020 I swear by it .... but both the meta page and edit filter were created in 2020 so it would seem I'm wrong here, Certainly seems a lot longer than a year, Thanks,

When I was skimming over the edit filter logs, the vast majority of edits being made were constructive, correct and helpful. I would guesstimate that the good rate is over 90%, based on the samples I quickly checked. So really, I'm worried whether banning it might be a bit knee-jerky. Not a single user has been locally blocked for this yet. What's the rate of error? Is the rate of error limited to certain users only? Can we throttle contributions to X per day? Questions like these should probably be asked before considering banning the contest. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, Unfortunately every edit I've seen with the WP hashtag I've had to revert (as it's not been an improvement) and unfortunately this issue has been a reoccurring problem here for many years so it's easy to assume all have been bad. If it's true that the majority (say 70-90%) of edits have actually been good then I would certainly support some sort of limit over banning. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I know there were issues with this competition last year as well - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive322#Image_competition? - so it does seem to be an ongoing problem. For some anecdata on my part, I scanned about 15-20 edits by Emmanuel Obiajulu and found no less than 3 that were incorrect species for the article they were placed on (Placing an image of Genera thisspecies on Genera thatspecies mostly). These were images that were clearly labelled with Genera thisspecies on the Commons page, so it's not an issue with Commons data, it's carelessness. I also noticed Adorvisa adding images today; they have now been blocked as a sock of RogerNiceEyes, who was blocked in March for high-speed inaccurate image additions to articles. Not sure if it's a coincidence, as Adorvisa wasn't using the WPWP hashtags, but if it isn't, it's indicative of the kind of editing behavior this sort of competition attracts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I tried to leave a note at AN at the start of the month (link) so we could get ahead of it this time around, but it didn't grab much attention heh. It may well attract unconstructive behaviour, but so does Wikipedia in general. It also attracts a lot of positive behaviour. I just don't think we should judge whether to ban the contest entirely without good evidence it's untenable and no other solution to reasonably accommodate it is possible. Given that we haven't even tried warn or throttle filters, and are mostly relying on anecdotes, I'm not convinced either has been done yet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I did block a user related to this, see 2 threads below. --Rschen7754 00:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I see. Well, then personally I think we should do this:

1. Passive warnings. When users are participating in this contest, use an edit filter to show them messages to welcome them to English Wikipedia, remind them of the applicable policies, remind them to take it slow and focus on quality, and the consequences of disruption.
2. If that fails, throttle contributions. If we limit users without extra userrights to 25/day or something, I strongly suspect any disruption will be eliminated while we'll still be keeping the productiveness of this campaign. The users cited above are adding literally 500 images per day each, so some errors are unsurprising. I prefer #1 because even at the higher rate most peoples' contribs are usually good, we just need occasional reminders to make the mistakes less.
3. If both fail, then consider banning the contest.

Personally I think any of the first two ideas will have desirable effects in better articles and less disruption, but we didn't try to actually do anything last year or this - discussion just faded out - so I dunno why we'd expect the situation to change this time around. Whatever we do, there is still over one month of this contest left (it ends 31 Aug), so we should probably figure something out rather than shelving it for yet another year. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Wait a minute, the person leading this campaign is banned on here?! That already splits the communication here. – The Grid (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• The Grid Yes, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. In addition to a site ban they were given a specific topic-ban from images. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Could there be automation involved with image selection here? I've found multiple accounts adding the same erroneous images to the same articles. Siwema Nikini just turned up to add some of the same bad images that Unofficiallummy had done only hours earlier (albeit with thumbnails in infoboxes and sometimes duplicating the ones that are already there, thereby being especially disruptive). Siwema Nikini is continuing despite a level-4 warning - should these be reported to AIV, reported here, or let be for the time being? --Sable232 (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• The fact that this competition has been a problem for many years and that the main organizer is banned from English Wikipedia makes it pretty clear that the English Wikipedia should opt-out of this campaign starting next year. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• I have noticed that Emmanuel Obiajulu is also doing this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• If the competition (with the "#WPWP"* tags) leads to such sloppy low quality work, why don't we community ban the competition and its participants (self declared via tags) from the English Wikipedia?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know why people keep repeating this. It's factually untrue. Has anybody actually looked at the filter log, 1073 (hist · log)?

  I've reviewed over half the last 50 contribs, again, and found zero cases of mistaken identity and two technical errors (ie duplicate image). There are a couple more that aren't perfect but are far from disruptive and unlikely to be higher than non-contest newbie error rates. The impression of the contest participants in this section is not representative of most participants or most contributions. That's a simple fact anyone can verify by browsing the public filter log themselves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I did prefix my sentence with an if, however you do make a strong point that the users discussed here suffer from a selection bias for disruption and are therefore not representative of the contestant cohort overall.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I jinxed it maybe. Avg error rates shot up the past 2 days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This topic was also briefly raised on 11 July at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Added image #WPWP #WPWPKWR. CMD (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely and rationally think that we should ban the contest. IMO rapid addition of images is just a horrible thing waiting to happen. Adding an image should involve an accuracy check, a rationale check, a licensing check, and a layout check. We're just going to get a bunch of images with bad licensing added to articles from this. With the whole focus being rate of speed, contestant's aren't going to check the image licensing. And we can't assume everything on Commons is okay (I nominate stuff for deletion on commons that I run into in articles here several times a month, because there's tons of bad licensing there). And we shouldn't be encouraging people to cram as many images into articles as possible - it causes layout and sometimes accessibility issues (see MOS:SANDWICH, among other things). We're just going to wind up with a bunch of articles crammed to the gills with images with often-shitty licensing because of this, and that's frankly disruptive. At a minimum, we need to make it clear that this contest should not be adding images to FAs - the FA criteria include image layout, licensing, and relevance checks, and a contest about speed editing images to articles is going to cause issues with the FA criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose any unnecessarily harsh knee-jerk reactions. I get that some on enwp are automatically skeptical (or even cynical) of events/contests that lead to lots of new users editing, especially if organized outside of enwp. But apart from warning/blocking specifically problematic users (as we would in any other context), we should not be talking about banning the event or similarly harsh actions without (a) decent data on the quality of these edits beyond a handful of anecdotes and assumptions, and (b) more information about what will happen afterwards. T Cells/Wikicology is one of dozens of people involved here; it's not "his" contest. Let's ping a few of them at least somewhat active on enwp: @Deborahjay, Anthere, Jamie Tubers, and Astinson (WMF): are you aware of any plans to check the quality of contributions on the English Wikipedia? Are there any plans for evaluating the quality of contest contributions afterwards? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged above by @Rhododendrites:, I thought I might make a couple observations. First some context: I am part of a team working on improving the quality of support for campaign activities in the Wikimedia movement (see meta:Campaigns). We work on designing systems of support so that we can advance movement-wide work to fill topic/content/quality gaps on wikis in general. In that role I have been serving as a advisor on this campaign.

I want to make several observations in my capacity as a strategist:

• From all of the documented problems that I am reading so far in this discussion, and some spotchecking I did on the edit filter, campaign participants are not making any more bad edits than if they were normal enthusiastic newcomers in other contexts (and I suspect if we did analysis of the edits, the revert rate would be much lower than average, especially from newish contributors). The reason we are discussing this is that the community can see all of these edits together in one simple way (the hashtags) which makes it really transparent where the problems are coming from. Transparency should help us have better discussions to find constructive solutions, not punish participants.
• Many of the errors that I am finding in my own spotcheck of content and pointed to above appear to be originating from Commons or other Wikipedias. Even as a very experienced Wikipedia/Wikidata/Commons contributor in my volunteer capacity (User:Sadads): when I work on media files, I too end up accidently trusting other editors work in ways that creates the occasional error. Rooting out these problems on other wikis is complex, and hard for experienced editors in general; helping a newcomer figure out that kind of workflow would be even harder and would be an unusually high standard for participation on our wikis.
• As several folks have said already: if we are serious about the "anyone can edit" ethos of the project, enthusiasm for our mission and the potential for helping Wikipedia by adding images should be honed by improving the strategies for reception (see proposals below by one of the coordinators below @Deborahjay:). Remember that by introducing a minor quality error in good faith, by, for example, adding a less than helpful caption on a page it creates another low-hanging opportunity for new editors to fix content. Almost everyone in this discussion probably started fixing these kinds of errors on the Wiki in their first 500 edits or so -- its important to remember that we were all newcomers at one point, and learning from mistakes and fixing small errors is core to how people start in our community.
• There are a lot of signals that participants from last year's campaign were retained or reactivated well in both English and other language communities. Again, in spot checking other events and campaigns, a number of participate in other campaigns had #WPWP edits in their contributions (in both events with and without prizes). We see similar patterns with simple-edit oriented campaigns like #1lib1ref. Unfortunately we don't yet have a transparent, easy to leverage system for exploring these kinds of patterns in campaigns at a analytical/statistical level without a lot of very skilled technical work (part of what we hope to begin working on this year at WMF). I can advise the organizers or interested editors on how to do this kind of analysis after we get past the heat of the moment -- but I think it would be a shame to shut down a campaign that is successful at helping new editors feel like they can contribute to the community.
• This year the organizers significantly reduced prizes and restructured the instructions for the campaign to emphasize edit summaries and quality image checking (see the main campaign page on Meta). If contributors are not following the instructions, its on them and the community should feel confident warning and blocking folks who don't respond.

I hope the observations are helpful -- and I, personally, as a long-time Wikipedian, hope that English Wikipedia doesn't lose this pipeline of potentially fruitful newcomers and productive edits. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Alex for those comments. I second.

I am mostly involved in the Wiki Loves Africa specific prize (using WLA images to illustrate articles). I will note that I do intend to do some review of the insertions mid-August. I am currently not much online so it is complicated for me to do it right now. This being said, I must clarify that, similar to last year, I put some requirements with regards to the Wiki Loves Africa specific prize, so as to limit the risks of disruption and motivate editors to improve smaller languages. The rules for the prize this year may be read here m:Wiki Loves Africa 2021/WPWP. Specifically

• 1st prize - US $100 gift card
• 1st to 3rd prizes – WLA souvenirs (if the post office is more efficient than it has been in the recent 18 months...)

All WLA years are eligible ... BUT the first prize will consider edits made to ANY language EXCEPT English and French. Which suggests there should be limited disruption HERE on the English Wikipedia. Besides, to be eligible, the participant must have registered an account before January 2021 and must have made at least 300 mainspace edits to any language Wikipedia before 1st June 2021, so there is no incentive to complete newbies to participate. Last, they must abide with the general rules of the contest (descriptions and such).

Side note, per hashtag tool, 92 pages concerned on en.wp so far [164]. Last... any abuse --> block is perfectly fine by me... Anthere (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• In addition to what has already been stated by other pinged users, I believe the appropriate step to take here is to sanction individual users accordingly (including a ban if necessary), not to cancel the entire contest altogether. I have reached out to the lead organizer of the contest and the plans being set in place to mitigate future occurrences seem solid enough. So I'd advise to sanction the vandals to put a stop to the disruptive edits.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

100% agree with everything Astinson noted here... the burden/expectation put onto new editors of immediate perfection in particular is such antithetical to what Wikipedia should be about... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Luckily this is not the first time that the contest has been run, so the organisers should be able to link to the evaluation of last year's event against the targets that were set before it took place. Or is this just another case of "every experiment has to be adjudged a success because of sunken costs"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• ANI is for addressing specific users' conduct; may I suggest moving the broader discussion of the contest and enwiki to the pump, where it will get more attention from our community (and not turn this ANI report into a megathread). Levivich 20:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • See discussion of proposed remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Remedies_(poll). -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

From a Commons perspective, we have seen an uptick in copyvios uploaded for the purpose of adding them to articles for WPWP. Not sure what the best solution for the problem is, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree we need to scrap it. Me and other editors have had to repeatedly remove an incorrect image added to the Lewis O'Brien (footballer) article by multiple editors as part of this nonsense. GiantSnowman 07:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• I stumbled across a parallel problem -- the additions not of images, but of the words "image of" in captions, so that "Joe Shmoe" now reads "Image of Joe Shmoe" (or "Portrait of Joe Shmoe"), which is not an improvement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from WPWP communities liaison organizer

Hello everyone, I am User:Deborahjay, the communities liaison lead for the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Campaign and a longtime contributor to the English Wikipedia. The WPWP international organizing team has been following this discussion closely and noting the concerns raised here. We agree that the level of disruption (mostly by new editors) is enormous and that we must moderate their participation or contributions, especially in high-traffic Wikipedias such as the EN WP.

We are genuinely sorry for these disruptions and we take responsibility for the problem. We are immediately asking organizers at the participating community level to patrol the edit-filter log and help with cleanup. They do not need to wait till the end of the campaign; we are now at its midpoint.

In other to stop or significantly reduce the disruption, we are proposing the following remedies:

Proposal 1

1. Passive warnings. When users are participating in this campaign, use an edit filter to show them messages to welcome them to English Wikipedia, repeat the applicable WPWP policies, remind them to take it slow and focus on quality, and the consequences of disruption.
2. Throttle contributions of new users. Limit users without extra userrights to 25 edits/day or less.

Proposal 2

Limit participation on the English WP to only users with 1 year old account and at least 500 edits to mainspace on the English Wikipedia.

We strongly believe that if any of the proposed steps are accepted and implemented, this would take care of the disruption and any erring editors should be blocked per the community blocking policy. Thank you. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if the contest organisers required participants (who are not already experienced editors) to go through a 'training course' before being able to edit. This would include them talking 1–1 with an experienced volunteer or the organisers to learn more about selecting relevant and high quality images, adding appropriate captions, technical details like how to actually add the image properly and where in the article to put it, etc.

Anyway, it's clear a consensus is forming and actions need to be taken, and a push towards a consensus is needed here so we can do something, so I have proposed remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Remedies_(poll). Both of your proposals (or well, technically the first was mine ;)) would be part of "option 2" there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Close and consolidate

Unless there are outstanding concerns with specific users that need deliberation here, can I propose closing this section? There are lots of useful comments here, and thanks to the organizers/advisors who have shared their observations and intentions, but since this thread has become more about the event than specific users, we're having parallel conversations. The thread at AN has progressed to the point of a more concrete proposal and it would be useful to have further discussion of this event in a single place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits by IP editor

150.101.157.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has done extensive editing of the article Latin Empire over the last few days. The massive amount of small edits have clogged up the article history and are mostly based either in misunderstanding the information in the article or misunderstanding Wikipedia policy. The article is far from as good as it could be, but 150.101.157.18's first round of edits involved changing "The Latin Empire, also referred to as the Latin Empire of Constantinople, was a feudal Crusader state" to "The Latin Empire, also referred to as the Latin Empire of Constantinople, is a modern concoction, referring to a poorly articulated construct, which even at the height of its power, was of questionable legitimacy and even more questionable specificity", adding numerous comments directly into the article text as if they were correcting an essay, and adding cleanup tags in the actually well-cited etymology section because of "inadequate attribution". Given that this was clearly a POV edit, that violated common practice, I reverted this version.

They've persisted in editing the article. They're now edit-warring to keep their second version of the article, which begins with the POV first sentence "The Latin Empire, also referred to as the Latin Empire of Constantinople, was a briefly held feudal Crusader state founded by the leaders of that magnanimous failure" (note that the bold terms are also linked, which is against policy), adds an "overview of events" section which goes against the standard format and adds even more obnoxious comments directly into the article text (some comments relating to content they themselves added) as if they were a school teacher correcting a student's paper. They persist in wanting to keep this version even after I've explained the issues and I don't think bringing it up on their talk page will do anything given that they've never responded to anything there before. I don't think the term trolling would be inappropriate here - see for instance this edit, adding new content alongside their own comments to that content and calling the article "a piece of ****". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, they do like the term "troll": [165][166]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Just reporting that they are continuing to add unsourced POV edits to the article. I don't know what action can be taken but it is bordering on disruptive since they've been informed and warned several times. They've also been doing the same thing at Baldwin I, Latin Emperor. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:WAYLON JENNINGS FAN

WAYLON JENNINGS FAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned more than enough about adding unsourced genres but simply ignores warnings. I don't think this falls strictly under WP:VD but it is certainly disruptive. Some administrative intervention will be appreciated, even if only by issuing a firm warning. --Muhandes (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh. I keep forgetting that WP:VD is the top WP shorthand for the Vandalism policy (had to click). That's unfortunate, yet also quite appropriate... [I'm helping!] Anyway, indef p-block from the mainspace applied. El_C 11:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

After all VD is for everybody... Also good block, beat me to it for the indef. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Rick, I seriously half-expected it to link to some semi-humor PG-13 essay.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 13:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I always thought that shorthand was intentional. Thanks for the quick response. --Muhandes (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Likely was, Muhandes. I'm probably just a bit slow (many would rightly agree!). Anyway, glad I was able to help. El_C 15:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati - Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty

• Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bhauma dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Varman dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) has recently started some POV edits on Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty, e.g [167] and [168], [169] where he is removing reliable sources and replacing them by older sources that are contradicted by the newer sources. He has been reverted a number of times, but Bhaskarbhagawati would edit war ([170], [171], [172]) and stop just short of violating 3RR. Nevertheless, Bhaskarbhagawati would make minimal effort to engage in any discussion or to come to a consensus. I left a notice on this talk page to engage his opposing editors in discussion[173], but to no avail[174],[175] etc.

Bhaskarbhagawati is topic banned from the languages of Assam ([176]) and recently he was recently temporarily blocked for violating the ban ([177]). I request the administrators to take some action because he is displaying the same behavior that he did when he was banned and blocked.

Pinging El_C and EdJohnston.

Chaipau (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Two back-to-back ANI threads, two pings in a row! Do I win a prize? I want a prize! El_C 19:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Chaipau for your effort, i will reply point wise.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 19:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Here is another instance of Bhaskarbhagawati removing cited texts: [178]. This is a persistent problem with this editor who has not relented on his point of view despite many attempts to come to a consensus. Pinging Richard Keatinge who facilitated a discussion on this topic. Chaipau (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging unrelated editors to current dispute (WP:CANVASSING ?).भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 08:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:APPNOTE. Chaipau (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati, can you explain why you removed references here from the Bhauma dynasty article? At first sight, these appear to be reliable sources. If you think you received consensus for this removal of sources, can you link to wherever that occurred? EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, will reply soon.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 16:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

All right, i am responding to points raised by Chaipau. In backdrop, Chaipau is a known editor with political overtones. His nationalistic zeal overtakes academics. His recent conduct, such as diff is not sustainable in real world diffdiffdiff.

(i) Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) has recently started some POV edits on Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty These are uniform with multiple well grounded sources (1) (2), all removed by them with brute force (see point vi).

(ii) e.g [179] and [180], [181] This should atleast not brought up, it was long resolved diff and he is well informed about it diff (bluntly rejected by him).

(iii) [182] This carrying on from last point, plus infobox, capital and reliable sources are reinstated.

(iv) [[183]] The kingdom has long standing capital diff but they removed capital along-with citations without discourse (see point vi).

(v) where he is removing reliable sources and replacing them by older sources that are contradicted by the newer sources. As continuing from point ii, so called reliable sources are isolated (WP:WEIGHT), replaced by several better known authors and books.

(vi) He has been reverted a number of times Yes, they are in reverting spree diffdiff diff diff diff diffdiffdiffdiff[diffdiffdiffdiffdiff,diffdiffdiffdiffdiff diffdiffdiffdiff, by "one of the many" suspected sock-puppets of Qwertywander (their homogeneous comments about Chutia kingdom, Varman dynasty etc.) diff(Requesting a checkuser test).

(vii) but Bhaskarbhagawati would edit war Unfounded accusation.

(viii) ([184], [185], [186]) All content are as routine, WP:WEIGHT issues are addressed. They are not able to provide at minimum two sources for unacademic claims.

(ix) and stop just short of violating 3RR Never engaged in reverting like this.

(x) Nevertheless, Bhaskarbhagawati would make minimal effort to engage in any discussion or to come to a consensus. They are informed several times about it beforehand.

(xi) I left a notice on this talk page to engage his opposing editors in discussion[187] Chaipau post such custom threatening messages on talkpages of other editors diff diff who don't bow to his wishes, its not unprecedented, he threaten to report me here if i don't follow his commands, it is his way of achieving consensus real quick.

(xii) but to no avail[188],[189] As mentioned above his restated his commitment to use isolated sources over academic consensus.

(xiii) They are removing sections, contents, reliable citations forcefully ad infinitum (see point vi), without consensus.

(xiv) In past, he has relentlessly taken content disputes here, explicitly for those editors he distaste, for which he was commanded against diff.

(xv) Chaipau is a old edit warriror diffdiffdiffdiffdiff, who either war vigorously or encourage others to force unilateral consensus. He was blocked for fierce edit-warring in recent past diff, though he promised to behave, it seems that is not happening anytime soon diff.

Thanks ! भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 18:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

References used for Bhaskarbhagawati's post
References

Hello Bhaskarbhagawati. The fact that you disagree with User:Chaipau is noted. Can you please answer my earlier question, whether you received consensus anywhere for your removal of references from the Bhauma dynasty article? EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Link is above (point ii), thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 21:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bhaskarbhagawati. I was requesting a link to a talk page discussion where other editors agreed with you that certain references you disapprove of ought to be removed from the Bhauma dynasty article. You did provide two links to discussions. In the first of these, the only two other participants are now blocked. The only other link to a discussion was a thread at Talk:Bhauma dynasty where you and Chaipau discuss the matter and don't come to any agreement. This doesn't amount to a consensus in your favor. Both you and Chaipau have been blocked in the past; you are the only one still under a topic ban. My conclusion is that your removal of sources from the Bhauma dynasty article was not justified by any talk page consensus. We don't usually like to see people removing references from articles without a good reason. (Makes it appear that you are cherry-picking sources to keep only the ones that agree with you). If this thread is closed without action, you should at a minimum promise not to continue warring at Bhauma dynasty until consensus is found. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I am OK with any action/inaction on this report as long as the edits the conditions set down are met. Nevertheless, I would like to point out the following for the records:

• I was not involved in the recent edit warring of Bhauma dynasty.
• The [190] is an example of WP:OTHERPARENT. The language is not at all neutral and it contained lies. For example: "Paromita Das (2005) andis faculty in Gauhati University, India; has hardly written any academic works before." is not at all supported, since Paromita Das is published ([191], forgive the terrible formatting)
• The WP:RS response was for Das (2005) alone, but Bhaskarbhagawati had removed Shin (2018) and Sen (1984) as well [192].
• And the edit summary is also not truthful. It is not only Das and Shin who see the Naraka story as a myth, but Sircar as well [193].

Chaipau (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discourse was concerning reliability of sources, same was meticulously talk over in talk page diff. The agreement was reached to pull to WP:RSN diff, resolved, they pronounced it as matter of policy not consensus "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.". He was effectively informed.

The consensus (WP:RSN) retract to 12 October 2017 while they are blocked not long ago (June 23, 2020). Yes, i agree talk-page dialogues are not binding, hence taken to pertinent noticeboard for binding consensus. The unrelated minuscule block decision was taken in my absence (i haven't violate the ban), based on misapprehension topic ban (you). I will appeal in Arbitration Enforcement. As divulged it is matter of policy, we don't use isolated sources (i have no concern if aided by secondary).

Chaipau raised some new points. He do facilitated warring. Policy matters are not WP:OTHERPARENT. They are faculty of Gauhati University but her ideas are not supported in academic circles. Different views of Sen and Shin isolated as well, not buttressed by academicians. The legendary status is not in question diff. She is pointing towards origins, ethnicity etc, and calling him as historical figure. Chaippau pinged you not without reason, he is aware of lengthy tussle between us (you and me) over topic ban. Before i make any promises, I insist redressal of conduct issues (prelude) brought in fifteen points above. Thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 07:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Without adding to the walls of text, I find that Ed Johnston's comments above are valid as are Chaipau's. I don't find significant merit in Bhaskarbhagawati's remarks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I am anticipating Richard Keatinge sooner than later, will reply soon, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 10:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This is amusing. Bhaskarbhagawati is citing some meta comments from 2017 from a user who has since been banned to remove references published in 2018—after the remarks were made in WP:RS! This is a rather perverted use of WP:RS, I think. Chaipau (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"Without adding to the walls of text, I find that Ed Johnston's comments above are valid as are Chaipau's. I don't find significant merit in Bhaskarbhagawati's remarks", Richard Keatinge wrote. Videlicet, they imply they don't understand current state of affair, notwithstanding X (Chaipau) is right anyway. Not unprecedented diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff, the ideal illustration of deep-rooted WP:TAGTEAM, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 16:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati removed referenced texts not only in Bhauma dynasty, but also in Indo-Aryan migration to Assam [194]. Here too, he removed Taher (2001), actually without any edit summary. This is the same pattern of edit he has made in Bhauma dynasty. I added this incident in addendum. So, could you, Bhaskarbhagawati, please explain why you removed the reference to Taher (2001)? This kind of disruptive behavior is not a one-off for you, but a sustained pattern that has been going on for a decade now, for which you were topic banned. I tagged Richard Keatinge because he has seen your behavior and edit patterns up close in Indo-Aryan migration to Assam page. Tag team? No! Chaipau (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Iteration, replying soon, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 07:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Reiteration, Mohd. Taher has WP:WEIGHT (minority viewpoint) concern diff, edit summary removed isolated source, as discussed in WP:RSN, Chaipau is utterly cognizant of it, being participant, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 17:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, another misrepresentation. The [RSN discussion] was about the presence of Dravidian in Assam. What Bhaskarbhagawati removed here] was the claim that the Indo-Aryans were the third linguistic group to arrive. Chaipau (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Chaipau is at odds with consensus, in addition to policy (notwithstanding of multi-fold apprisal) (WP:DISRUPTIVE EDITING) for extensive stretch (decade), furthermore, engage in long term WP:CANVASSING diffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiff diffdiffdiffdiffdiff. He is facilitating WP:EDITWARRING, through suspected long blocked editor (taking out enduring infobox, citations, sections) diffdiff diff diff diff diffdiffdiffdiff[diffdiffdiffdiffdiff,diffdiffdiffdiffdiff diffdiffdiffdiff, take over set of articles, manifesting WP:OWN.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 17:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Liz is trying to intimidate and discourage me from doing admin work

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see the message on my talk page. This is the second time Liz has tried to discourage me from doing admin work because she is claiming certain areas are "hers" and others are "mine". She had emailed me the first time in late June with the same type of discouraging and hurtful message, but I did not reply to the email because thought it ridiculous. When I started working in AFD or RFD a few months ago, not once was I ever been discouraged from regulars at those venues from working there, nor was I told to keep to my regular areas because those areas are "theirs". Conversely, I did not take such an approach to others who have started working at AFD as of late, which has left me few discussions for me to close as of late. That's how the project works. I can go do other admin work. However, the more admin work I do, the more she's trying to back me into a corner of venues she deems are "mine". Is the aim to bully me off the project so she can claim all these areas as "hers"? This approach has been WP:UNCIVIL, uncongenial, and hostile. Administrators should not be acting in this manner and it is incredibly unbecoming of someone in her position. ✗plicit 05:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Explicit: Have you seen Liz act territorially toward other admins? If this is not an isolated incident, that may warrant an Arbcom case, which is the only thread that can desysop for misconduct. I don't see any prior ANI threads about you nor Liz, aside from honest mistakes and WP:BOOMERANG threads. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: I have no knowledge of her prior conduct with other admins. However, looking through my emails, I realized I have another one sent by Liz in December 2019. I will not reveal its contents due to the private nature of the correspondence, but I imagine that such inimical communication with other admins have also occurred off-wiki. ✗plicit 06:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Bumping into another admin while doing work is very normal. For AfD's you can use the afd closing template to put the afd on hold while working on it. The message certainly seems unreasonable.

It certainly seems odd as I am sure any admin who has done any significant work has encounters conflicts regularly. Not sure why you are being scolded for doing work. I don't think I have seen this from an admin in 15+ years working here.

I don't see this being actionable at this point, but should it turn into a documented pattern then at the very least a trouting may be in order. Admins don't own areas of Wikipedia. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, while I certainly see how the message could be seen as discouraging, I think the term intimidating is a bit of a stretch. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

If another admin left me a message like that, I'd have a chat with them about how we could avoid treading on each other"s toes. I don't see it as discouraging at all, certainly not intimidating. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC and Girth Summit: I disagree. In response to overlapping in admin tasks, her response is, "I don't ever touch the daily image deletions because that's an area you regularly do but maybe the situation has changed." Aside from being blatantly untrue—she has done so several times at CAT:ORFU one minute ahead of schedule to "beat" me if one of the daily categories contained over 100 files—this essentially translates to, "If you don't stop encroaching on my areas, I'll encroach on yours." This is a retaliatory approach intended to escalate the situation. As I said in my response on my talk page, I did not see anyone working in those areas at the time I loaded the pages (Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages and empty categories from Category:Monthly clean-up category (Clean-up categories) counter)—it was a sea of blue links that needed to be deleted. ✗plicit 08:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Explicit, I don't read it like that at all. I don't know the history between you, or what was in emails you've exchanged, but I really struggle to read it in the way you describe above. Again, why don't you just talk to her and find out what the problem is? Girth Summit _(blether) 08:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Please don't suggest such a weird escalation. If you have no knowledge of Liz and don't want to take the time to see if mentioning Arbcom is appropriate at this stage, don't comment at all.

@Explicit: The thought of Liz sending someone a hurtful message is very hard to swallow. The message at User talk:Explicit#Deleting pages is totally innocent and in no way is a claim regarding what is "hers". Why not accept that what Liz said is how she saw it, namely that the conflicts were "very frustrating". I don't know how you might "see an admin working on an area" in order to temporarily avoid interrupting their work but I do know that the best response would be to say what you did ("no work had begun") and ask how you could avoid interruption. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I don't wish to quote the private email, but the "your area is yours and mine is mine" sentiment was much more apparent there. I'll say this very vaguely (because it's from the email), but she told me to stop tagging (not delete, tag) certain pages for deletion because she does it, even though I tagged these pages for deletion once during a timespan where she is not usually online. It was impossible to run into each other. In my experience, I bump into admins all the time at CAT:SD, WP:PRODSUM, AFD, MFD, RFD, etc, regardless of the time of day. Even so, I have never been discouraged by another administrator from doing admin tasks regardless of how many times we bump into each other. Don't delete this, don't tag that. How many restrictions that she imposes do I need to follow? ✗plicit 08:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Liz's talkpage note in Explicit's diff looks perfectly fine to me. We have Template:Doing for the precise purpose of alerting other users to not trip over work that you have in progress, though I don't know whether it would apply to Liz's working on that category or whatever it was. That part of the complaint is bogus. The remaining part says Liz sent Explicit some email, that ANI of course can't act upon without seeing it.

Explicit, have you discussed this with Liz before posting here? That appears to no longer be formally required, but it's still a good idea if you can do it, and I don't see anything stopping you. I don't see anything recent on Liz's talk page from you besides the notification of this ANI. Earlier (29 June), there was an exchange where Liz accidentally reverted a closure of yours, and acknowledged and apologized for the error when you asked what had happened. My tentative impression is that this ANI is an overreaction to another mixup, that can be handled with a bit more coordination, combined with AGF and tolerance of mistakes.

Conclusion: I think this ANI is premature and you should first discuss the issue with Liz on her talkpage. If that doesn't resolve things, then as long as the matter still turns on this undisclosed email, you have to ask her permission to post it and then do so so that ANI can look into it. If permission is not forthcoming, then maybe the two of you could agree to some kind of mediation in private. If that isn't acceptable to both of you, then I think you have to ask arbcom or an arbcom member to look into it, since they are allowed to see private info of this type. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• The talk page note does not look perfectly fine to me. It wasn't very nice. But taking it to ANI is an overreaction. "Bullying" and "intimidation" are a stretch. Explicit: someone was rude to you. Once. (Twice in two months/three times in two years, if we count the email.) Oh no. Move on. This isn't something you need to be taking up other editors' time over. Levivich 10:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Since we don’t know the content of private emails, I think it’s impossible to say that Explicit is or isn’t overreacting / does or doesn’t have valid cause to feel intimidated. Can’t really scold someone for bringing a complaint to ANI rather than letting a dispute between admins build up. ProcSock (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    • There are other options aside from "bring a complaint to ANI" and "let a dispute build up," such as "talk to Liz," as has been suggested above. Levivich 11:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Even if so, I think it's quite a *weird* message to send anyone, tbh. Things happen and there is no right of way when it comes to editing. Yes, it was escalated to ANI (way too hasty) and yes, there are some bad suggestions here but still doesn't take away the cause of the problem itself, best would be to wait for Liz to clarify on the OP's talk page, I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Am I the only one that thinks "I did not reply to the email because [I] thought it ridiculous." is never an acceptable course of action in the context of admin-to-admin communication? 78.28.44.31 (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  BTW, Special:Contributions/Liz shows that the editor's been happily editing, completely uninterested in responding to this thread. Bad vibes all around. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I was happily editing but I was unaware of this discussion. I SHOULD have been aware as there was a notification on my talk page but I hadn't looked at my talk page today until now when I saw Cullen left a message for me and I read it. Some days I only look at my talk page once a day and respond at that time to any messages left there. Not the best habit, I'll admit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Liz's message was a little bit terse, but it's a quite a stretch for the OP to theorize that Liz is trying to intimidate them off the site. Seems to me that Liz is just upset because she was working on a category and someone (from her point of view) got in the way. You don't have to agree with her message, but it was pretty easy to understand. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) The talk page message is certainly strange, but I wouldn't consider it "harassing" unless there's a pattern of behavior. It's unclear to me how anyone is supposed to "see an admin working on an area". From the logs, it looks like this is referring to things like clearing the WP:G7 queue, and there is absolutely no reason to object to more admins doing that. Hopefully Liz will provide a statement. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• When I read that message, I sense frustration and annoyance, not intimidation and discouragement.—S Marshall T/C 21:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Not a great message or conducive to a cooperative editing environment. Liz could you expand on what you were trying to say there? I'm not seeing need for action yet, but maybe just a don't do that again. PackMecEng (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• From what I observe the message wasn’t in any form intimidating, rather it comes off as Liz just being a tad bit frustrated at that point in time. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Sorry to be replying to this discussion so late but I didn't notice the ANI message on my talk page until Cullen brought it to my attention. I am pretty bad at noticing pings, it's the one area where I think I need to improve.

I'm finding it difficult to accept the view that I was trying to intimidate Explicit who has been on Wikipedia probably twice as long as I have and been an admin much longer than me. But you often don't know how things will be perceived.

I was very frustrated when I left that message. If you are seeking an explanation, well, there are often different tasks people often undertake on Wikipedia on a regular basis. If you look over a person's contributions and logs, you might see a regular repetition of edits and admin tasks in certain areas. For example, I usually tag empty categories and delete many of them. Explicit usually deletes most of the CSD-tagged files at exactly 00:00 UTC every day. Other admins regularly close TFD discussions or AFD discussions. Because it's usually Explicit & I who work with expiring stale drafts, I know his schedule and when he'll start working on them and he probably knows mine as well. That's not creepy, it's just that people have habits but no one "owns" an activity. My personal approach is unless it's an area that I've done work in, I usually give other admins and editors a lot of space around activities I can see that they normally look after. That's not written down in policy, I just think that it just helps thing work harmoniously here so we aren't all working at cross-purposes or stepping on each other's toes.

My problem yesterday was not that I owned an activity but that twice I was in the middle doing of an admin task, deleting end-of-July empty maintenance categories and later reviewing orphaned talk pages and Explicit appeared while I was working and did a batch delete of the remainder of the pages while I was reviewing them. It was a little jarring because I was in the middle of handling these tasks. It would be like if an AFC reviewer was reviewing a draft and while they were posting their comments, another reviewer posted their rejection or acceptance, or an admin was writing up a closing comment for a contentious AFD and found that another admin had closed it while they were writing it up. Not a colossal mistake, everyone is doing what they are supposed to, just a little collision. Unfortunately, I reacted to this collision in an emotional way probably because it was twice in a couple of hours with the same person. This has happened to me before with Explicit because we can work reviewing the same pages but for me it's never happened before with another administrator.

My message was not meant to be a threat but I was a little exasperated and I certainly didn't expect it to result in an ANI discussion. My intent was simply to say, if you are an admin who works a lot with deletion, as Explicit does, and you see that half a page of titles is being reviewed or processed, just let the working admin finish what they are doing. Seeing that another admin is at work on a list is admittedly harder to see when you utilize Twinkle's batch delete. But that is all I intended to say with my message and I'm sorry if it came across as less than diplomatic, as I try to be. I think the solution is for Explicit and I to give each other some extra space which I was planning to do when he comes back to work on Wikipedia soon. I'm sorry, Explicit. If other editors have issues with me, please bring them to my talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• I usually view admin action conflicts as a cause for celebration and laughs, though I'm getting the sense that the scope of the admin action conflicts here is of a more extensive nature than normally, involving many pages. Of course, it's generally good to optimize parallel workings to avoid it. I know that on among us regulars at RfPP, there's an unspoken rule: if someone is working the list from the bottom, you go from the top (and vice versa). Then, when you meet in the middle: celebration! El_C 22:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Question from a non-admin: How does one know something is being reviewed or processed by another admin? I get what El C is saying above from an RfPP perspective. Is it same with deletion categories? S0091 (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• There are templates that can be used to mark a page as under review. If you don't use them then you should not be surprised if someone else handles it while you are still working on it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This honestly sounds like a communication issue. Perhaps in the future users who are working on an entire page (?) of stuff should put up a template (like {{in use}}) so that no toes are stepped on? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Since Explicit & I have returned to our regular activities over the past day, maybe we can give each other more room in admin areas and this situation is no longer an emergency. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Liz: Does this mean you're ready to accept that all admin tasks are available strictly on a first-come-first-served basis and that nobody is entitled to claim exclusive access to any of these tasks? In particular, are you ready to acknowledge that 1) Explicit is under no obligation to track what editing you're currently engaging in and plan his own editing around it, and that 2) it was unreasonable of you to expect him to do so? 78.28.44.31 (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I believe this should be closed already as I view this as a communication problem, interpreting tone over text is subjective and can be a quite daunting task (if you intend to internalize what is being said to you and analyze it meticulously to correctly “interpret it” in the manner it was intended by the editor). The manner or tone in which Liz made the comment is open to diverse interpretations in which we see now that it was wrongly misinterpreted by the OP Explicit (whom I’ve worked with) alongside Liz and Fastily in G13 eligibles if they had opted to discuss with Liz extensively other than this ANI, I believe it would have been less controversial and more productive. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• According to the past 3 months of adminstats, Liz and Explicit lead the admin corps in terms of actions. At this level, it's very difficult to avoid competitive feelings (believe me, I would know). My advice to both parties: this statistic is ultimately meaningless, we're all on the same team here. -FASTILY 23:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by User:Guarapiranga

This user has since July 22 taken to editing multiple longevity-related articles including Oldest people, List of the oldest people by country, Supercentenarians by continent and Supercentenarians in the United States. During this time they have:

1. Attempted to introduce flags to an article and when reverted on the basis of WP:MOSFLAG failed to interpret the MOS correctly.
2. Moved multiple articles without discussion renaming them without "List of" even though they are all, specifically, lists. A request to revert these moves is here which contains the editor's reasoning.
3. Introduced numerous pointless redlinks and despite these being reverted and User_talk:Guarapiranga#Redlinks explained has gone on to in repeat this in other articles without sufficient justification.
4. Adjusted the rankings on multiple articles so that they are incorrect and when reverted given an inadequate explanation (for want of a better word) at Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States#Why are ties suddenly resolved with dead people ranking above living ones?.

This editor seems to determined to change the format of these articles according to MOS:DTAB, which would not be an issue except that in doing so they have introduced changes to the articles which are by no means constructive and against the wishes of those editors with ongoing interest in the subject (see the last 5 threads at Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States), and with no apparent desire to edit co-operatively. The editor seems to have no interest in the Longevity themselves otherwise this notice would have been more appropriate at ARBCOM, a notice of which has been posted on the user's talk page to no effect (apologies if this is where this should in fact have been taken). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment As a long time editor with an interest in this topic area, I have been bewildered by Guarapiranga's edits and conduct. The names of over a dozen articles (ex. Supercentenarians in the United States) have undergone three mass renaming's in recent days, all by the editor in question (and all undiscussed). The obvious nature of the articles, that they are lists, is now obfuscated. Far more troubling is the editor's dramatic unilateral changes to the content and coding of these same and other longevity articles. As DerbyCountyinNZ stated, the editor in question has made list ranking's incorrect, added flags, and much more.

At List of the oldest people by country, they: added a sea of perma-redlinks; bloated the article with an almost 100% redundant birthplace tab instead of just having the longstanding streamlined "place of death or residence" tab with a footnote if borders changed etc; removed information about the oldest of both genders per country while outing themselves of having no idea how the article had worked before they transformed it with no prior discussion. They added the same (1 2) bloated and pointless birthplace tab at List of the oldest living people.

The easy to understand and longstanding coding systems of many of the longevity articles, such as at List of the oldest people by country and many of the country lists, has been dramatically changed with no prior discussion, disrupting the work of the topic's most prolific editor, and mystifying myself. As the discussion in which the above comment took place shows, their is a firm community consensus that the editor in question has dramatically disrupted the aforementioned articles in the topic of longevity, nor do they have any actual understanding of or interest in these articles. In conversations linked above, it is also clear the editor in question has no desire to discus momentous changes with the community to reach consensus before sudden implementation, nor any interest in such discussion going forward. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - If the editor-in-question is being so disruptive? He/she should be topic banned from said articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed WordwizardW (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• This editor has a habit of making huge unilateral changes to fit their preferred pattern. That is fine and bold by itself, but they do not seem interested in consensus where disagreement emerges. In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#RfC: Dependent territories and subnational areas they opened an RfC and then closed it themseves claiming a particular consensus suiting their view despite receiving no support for this view in the RfC. They then went on to cite this supposed result to justify their edits elsewhere ([195][196][197]). More recently, they have edit-warred in significant changes to List of countries and dependencies, despite not receiving much support in an RfC that they opened. Note also in those RfCs the tendency to bludgeon the discussions with replies to everything. In another instance, I was recently perplexed by this post, where they opened a discussion by asking if we should start an edit war, which is quite the WP:battleground opening. CMD (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The participation in Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States#Requested move 1 August 2021 (mentioned in the opening) is typical. Guarapiranga berates others for not AGFing, while saying in another comment "I haven't yet seen here listed any drawbacks...just that some editors are upset by change". Meanwhile, while this is move request is going on with so far unanimous input against their rationale, they move List of countries by number of Internet users to Internet users by country with the exact same rationale. CMD (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I moved that page back to its original title, but made a mistake & named it List of countries of Internet users. PS - Got an administrator to fix up my mistake ;) GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Block until the user seriously engages in discussion—that means reading and listening rather than skipping straight to the writing stage. Page moves and mass changes are incredibly disruptive when misused and this move after this ANI discussion was opened, without so much as a comment here, warrants an immediate block. A topic ban from longevity-related articles, broadly construed, would also be acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Block until the user seriously engages in discussion
  I have, at:
  • Talk:Supercentenarians from the United Kingdom
  • Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States
  • Talk:Supercentenarians from Japan
  • Talk:List of the oldest people by country
• this move after this ANI discussion was opened, without so much as a comment here, warrants an immediate block.
  Unrelated topic. This here is explicitly about longevity-related articles.^[1]

— Guarapiranga ☎ 02:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• On top of the Internet list move mentioned above, Guarapiranga has also decided that this is a good time to reinsert a previous 19 July edit at Continent, which they know does not have consensus and had previously been discussed at both that talkpage and at Talk:Asia. A topic ban as suggested is not a useful remedy; this is a core behavioural issue throughout their editing, and their reply to Bilorv above shows that this is not understood. Agree with block as suggested by Bilorv, especially in light of continued tendentious editing during this AN/I. CMD (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with points noted by Newshunter12. I'm on the fence about a Block as I believe everyone has a right to "BE BOLD", but not at the expense of mangling an article. Had a thorough discussion been held prior to the article move, the non-encyclopedic argument could have been made and discussed, as well as the proposed need to make the changes (which I do disagree with). I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ that "this move after this ANI discussion was opened, without so much as a comment here, warrants an immediate block." But as Chipmunkdavis correctly notes, a topic ban is not a useful remedy. If this continues to be a productive discussion, with Guarapiranga agreeing to follow the consensus, style guidelines, and amend their editing behaviors, then I will step off the fence about a block. Spacini (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  You already have evidence of that, Spacini; not only I cite wp:policies and guidelines when explaining my edits, (as you can see at Talk:Supercentenarians from the United Kingdom, at Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States, at Talk:Supercentenarians from Japan and at Talk:List of the oldest people by country), but in his very first complaint, DerbyCountyinNZ says that I attempted to introduce flags to an article. Did he say I re-introduced them? Did he say I edit warred on this? No, he said I failed to interpret the MOS correctly. Really? Is that the accusation?? Did I not follow the consensus? I did. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  But even though I advised you that longevity is subject to ARBCOM on 23 July and listed the issues with your problematic editing on 27 July and with the extensive threads on Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States starting on 28 July indicating that numerous editors had/have issues with these changes, you continued with the same editing bahaviour (i.e. editing without reaching consensus). This is a pretty clear indication of an editor who is unwilling to edit co-operatively. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  (ec)Linking to those talk page discussions do you no favor; in fact they reiterate your tenditious editing and shine a light on WP:CIR. You seem to be emotionally invested in these articles which may make it hard to swallow other editors' constructive criticisms. Maybe consider taking a breather for a week or so and digest the advice others have provided -- if things do not go your way, accept the consensus and edit in other areas of interest. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Rctgamer3

Some administrator (other than Xezbeth) could review the contributions of the user:Rctgamer3, whose histories of disruptive and highly disturbed editions on articles related to Japanese voice actors1, while correcting the date that the veteran actress debuted in the 30s when she was born, he insists on reversing Masako Nozawa's debut, which according to the summaries of the page's editions that I was eliminating the content, merging occupations and above all 234567, reversed numerous times on Yuki Kaji's article for which someone added his facet as an actor whose career is not notable to have such appearances in series and live-action movies, so take it away, but what happens? Rctgamer3 reverted it several times 8910 without an IP having committed another type of vandalism.

In short, it is not the first time that an editor like this has a disruptive behavior towards IPs violating the WP:3RR and WP:POINT but I am reflecting now that it is not the same that another IP has removed an occupational term (eg actor and voice actor) something that was out of context and the truth is that I realized that these two occupations do not go in the introduction of the paragraph, infoboxes and above all, short descriptions and at the end of this, I do not see the rule that says something about the separate initial sentences, nor was the idea of ​how the hell I enter the data in the same short description outside of Wikipedia so as not to lengthen so many occupations. 148.101.34.204 (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The date change referenced was completely unsourced. I'm not sure if you're the same IP user as the previous person who wrote it on Yuki Kaji but given the fact that all of their credits start in the 60's makes a year's active date from her third birth year feel /very/ out of place. I've reverted a handful of edits on Yuki Kaji and Masako Nozawa on date changes solely because no sources/refs for this date were provided, which i have warned the individual IP-users about on their talk pages. As for those voice actor pages; there's WP:BOLD, but changing crucial points about several persons is a no-go. (Example: A person whose profession almost solely entails voice acting, was re-labeled as primarily being another minor profession). Given the amount of edits done (50-100) by various IP's, I expected at least some consensus beforehand. Even during the ongoing revisions by various IP-users, I've asked those users to discuss this, yet nothing of the sort ensued, nor did most of those edit utilize edit summaries. I feel like I've done nothing wrong. By the way, I have no/zero intention of having a large number of biography pages in my watchlist. It's just that one person under various IP addresses has a narrow view of how the pages should be formatted which both me and Xezbeth seem to think that the edits by these anonymous users entail edit warring/vandalism. Highly relevant incident here: 1. I'm all for reaching a good resolution/consensus on the subject Rctgamer3 (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you have news sources on Masako Nozawa's career, just leave an edit summary by passing you the necessary link through the Japanese Wikipedia1 before Xezbeth reverses two or three times23 to avoid having a conflict as to what she did not comply with the WP:SDDATES, as I said before, someone added Yuki Kaji's facet as an actor in the introduction of the paragraph to pretend that he has a minimum of 6 appearances in series and 1 live action film below his filmography, so that I do not agree with your position if my edition was not to your liking.

Let's go in parts to the five articles that you reversed incorrectly:

• First, when editing Kotono Mitsuishi's page, I had suggested that I was going to leave a little editing summary about the term saying "actor covers her work as a voice actress", but I already saw where I was wrong.1

• Second, Karen Miyama, when separating the same occupations has the largest number of drama series and movies in real life, but also do not leave the summary of editions of it.2

• Third, Iori Nomizu of course, after you and Xezbeth reverted it several times without me leaving a summary and there is one thing for which I also edited in Wikidata which I abide by the rules on short descriptions, but sometimes I make mistakes like that. 34.4

• Fourth, Nene Hieda, repeatedly removed the term singer because it is not remarkable, nor was it added news references about her debut.4

• Fifth, and speaking of Riho Iida I would have already improved the infobox, opening sentences, adding short descriptions and ordering the categories in the section below, but in your case you reversed it several times, if I have not done anything.5

• Sixth, Shun Oguri as he had left a summary before, his filmography has more than 15 notable anime films so his profession as an actor and voice actor are different.6

• Seventh, the idea of ​​removing Momoyo Koyama's second occupation came to my mind when I realized that she has more than 5 appearances in series and live-action movies, in addition to anime and video games, so I also consider that in my opinion, the intention was to separate their profession are different from what it says in summaries of previous editions.7

• Eighth, and to finish, about Takahiro Itō (may he rest in peace) as I left in the edition summary before Xezbeth and you reversed it before blocking me, his filmography has a minimum of 3 series and live action movies, dubbing of four foreign series and films and an anime series, so it was already necessary for them to be translated through the aforementioned Japanese Wikipedia. 8

That was it, I just said this because you and Xezbeth do not comply with what has been applied inside and outside Wikipedia so that they do not extend so many occupations to what I have followed the uses of WP:BLPs and MOS:FIRST, and tell me something, how do you think that my contributions that I have made about Japanese voice actors are non-constructive for you? 179.52.208.177 (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat by 82.132.243.40

Here. I'm 100% certain it is also block evasion – Iqacquire (talk · contribs) was blocked for making legal threats after this and several similar edits were reverted, and the IP posted their legal threat after this was reverted. --bonadea contributions talk 11:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 31h, no sure anything else is needed here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, Ymblanter. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Bouvet Island needs vandalism protection

The small paragraph about the annexation of the west coast was vandalized and wrongly reverted. Despite good sources, including a RAND Corporation’s (RANDnext) paper. Could some please protect that article? Thanks. 2A01:598:A803:E5ED:D0CB:B4A4:B17C:16DF (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Protection requests should go to WP:RFPP, but I can tell you now it's not going to happen for a single instance of vandalism. -- Scott Burley (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the revert in question was vandalism. And you should discuss such things with the other editor first before making accusations of vandalism here. Also when making such accusation here, you need to inform the other editor on their talk page. Paul August ☎ 19:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

OP temporarily sock-blocked. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Unconstructive Reverts (and revert explanation) by User:Praxidicae

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe that the user Praxidicae has been doing a number of unconstructive reversions to the page Alila Hotels and Resorts. I've left thorough explanations about my edits on both the edit summaries and article talk page only for them to be labelled as "Spam" or "nah this is still spammy nonsense.". I have also left a message on the user's talk page for clarifications for the edit page only for it to be ignored and unanswered.

I feel like these reversions ignores WP:AFG; I strongly believe that I updated the page with new content and backed it with neutral statements and claims with 18 new secondary sources (compared to 8 sources previously, 4 secondary, 4 primary), and I can't understand how this is considered spammy nonsense.

Differences between revisions

--Okadiputera (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with any of the hospitality companies who are related to the articles you are editing? Is this your first account? ST47 (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi ST47, I am not affiliated with any of the hospitality (or any) companies related to any articles I have edited/contributed to. This is not my first account, this account is a replacement for an older account that I have retired.Okadiputera (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Okadiputera, I noticed that you are using Business Wire as a reference in your highly promotional edits. Are you aware that Business Wire is a commercial website in the business of distributing press releases, and is therefore the opposite of a reliable, independent source? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, I apologise and should not bunched that in as a secondary source, you are correct that it is not independent. However, that leaves 17 other sources that I believe are secondary sources. Having said that, I would like to kindly disagree that my edit were highly promotional. Many of the claims I have written merely presents the company's history. I could understand a couple sentences that may seem promotional, and would be happy to have it edited/removed to further neutrality. Furthermore, as apparent in the last two paragraphs of that section, I also included information of the company's property closures, which I don't suppose are favourable coverage by any means. By any means, I feel like a complete reversion of my edits is unwarranted, and I believe the essay WP:BABY best reflects my opinion on the situation. Regards Okadiputera (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Could the BW article be used to establish the company's notability? No. But that's not what it was used for. Instead, Business Wire ([198]) was used to source the following factual statement: "In January 2021, the brand announced an expansion with a second and third hotel in the United States; this was realised with openings in Encinitas and Napa Valley in March 2021." BW is a perfectly acceptable source for such a statement since it clearly says "the brand announced" thus leaving us no room for misinterpretation. We allow press releases and such under WP:ABOUTSELF. You could even use the company's official website for a sentence like that IMO. Whether including that tidbit in the article was a good idea or not is a separate matter, but the source that was used was perfectly adequate. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae's description of this version of the article as "spammy nonsense"[199] was both inaccurate and inappropriate. I don't see anything there that would be objectionable to the point of requiring the deletion of 90% of the article. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

While I take no position on the terminology "spammy nonsense," I will say that the current revision of the article strikes me as more encyclopedic and less promotional brochure, which I find appropriate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Prax's edits and description appear both accurate and appropriate to me. That read like a promotional "history" of the brand rather than an encyclopedia entry of a hotel company. Grandpallama (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Okadiputera ANI is an environment to report “incidents” an archetypal example of a “non incident” being reported at ANI would be this very entry. When you pinged Praxidicae what you ought to have done was to be patient, and if they weren’t responding what you should have done was to exhibit more patience, instead of bringing this here. There are other venues for content disputes, if you say you aren’t affiliated with the hotel in any form or manner, then what’s the rush for? Furthermore how are you permanently retired in your previous account and are still editing actively under this current incarnation? That’s contradictory to say the least. If you aren’t reading the room, let me be the first to tell you that nothing is coming out of this “report” as it is no incident. As for the terminologies used I too take Dumuzid's stance. Celestina007 (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP issues at Fer Niño

Mass attack that merits page protection, including personal attacks amid the editing carnage. Perhaps some rev/deletion is in order. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've been personally dealing with those vandalisms. Requested temporary protection at WP:RPP, as attacker(s) used multiple IP addresses and accounts. I think it should be enough. I've not spotted revisions which would qualify to be WP:REVDEL-ed. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for trying to keep things in line. I hate to post specific links to such edits, but one such example [200] is close to our line, if not over it. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • And everything added by this brilliant account [201]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• So many revdel's, so little sport. I think like 50 of em. Eep! El_C 02:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• El_C, thank you. I think the quality of discourse has gotten so coarse that many of us grow numb to this kind of relentless defamation. I don't. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Anytime. It's, indeed, disconcerting that in the span of less than 24 hours, there were over 50 edits that had to be revdel'd. Where are the cyber police when you need em? Oh wait! El_C 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I gather the gentleman did something very unsporting, and was paying the price the Wikipedia way. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Ref, where are you? Oh, right, got run over by Cow Man. That's about par for the course... El_C 03:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Requesting block on IP due to promotion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:2409:4064:B14:F38F:0:0:2794:A0A5. This IP continues to advertise or promote (after 4th warning).----Rdp060707|talk 05:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive Editing (Multiple Unsourced Alteration of Financial Data) by User:SimpleIndian

I believe I'm seeing violations of the WP:Disruptive editing policy by User:Simpleindian (Special:Contributions/Simpleindian). Since I'm unfamiliar with the reporting procedure, I'll be brief and let an expert look into it. Almost daily, the user has been posting unsourced alterations of financial numbers such as profit margins and market capitalizations for such major players as Tata, Jio, Apple, Nike, and the Bombay Stock Exchange. Given the tendency for such activity to interfere with financial markets, I thought it best to report this at once. Thank you for looking into this. 67.0.25.87 (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Persistion addition of unsourced contents by an IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP address kept adding unsourced contents to many BLPs. This IP was warned for 4 times in this month, especially for adding unsourced edits. Also according to their talk page, they also’ve added biased contents into articles. In addition to that, they’ve disrupted Wikipedia for 4 years since 2017. They were warned by other editors but they still continued to disregard editors’ warning and continued disrupting the encyclopedia. And the final thing you’ll notice if you look at this IP’s talk page, they used to be block from editing twice because of their disruption on Wikipedia. Definitelyduke255 (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Their editing history this month suggests an out-and-out troll. Any diff would do, but the three edits to Sigmund Freud are typical. Narky Blert (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

87.55.132.96

First, you have the user making unexplained disruptive edits [202][203]. Next, they abuse another IP to evade scrutiny. [204]. Could anyone do something about this? Thanks. --Firestar464 (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464, I'm confused - those three diffs were all the same IP, have you got the right ones? Can you also explain what is disruptive there? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Fixed the third diff. It looks like there's a bug with "cur."  Self-trout They're removing lots of content without explaining, that's what's wrong. --Firestar464 (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464, so, from a quick skim, it looks like they are removing the 'untitled project' sections in that table, alongside making a bunch of other changes, is that correct? Maybe just revert any changes you disagree with and leave a talk page message, not sure there's any admin intervention needed yet. Looks like the article gets a lot of attention from a bunch of different IPs, it's not clear that there's any attempt to evade scrutiny. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, IDK what I was thinking.  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough Firestar464 (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

IP 172.101.221.42

172.101.221.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Purely disruptive since May 2020 - seems to be a static IP almost all edits over the last 15 months are consistently of similar themes: either an obvious POV [205], [206], [207], [208], or random BLP attacks [209], [210]. Lots of warnings on talk page. Can they be indeffed as it’s static? DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, I agree that this looks static. Indef blocks for IPs aren't really a thing, but since they've been doing this intermittently for so long, I've blocked for a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Revdel request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, Could someone revdel this and this please, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Done those two and one other, one account blocked, and page semi-protected. Fucking deranged behaviour. Daniel (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Truly ghoulish thing to do. I don't even know what to think about a person that would do something like that, except to hope that they do not have an active username on the project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

To think this is a troll happy to see how we are now feeding them by discussing their actions.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

No doubt, but there's trolling and there's sociopathy. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel much appreciated, Absolutely agree - Beyond vile and sickening!, –Davey2010^Talk 12:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP issues at Fer Niño

Mass attack that merits page protection, including personal attacks amid the editing carnage. Perhaps some rev/deletion is in order. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've been personally dealing with those vandalisms. Requested temporary protection at WP:RPP, as attacker(s) used multiple IP addresses and accounts. I think it should be enough. I've not spotted revisions which would qualify to be WP:REVDEL-ed. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for trying to keep things in line. I hate to post specific links to such edits, but one such example [211] is close to our line, if not over it. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • And everything added by this brilliant account [212]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• So many revdel's, so little sport. I think like 50 of em. Eep! El_C 02:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• El_C, thank you. I think the quality of discourse has gotten so coarse that many of us grow numb to this kind of relentless defamation. I don't. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Anytime. It's, indeed, disconcerting that in the span of less than 24 hours, there were over 50 edits that had to be revdel'd. Where are the cyber police when you need em? Oh wait! El_C 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I gather the gentleman did something very unsporting, and was paying the price the Wikipedia way. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Ref, where are you? Oh, right, got run over by Cow Man. That's about par for the course... El_C 03:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Requesting block on IP due to promotion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:2409:4064:B14:F38F:0:0:2794:A0A5. This IP continues to advertise or promote (after 4th warning).----Rdp060707|talk 05:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive Editing (Multiple Unsourced Alteration of Financial Data) by User:SimpleIndian

I believe I'm seeing violations of the WP:Disruptive editing policy by User:Simpleindian (Special:Contributions/Simpleindian). Since I'm unfamiliar with the reporting procedure, I'll be brief and let an expert look into it. Almost daily, the user has been posting unsourced alterations of financial numbers such as profit margins and market capitalizations for such major players as Tata, Jio, Apple, Nike, and the Bombay Stock Exchange. Given the tendency for such activity to interfere with financial markets, I thought it best to report this at once. Thank you for looking into this. 67.0.25.87 (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Persistion addition of unsourced contents by an IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP address kept adding unsourced contents to many BLPs. This IP was warned for 4 times in this month, especially for adding unsourced edits. Also according to their talk page, they also’ve added biased contents into articles. In addition to that, they’ve disrupted Wikipedia for 4 years since 2017. They were warned by other editors but they still continued to disregard editors’ warning and continued disrupting the encyclopedia. And the final thing you’ll notice if you look at this IP’s talk page, they used to be block from editing twice because of their disruption on Wikipedia. Definitelyduke255 (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Their editing history this month suggests an out-and-out troll. Any diff would do, but the three edits to Sigmund Freud are typical. Narky Blert (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

87.55.132.96

First, you have the user making unexplained disruptive edits [213][214]. Next, they abuse another IP to evade scrutiny. [215]. Could anyone do something about this? Thanks. --Firestar464 (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464, I'm confused - those three diffs were all the same IP, have you got the right ones? Can you also explain what is disruptive there? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Fixed the third diff. It looks like there's a bug with "cur."  Self-trout They're removing lots of content without explaining, that's what's wrong. --Firestar464 (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464, so, from a quick skim, it looks like they are removing the 'untitled project' sections in that table, alongside making a bunch of other changes, is that correct? Maybe just revert any changes you disagree with and leave a talk page message, not sure there's any admin intervention needed yet. Looks like the article gets a lot of attention from a bunch of different IPs, it's not clear that there's any attempt to evade scrutiny. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, IDK what I was thinking.  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough Firestar464 (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

IP 172.101.221.42

172.101.221.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Purely disruptive since May 2020 - seems to be a static IP almost all edits over the last 15 months are consistently of similar themes: either an obvious POV [216], [217], [218], [219], or random BLP attacks [220], [221]. Lots of warnings on talk page. Can they be indeffed as it’s static? DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, I agree that this looks static. Indef blocks for IPs aren't really a thing, but since they've been doing this intermittently for so long, I've blocked for a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violation by a WP:COI account at Ikea and Talk:IKEA

Coming here because I'm at a loss as to how else to approach this. Ignoring notices, warnings and policy, TomElliott113 (talk · contribs) keeps adding content copied from the organization at which he's employed. Doesn't appear to appreciate WP:COI or WP:COPYRIGHT--the impetus is only to publish his findings here. Requesting rev/deletion of several postings to the article talk page, and possible limited sanctions on the user. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-admin, uninvolved): I've had a look, and the user claims to have approval from the copyright owner for the text copied to the talk page. Given that the user identifies as an employee of the quoted organisation and asked for a conflict of interest check, I find this claim to be at the very least credible. Revdel might be warranted since no proof of copyright was provided, but I don't see this requiring any sanctions. The user now seems to be trying to go through the proper channels, after being told that this was the procedure, and seems to be trying to be cooperative. Despite the copyright violations, which need to be treated correctly, I think a reminder to assume good faith, and to not bite the newcomers is warranted in this case. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

One is markedly less inclined to assume good faith when the new user is a WP:SPA whose evident purpose is to publish the findings of the company at which they're employed. So much so, they've copied and pasted the same content to Wikipedia three times, suggesting that they're willing to be cooperative to a very narrow point, that point being that we publish their content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies about uploading the same copy multiple times - I can see how that can come across as insistent but I thought it was relevant as a starting point for the conversation and I was hoping we could collaborate on improving it so it reaches Wikipedia's standards. Truth be told I'm not overly confident in my written English abilities, and there are a number of specific technical terms I didn't want to mangle - which have been my main motivations to lean on the language as published and reviewed by our libel lawyers.

As for publishing our findings - well yes, I suppose that is my intention - but as a legitimate addition to the page and certainly not as a means of promoting ourselves. To the extent that I've made reference to ourselves, well, we are the source and while other independent news outlets have reported our findings, the 20-page fully referenced report is our work and hosted on our site - so it seemed to me we are the ones to credit.

The initial copy I posted was a genuine effort to use impartially describe our findings in my own words, but with the more technical bits lifted from the report. I didn't realise how seriously this breached Wikipedia's copyright rules, I thought it was fair use being flagged in case - not a warning. I have had another attempt at rewriting the copy but will be the first to admit I've just shifted the sentences around so it's not verbatim the same as on our site. Please treat this copy as a continuation of a conversation and not as a demand for publication - ideally if one of you gifted wikipedia elves could pick it up and make the changes to carry it across the line that would be perfect, but otherwise feedback is appreciated and I'm willing to have another go. Sorry again for any trouble or offence TomElliott113 (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Multiple issues remain, including whether your organization can be used as a WP:RELIABLE source; of course, WP:COI is of concern, as well. Then, there's the continued attempt to include off-topic content about a Ukrainian oligarch. Your claim not to be proficient with the language is belied by the above. But the most immediate issue is again, copyright. The content you've added--now for the fourth time overall--to the article talk page may be reconfigured, but still appears to lift sentences verbatim from your website. At the very least, it's WP:PARAPHRASE, and I'll request that it be rev/deleted. Again. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• My take is that WP:UNDUE is also an issue. The way to go here may be to add a few sentences to the article, using journalistic sources you provided at the article talk page, TomElliott113. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

William Selig

@Cwmhiraeth: and @Berrely: trashed all of my William Selig work-in-progress with a admin delete citing WP:OVERQUOTING (redlink)
I want to get a copy of my last revision for User:0mtwb9gd5wx/William Selig 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@0mtwb9gd5wx, thanks for noting the redlink, I meant to link WP:COPYQUOTE, but I forgot the shortcut :). I really don't think ANI was the appropriate place for this. I removed some of the content (not all) you added to the William Selig article because it copied from a copyrighted source that wasn't released under a free license (see Wikipedia:Copying from other websites). I then requested a revision deletion of the copyrighted content, which was performed by Cwmhiraeth. While I appreciate this may have been frustrating, please note ANI is a last resort. You should've at least started a discussion on the article talk or my talk asking why the content was removed. As for getting back the content before the revision deletion, you can maybe ask Cwmhiraeth to email you it, however the copyrighted material cannot be put back onwiki. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you two deleted, quotes are fair use 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed everything you copied from https://www.victorian-cinema.net/selig, which you mostly added in the diff with the edit summary <ref name="victorian-cinema-Selig"/> == Multiscope and Film Company == Magic (illusion) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the text was copied and pasted from this page; you can plainly see the copyright declaration at the foot of the source page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't the place to say this but... that article has some strange stuff going on. Why are there like twenty-plus citations supporting a single sentence? Why are there a bunch of external links to some PDF copies of patents? Girth Summit _(blether) 13:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  (non-admin comment) Those patents (now no longer in the article) look like what are in known the trade as improvement patents - incremental advances over recent developments. They can be useful ammunition if there's a patent war going on (see Motion Picture Patents Company), when every side files every patent application they can think of, in the hope of protecting what they're doing (or might do) - or that something sticks and puts a crimp in their opponents' activities. Been there, done that. (It's too late to investigate now, but I'd wager dollars to doughnuts (1910s money) that at least some of those inventions were made by Selig's employees, not him.)

Notwithstanding that paragraph of WP:OR, lists of granted patents can be appropriate in articles - in their own section. Who would have heard of Hedy Lamarr otherwise?

That'll be $250 please (reduced rate for an introductory consultation). Narky Blert (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Self-promotion by User:Nidmjaynagar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Nidmjaynagar is doing self-promotion on his userpage. Peter Ormond 💬 09:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MjolnirPants incivility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would an uninvolved admin please let MjolnirPants/MPants at work that CIVIL is not optional. Per WP:UNCIVIL, "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. " I have had very little interaction with MPants but I regret to say what little I've had has been almost universally hostile and looking at their interactions with others I'm not the only one to experience their BATTLEGROUND behavior. I'm not sure we had any significant interactions prior to a few recent and very acrid interactions. MPants returned from an OversightBlock Indef in April. This appears to be related to disruptions in Feb 2019 including "severe personal attacks". In the past they have shown battleground behavior but it appears this was typically to new editors in contentious topic areas. MPants has shown clear UNCIVIL issues directed at myself and other editors on various topics.

Talk:Andy_Ngo#provoking_violence_revert: This discussion was opened with accusations directed at (presumably) myself and Korny O'Near

• [[222]]: I'd submit that anyone who can't see [MPant's view] doesn't belong on this project. This starts the discussion with a needles, rude accusation directed at anyone who didn't agree with MPant's view.
• [[223]]: ...your denial of that fact is (assuming good faith, here) sheer incompetence. Because if it isn't incompetence, it's POV pushing and a deliberately dishonest edit summary.
• [[224]]: So you're just lying through your teeth at this point. Got it. POV pushing it is.
• [[225]]: Jesus christ, there should be a rule requiring people to read the thread before commenting in it. In reply to Korny O'Near [226]
• [[227]]: You absolutely are lying, and doing so to WP:GAME the 1rr restriction here. That's not a lack of an argument: I've already proven my case. Your blatant dishonesty doesn't change that fact.

On an admin talk page

• [[228]]: DON'T LIE THROUGH YOUR FUCKING TEETH TO ENGAGE IN POV PUSHING. On an admit talk page responding to my concern regarding MPant's civility.

A BLPN discussion:

• [[229]]: I don't much care what you think about it in any case, as you've already shot way past the point of WP:PACT as far as I'm concerned. This is in reply to comments of mine that echoed Masem's.
• [[230]]: So you don't know how to count to two? That's just... Wow.

MPant's battlegound behavior was noted by Snow Rise here [[231]], in reply to, "What the fuck is this shit? You made two TP comments, tried to edit war and are now jumping to an RfC" directed at Volteer1.

Other examples

• [[232]]: Also, if you don't care to be directed to conservapedia, then perhaps you should stop arguing as if you better belong there.
• [[233]]: Also, your statement is false. Like, breathtakingly false. I agree with the sentiment but the snark does not make for a better editing environment.
• [[234]]: Stop what? Pointing out that your own behavior has been substantially subpar throughout this? Sorry, that's a feature of ANI. If you don't like it, maybe you should stay away from this page.

Granting that MPants may be correct in some/all of these cases (including the content disputes I'm involved with), UNCIVIL makes no exception for editors who are otherwise "correct". Such behavior needlessly inflames what should be content based disagreements. Springee (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm just going to respond by pointing out that I stand behind everything I said in those diffs, because Springee started by falsely claiming that a source doesn't support some content because it phrased it slightly differently (see WP:PARAPHRASE), then argued that two sources which explicitly use the same wording as was used in the article don't actually support the exact claims those sources made.

Springee told bald-faced lies for the purpose of gaming the 1RR restriction at that article. Maybe I should have been more circumspect in how I phrased things, but I absolutely do not appreciate being lied to by someone who damn well knows I can see right through those lies, and no editor on this project has any business whatsoever engaging in dishonesty on that level. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Springee has been forum shopping this for a few days now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The way to address the content dispute is to provide the quotes. You did. I showed they don't support your claim. You could have easily brought this up to WP:V rather than accuse other editors of lying etc. Do you think accusing editors of lying is OK per CIVIL? Springee (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but: MPants, CIVIL is not optional. OK? Now, I've gone through every one of the diffs here, and the only one that goes significantly over the line of CIVIL is the one in bold font. (The "count to two" comment comes in second, but in context is pointing out a 2-point list immediately above it.) And a lot of them are not civility violations at all, in any real sense, but rather just "telling it like it is". Is it really incivil to say: "Stop what? Pointing out that your own behavior has been substantially subpar throughout this? Sorry, that's a feature of ANI. If you don't like it, maybe you should stay away from this page."?

Let's be clear what really led to this filing: [235]. The post by MPants on his own talk page of a link to Springee reverting some comments, piped to "Who says Civil POV Pushers can't be a source of comedy?" Followed immediately below by the notice to see here. MPants, you didn't really need to poke that particular beehive, and you should make a little more effort to avoid sounding pissed-off during discussions. Remember what led into the block you had before, and make an extra effort not to get into that place again. Beyond that, there's not much else to see here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Tryp: I didn't post that link. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, that was my mistake. It was an IP, and it was unsigned. But, unsigned, it was easy to mistake it for something you posted, yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean you saw something which purported to be funny but was just generic shit-stirring, and still assumed it was me? I'm hurt, man. I'm real hurt.

I'm gonna go cry in the shower, now.

In all seriousness, I had forgotten about the IP's comment and hadn't followed the link until you mentioned it, but I've reverted it since because there's nothing funny or useful about that. I might have linked the discussion that was removed in that diff if I'd been filing an ANI or AE about Springee, but as far as I'm concerned, the complete loss of my ability to AGF with Springee is where the issue ended. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, do you really still stand by the [comment] about me belonging at Conservapedia, as well as the edit before that, in which you said that This arguing about what the sources say is 100% pure pedantry [...] No-one here is stupid or confused enough to actually believe that, and none of us were born yesterday. If it offends you that Wikipedia should state such a simple, verifiable fact in plain, direct tones, then you should go edit conservapedia, instead. ? I'm still waiting for that apology I asked for, especially given that you still haven't come up with the source I was asking for there, but primarily as a matter of principle. Needless to say, I also object to Tryptofish's glossing over this as if it were not a civility violation at all, or "telling it like it is" (though of course I can forgive them for not reading through that whole acrid talk page discussion in the context of which MjolnirPant's remarks were made). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. And you can wait for an apology all you like. I wouldn't recommend holding your breath, though.

As to the source you claim I haven't provided: Sources were provided that met any reasonable criteria long before I got involved in the discussion. Not my fault that you didn't read the discussion before joining it, yourself. And for the record: I object to your refusal to accept that the null hypothesis is part and parcel of how we report on science and pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apaugasma, you raise valid points. I will say in my own defense that I said "a lot of them" were not incivil, as opposed to all. At the same time, you described MPants as having a "tantrum" in your apology-request diff, so it goes in both directions. Bottom line: there's a general need in these linked discussions for editors to take it down a notch. That doesn't apply exclusively to MPants, but it does apply to MPants. Please, seriously, take it down a notch or two. This isn't sanction-worthy territory, but it does require some introspection. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: you're right that I shouldn't have used the word "tantrum" in my reaction to MjolnirPants comments. However, that doesn't mean there's any parity here between mine and his behavior, as this may seem to suggest. @MjolnirPants: Neither you nor I have brought up the null hypothesis in that discussion, and I'm not really sure if it's relevant. But that doesn't matter at all here. It's perfectly OK for you to believe I'm missing something or to point out why I'm taking the wrong approach, but it's not OK for you to suggest that I belong at Conservapedia just because I don't agree with you on something. There definitely is a pattern with you in that type of reaction. A few months ago in another disagreement between us, you wrote the following: "anti-religionist bias" Why am I not surprised to see this brought up? I swear to the god I stopped believing in decades ago; you people are all reading from the same script. There is no "anti-religionist bias," and even if you found enough religion-hostile atheists to argue the case for it, you'd lose dramatically because Wikipedia has an incredibly pronounced pro-Christian bias [...] that the majority of atheists on this site (including myself) are completely accepting of because, contrary to what you folks seem to believe, we're Atheists, not Antitheists. [...] You've undermined your own position by descending to these pre-packaged, easily-debunked, canned arguments that one can find on any creationist website, complete with detailed instructions on their use. Neither of you were able to make your case with sources and sound logic, your continued attempts to make it through emotional rhetoric is bordering on disruption, at this point. [236] Given the fact that I'm both an atheist and a skeptic (wrt pseudoscience), these kinds of insinuations are particularly bruising. I wish for that to stop. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Previous complaints about this user's incivility: [237] [238] [239]

Note that these are all recent (last few months) and are all filed by different users, so we can't really argue that it's just a group of people working together to get an editor sanctioned (as was asserted the last time this issue was raised).

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 22:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

What this appears to be to me is a veteran editor (MPants) getting exasperated dealing with other editors who appear to not be acting in good faith. For example, the diffs provided show several instances of Springee WP:SEALIONing quotations and not addressing them [240] [241] [242], or ignoring the way that WP:V means that something must be verif-iable, not verif-ied to remain on wikipedia. Springee says The sentence in the article must be supported by the sources that it obviously references (hence WP:V) whereas WP:V actually says: "Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified." There is also the issue of WP:SYNTHNOT, particularly NOTSUMMARY and NOTPRESUMED.

What is clear is that MPants has made one or two mistakes in these diffs, as described by other editors above. civillity mistakes. No one can deny that sometimes MPants plays fast and loose with sarcasm, but he rarely actually crosses the line. For instance, in your first diff, he is theorizing about conduct, he does not directly address any editor. I don't see any other comments here that are explicit enough to be WP:NPA, though I would agree some are just on the wrong side of uncivil. Generally I am willing to forgive one or two civillity mistakes when the editor being so frustrating is so clearly WP:CPUSHing a POV, and exemplifying WP:IDHT. It's very difficult to keep your cool when not everyone is playing by the same rules and actually using PAGs correctly. What MPants needs here is a warning. What Springee needs is a WP:BOOMERANG block for POV-pushing and WP:FORUM shopping.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The editor was Indef'ed. The editor has a long history of blocks due to incivility. Additionally, the claims regarding the original content dispute at Andy Ngo is flat out wrong. It's telling that no editors have supported MPants claims. There has been no POV pushing, no forum shopping. Since you are claiming both please provide the evidence. Springee (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants appealed the indef – successfully. It's telling that Shibbolethink did in fact provide diffs, and yet Springee responded by asking for diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Shibbolethink. MPants is a seasoned editor, and while their attitude and style may not exemplify a "welcome wagon" for the less experienced they still understand not only the rules, but the spirit of the rules, better than most. This knowledge and understanding tends to get in the way of agendas that have little to do with creating better articles or a better community.DN (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Darknipples: not all of those whom MjolnirPants opposes have such agendas. Please consider what I've asked of Shibbolethink below. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants was indef'ed to being with. Shibbolethink provided a diffs but failed to note that I did address the quotes in question. Here [[243]], where I make it clear the VOX quote is something VOX is attributing to activists and the LA times is saying the right wing groups Ngo was with provoked the violence. That is not sufficient sourcing to say that Ngo himself deliberately provoked violence. Shibbolethink claimed CPUSH but if that were the case why did MPants start with a comment that failed CIVIL? Shouldn't that have only occurred after a failed, good faith attempt to address the issue? Why is any of that an excuse for uncivil behavior? Note that Volteer1 also addressed MPant's quotes here [[244]]. Finally, look at how I was able to easily work with FormalDude to find common ground and propose new text to address the problem (look towards the end of the section [[245]]). Disagreement is fine, incivility is not. Springee (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Would this have still been a problem though if you had simply ignored MPants tone and focused on his arguments? Likewise, if MPants hadn't assumed bad faith and raised his tone, would this even be a problem? (And please don't respond with he started it, all editors have a responsibility to exemplify WP:CIVIL at all times.) I think everyone just needs to work on keeping their cool a little more. It's fair to say we can all let disagreements get the better of us from time to time. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: you speak of what I pointed out above as a civility mistake (fair enough), but then go on to to say that you're willing to forgive one or two civility mistakes when the editors involved are engaging in civil POV pushing and being disruptive by refusing to 'get the point'. That seems to imply that you are accusing me of said conduct, which does not seem appropriate if you are not going to prove your point about that. Again, I get that looking into the relevant discussions is a highly unpleasant and time-consuming task, but it would be nice if you made less presumptions about the behavior of other editors. Please understand that if you do not, you are reinforcing the original insults, which I'm sure is not at all your intention. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, actually I haven't looked closely enough at your angle of the dispute to know for sure. Hence why I never used your name in any way in my comment. Please don't assume I'm talking about you when I haven't actually referenced anything about you in any way. I currently have no opinion on your conduct. And don't assume everyone who is supporting MPants in one angle of this discussion automatically disagrees with you, to my eyes it's an example of WP:USTHEM which is a very destructive attitude to have.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I did not and do not assume that you would automatically disagree with me, quite the opposite. I'm just trying to make you aware of the implications it might have to say that MPant's civility mistakes are forgivable because directed at disruptive editors or editors who appear not be acting in good faith. I appreciate that this is your general experience. But there are specific diffs here, and your reaction implies either that you're willing to pass over the insult against me in silence or that I'm a disruptive editor. I'm sure that if you would try to put yourself in my position, you'd see why that feels sour. I do not at all doubt your good intentions in this. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, Why don't you give me some time to review your end of this dispute? The implications you've described are not ones I intended, and I believe that is all I should have to say.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! :-) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know, MPants has always had kind of a whiney and shit attitude. The sealion claims are a little weak as well, I am fairly certain he is an adult that is or should be in control of his own actions. That kind of defense always reminds me of the "if she didn't want to get hit she shouldn't of made me angry" defense. Anyhow all you have to do it look through the archives on any drama board to see his name brought up over and over. This is a long term problem, not an isolated incident. How many warnings and final warns are required exactly? PackMecEng (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  The irony in the above post is almost deafening. Valeince (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• The defense of the comments bother me more than the comments themselves. No, the quoted diffs are not all right. It's not how we should be talking to one another. Levivich 23:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Levivich, I think you may be reading into things when you use the word "defending." I, for one, never said MP's comments were "all right." --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • This statement is defending (and excusing, and accusing other editors of not acting in good faith... like PME said, suggesting that this is a veteran editor exasperated by bad-faith editors is akin to "he wouldn't hit her if she didn't make him so angry"). Levivich 23:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

      Levivich, uhhhhh, it's actually a lot closer to "Person 1 wouldn't get angry and yell if person 2 didn't completely ignore everything person 1 said repeatedly."

      A) making it into a gender thing is unnecessary and wrong on a few different levels.

      B) Both of these people were using their words.

      C) "making MPants angry" is not the same as "repeatedly ignoring policy."

      As I said, MPants' conduct is also plainly problematic in one or two instances, for which he should apologize. I'm not really sure how warning-block escalation works in these circumstances, especially given that the prior block was successfully appealed. But as I said, MPants conduct is problematic, I just don't think it raises to the level of problematic that Springee is displaying here.

      Perhaps most importantly, Springee is breaking the rules in a way that disrupts the process of building a verifiable wikipedia, whereas MPants is hurting some people's feelings in a way that hasn't deterred anyone's participation on the wiki as far as I can tell. Ultimately, that is the community's job, to make sure the project benefits from our actions here at ANI. Not to be "fair." Usually these things coincide, but not always.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I will say that it has slightly (but only slightly!) contributed to my decision to stay away from pseudo-science-related topics in the future. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I have broken no rules here. Which rules do you claim I've broken? Forum shopping? No, I did ask an admin and was told to take it here. CPUSH? On what grounds? WP:V is not something we ignore. If you feel I've violated something please make a case. Springee (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Dlthewave is not an admin [246] [247]. That's WP:CANVAS. As I described above (with diffs and PAG quotes), you directly misapplied WP:V to fit your POV, after continually doubting direct quotes which contradicted your position. That's WP:CPUSH.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, they aren't an admin and they have no ability to directly address the issue which means that wasn't forum shopping. The other person I asked for help is an admin. If you want to dispute the content claims then we can do it on the article talk page. It's notable that I wasn't the only editor who disagreed with MPants. The quotes in the linked articles (note the original edit didn't have those citations) don't support the article level claims. WP:V does apply. If you really want to discuss the content question again, article talk page or WP:NORN where we can decide if the sources support the claim in wiki voice. This was handled civilly by other editors even after MPants made it about editors "lying" Springee (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: MPants is hurting some people's feelings in a way that hasn't deterred anyone's participation on the wiki as far as I can tell – MPants's extreme rudeness towards me in another instance this year, along with the community's disinterest in addressing it, has been the single most deterring thing I've experienced in my three-quarters of a decade here, narrowly beating out one other extremely unpleasant incident that nearly caused me to retire. Whether you intend to or not, the outcome of your comments is that attention is deflected away from a situation that needs addressing and that does cause editor retention problems. I feel Springee is being extremely restrained in their comments about MPants in this thread, whether or not they have acted wrong procedurally/content-wise (not really relevant). (No-one should ping me to this discussion as I am aware of it.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd note that my "extreme rudeness" in that situation consisted of... [checks notes] me pointing out Bilorv's dishonesty and WP:GAMING. Hmmm, there seems to be a pattern here... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• It's always going to stir the pot when you accuse another editor of Wikipedia:Lying, but, as far as I'm aware, there's no policy against doing so. Obviously WP:UNCIVIL exists, and there were certainly comments that could have been worded nicer, but there was nothing flagrant (I don't see any WP:PA). I completely agree with Shibbolethink. Sometimes MPants plays fast and loose with sarcasm, but he rarely (if ever, in my opinion) actually crosses the line. I'm curious what remedy Springee would find ideal, as I certainly don't think anyone deserves a block in this situation. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 23:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A clear warning that such behavior is not acceptable. FOC, not the editors would be fine. So long as the problem stops nothing more is needed. Springee (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I second this: if the problem would stop, nothing more would need to be done. I do think though that this would necessitate some kind of recognition that there is in fact a problem. I was more irked by the I stand behind everything I said in those diffs above than anything else. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This user has been given many warnings and even several blocks and their behaviour, so far as I can tell, has never changed. Maybe no clear warnings, though, as there is always significant whataboutism. (No-one should ping me to this discussion as I am aware of it.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If we warn Mpants about WP:CIVIL we should probably also warn you about WP:GAMING the WP:1RR. Personally I wouldn't bring any issues to AN/i where my own behavior in the matter was not overtly superb. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Where did I game 1RR? Springee (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, since I was pinged, in regards to the BLPN debate, prior to Springee's involvement, I would say that between MPants and myself, this has been mostly a civil, if not heated, debate, and felt no hostility from Mpants myself. I expect from above there may be a history between MPants and Springee that may be affecting how both interact with each other. Arguably, both may be poking at each other, unintentionally or not, but I know the hesitation against an interaction ban. --Masem (t) 00:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall any direct interactions with MPants prior to either the BLPN discussion you are involved with or the specific Andy Ngo discussion topic. Prior to a few days back I only recognized their distinctive signature. I think that was part of why I was so taken aback by their accusations of lying and the like. Most editors are good about trying to understand the other side first and, even in disagreement, not assuming bad faith so quickly. Springee (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Staff incompetence strikes again. Springee's blatantly dishonest behaviour is one of the most disruptive I've ever seen on Wikipedia. This was yet another effort on Springee's part to weaponise ANI to censor critics, YET ANOTHER in which several people note Springee's pattern of bad faith, only for another editor to be sanctioned for pointing out a user's disruptive actions. El_C should be ashamed. Mjolnirpant's "incivility" is owing completely to the bad faith actions of Springee, whose actions are blatantly more toxic than telling the SEALION to shove off. 69.156.107.94 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I am duly shamed, seemingly random IP. El_C 01:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants warned, CR re-added to Andy Ngo

Holy smokes, MPants, you gotta tone it down, pronto. Because you are fast heading for another indef, which would be a sad conclusion to this. Beyond this, I'm re-adding Consensus required to Andy Ngo (will log), added by ST47 along with 1RR in July 7 2019, but supplanted removed by them in Jan 2021 July 9 2019 with EBRD due to "advise" —Awilley, I'm looking at thee!— because I doubt it's helping matters much (also, not reflected on the talk page notice). ST47, please do feel free to undo this AE revert on my part if you feel it to be in error. El_C 01:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Argh, naked 1RR, not EBRD. Apologies, Awilley, for my bad faith hallucinations. El_C 01:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Also fucked up the timeline. Looks like ST47 removed CR two days after having added it, so it was never actually on for this page. I can't read. El_C 01:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems a bit strange just to warn someone who has already been blocked for this exact reason, no? Is having already been blocked not enough of a warning to not do it again? And his comments in this thread suggest that he sees nothing wrong with his behavior and will probably continue to do it. Mlb96 (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I am duly shamed, now from all possible angles! El_C 05:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

:^/ Mlb96 (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm failing to see in what way MPants has been warned, unless you just mean "this message is a warning...", and I don't understand what effect you expect a warning to have when MPants has been warned about the same behaviour many times before, including recently, and has made no change. (No-one should ping me to this discussion as I am aware of it.) — Bilorv (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As long as we are on warnings, Springee should probably have a warning for sealioning, and PackMecEng definitely one for personal attacks on this board ("MPants has always had kind of a whiney and shit attitude"). I see warning PME as especially needful since she was page blocked from our sister board AN for a week a couple of months back (discussion here). I have warned her. Bishonen | tålk 09:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC).

Bish, ah, I missed that PackMecEng usual in the walls of textsts. That's an approve from me. It almost seems as if she will only defend those on the right while attacking those on the left — can you believe such a thing?! On the project, me feigning shock? As for Springee sealioning, I'll leave that in your capable hands and wish you safe travels with that uncharted journey... As for me [cue spam] ♫ I'm sailing away from my heartache, on a Riverboat fantasy... ♫ El_C 11:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait was the personal attack calling him whiney or the shitty attitude? PackMecEng (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

[NPA mode transform!] Mirror, mirror on the wall... El_C 12:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, just looking for your view on it. If you think its a problem El_C I can strike and re-word. PackMecEng (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is another example of a small group of right-wing editors weaponising process in order to reduce opposition to their political advocacy and attempts to whitewash wikipedia. In much the same way when we talk about palestinian response to Israeli aggression, the western world focuses on the *response* not the cause. Here you focus on MPants response to blatant and calculated provocation and not the cause. And the cause is editors sealioning, POV-pushing, misrepresenting sources, and yes, outright falsehoods. And again you focus on the response. Not the editors who when called out for lying, misrepresentation and general badgering, start running to ANI to get the obstacle to their whitewashing removed. We have had to deal with this over a range of topics with Trump supporters, gun nuts, anti-vaxxers, anti-abortionists, pseudoscience loons etc, and its amazing how similar the editors are over the years. And yet we still focus on the response to the relentless wave after wave of POV-editing and deliberate provocation rather than addressing the actual issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• In much the same way when we talk about palestinian response to Israeli aggression, the western world focuses on the *response* not the cause. Was gonna say something dumb about how we need Capt. Pronin to fight against the West again, but my spam quota has probably been filled for today (and for the next few decades). Anyway, not sure there's an actual solution to the perennial problem of civil pov pushing, save for using WP:DR, with a wing and a prayer. El_C 12:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• If this thread doesn't end with some sanction preventing Springee from further gaming and POV pushing, then I'll consider it complete failure of all involved to support WP's goals over the feel-good practice of scolding regular editors for not following proper etiquette.

This situation started with Springee pissing on my leg and telling me it was raining. The lies they told were blatant and obvious, and my response could have been phrased better, but was categorically accurate.

Of those who supported Springee here: we have Bilorv, who had earlier complained that I was uncivil due to my response to their own WP:GAMING and dishonesty. For anyone who needs a refresher on that: Bilorv made two comments on the talk page of an article about a type of joke, ignored the responses to them (except to complain that the joking tone which anyone could reasonably expect on that page was some sort of personal affront and arrogantly boast about their own credentials) then immediately started an RfC whose question was one all involved had already agreed on the answer to. When Bilorv got the same exact answer they'd already gotten before starting the RfC, Bilorv then used that answer to attempt to justify edit warring over a different (if related) issue. That issue itself only got as far as it did due to Bilorv's wild and unjustified (either by evidence or a rational argument) bare assertion that a notable entertainer's blog was actually run by an imposter. Note that this was in contrast to several lines of evidence I'd provided pertaining to the ownership of the blog.

PackMecEng recently had a run in with me at Talk:Fascism#AFD contents, where she got incredibly upset over her failure to understand what I meant by "the content is not verifiable in the source", and made repeated personal attacks and juvenile retorts over it as I tried to explain. The icing on that particular cake was her crowing about how "most people have no idea what [I am] ranting about", which was made as I was having a discussion with someone who very clearly knew damn well what I was saying (considering they said the same thing to Pack, in the form of accusing her of POV pushing, a very reasonable and well-evidenced accusation), about the actual contents of the sources.

Apuagasma's argument above is the funniest so far. Apua is upset because I said "if stating simple verifiable facts plainly offends anyone, they should be editing Conservapedia instead," and they took that as a personal affront and demanded an apology. That really serves more to illustrate Apua's POV than as a condemnation of me, because I doubt many editors disagree with the sentiment I expressed there. Their second comment accuses me of incivility because I responded by explaining clearly that (and why) me and tgeorgescu were not engaged in anti-theistic POV pushing, after Apua accused us of doing so. There's some incivility there, but it ain't mine.

As for The Owner of All: well, see my statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_MjolnirPants.

There's a common thread here. FUD. Users making wildly untrue claims without evidence or logic behind them, then using those claims as a bludgeon to argue that WP should not report easily verifiable facts. In Bilorv's case, I have no doubt this had nothing to do with POV pushing, and was more of a knee-jerk hostile reaction to two editors not taking them as seriously as they hoped, but for Pack, Springee and TOA; their POV (which is at odds with reality and WP's documentation on countless subjects) is very clear, and their efforts very clearly made to advance that POV.

So if you want to warn me about toning it down: Gotcha. I understand, I don't even disagree. I could have handled it better. But if you think that's the end of the matter: You're dead wrong. We have a serious problem here in the form of editors who are deliberately attempting to undermine WP's mission to provide an accurate and verifiable encyclopedia, and turn it into a right-wing propaganda tool. If nobody's willing to look into that and do something about that, then I'm not sure what business you have being admins, as you're clearly not looking out for the best interests of this project.

And El C; Now you've been shamed from all possible angles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No boobs, no credits! El_C 12:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So basically WP:NOTTHEM? PackMecEng (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Oof, PME, the point that seems to be lost on you is that you do much the same thing (albeit much more tersely). [Self-awareness mode engage!] El_C 13:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Go go gadget introspection!

Honestly, though, this is just par for the course for Pack and Springee and other right-wing POV pushers: they literally ignore the things that don't fit their narrative (I spoke about myself in my first and last paragraphs, and provided evidence of their malfeasant editing, here at ANI where they damn well know their own behavior is fair game) and focus on twisting what's left to suit their narrative even better.

This is a much worse problem than incivility, and even if it weren't, there's plenty of incivility to go around. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants incivility this started with you opening a talk page discussion that attacked any editors (not specifically me) who disagreed with you ([248], "...anyone who can't see [this] doesn't belong on this project"). You didn't start by asking why editors might disagree, and only getting frustrated after a failed good faith discussion. No, you assigned a cynical motive and reason and which allowed you to justify your admittedly uncivil behavior. You poisoned the discussion and are now complaining that it wasn't "good faith". You did the same to me in the BLPN Wakefield discussion where my arguments largely echo Masem's. Again, you decided uncivil, dismissive comments were appropriate. And here you are continuing the incivility with comments like, "The lies they told..." Where does CIVIL make these exceptions? Springee (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You know what? I don't really think I need to justify myself to someone who lies repeatedly to facilitate POV pushing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants, negative. If you can't help cutting off your nose to spite your face, best to say nothing. Final warning. El_C 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MPants, I was an editor at the center of the Gamergate situation, one fighting there for a more neutral approach on a nuanced subject, and was routinely being lumped into the numerous body of IP, new accounts, or recently revived accounts that were clearly meatpuppeting "gamergate supporters"; this lumping-in was simply because I did not want to take an absolute "gamergate is bad" approach but try to find a way to write per NPOV (hence why I debate strongly on such points at the current BLPN thread), and thus completely trying to treat my input in bad faith, which it was not. GG predicted the situation round many many right-wing-leaning figures today, in terms of meatpuppetry and constant IP/new editors demanding a neutrality that can never be achieved, but that doesn't mean those articles are in an untouchable state to be questioned for neutrality ourselves.

I know in the case of Springee they have been far more bold with how they edit than I have, but based on my experience from the GG situation, the fact that these comments place them and others mentioned into this class of "editors who are deliberately attempting to undermine WP's mission to provide an accurate and verifiable encyclopedia" is assuming bad faith on their part, compared to the typical body of IP and new editors that come to bitch about certain topics with no understanding of how our policies work. All these discussions are related to nuances of our core content policies, covering situations that, in my opinion, were not anticipated by the current state of social conflict in the world and the media. To that end, we are going to have disagreements, but this is expected, normal, and part of consensus building, so it should be expected editors are working in good faith here. Once you presume bad faith, that's where things break down, and only looking at the diffs given and convos around it, that's part of the issue is that you presume these editors are working bad faith.

That is not to say that Springee is not at fault here, I think they're operating a bit too bolding and fighting certain battles that have been settled already, that's towards a more WP:TE problem, and can contribute towards the appearance of working in bad faith, and they need work at steps to stop beating dead horse among other factors. But I see their general concern is the same issues related to neutrality (broadly) in how we cover contemporary people/groups on that side of the middle, which is a fair concern to be raising, and thus assuming they are purposely working against the purpose of the encyclopedia is not a helpful stance to start with. This is all meant as advice and nothing actionable yet from any admin standpoint. --Masem (t) 14:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Masem, paragraph breaks = friend. El_C 14:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

added a few --Masem (t) 14:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Masem, follow the diffs I provided at the top of this thread.

Springee claimed that two sources don't support content that had the same meaning and even used the same words as the sources themselves, for the purpose of avoiding an obviously-appropriate self-revert. I was assuming good faith right up until that point, past which, WP:PACT became the applicable essay. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Without getting too much into the content issue there, I think there's some validity to Springee's concern there as the sources use those words but not in that order nor in the same sentence, but I also think there's a middle ground for what that sentence should say given the sources. This is a similar concern at our discussion at BLPN, related to calling out people "conspiracy theorist" when the sourcing is not as readily there. But this is well beyond the ANI issue. Simply that automatically defaulting to bad faith may be blinding you to actual valid points that are raised - not that Springee's solutions are the correct ones either. --Masem (t) 16:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To that end, several editors, myself included, have been working to find that middle ground [249] <- Single brackets to avoid El_C's bracket block Springee (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Masem, if you have some commentary on how one could reasonably assume that the Vox piece was (or the BFN, or the LA Times pieces were) asserting that Ngo provokes anything other than violence from Antifa (curious what that might be... Sick dance moves? Strongly-worded emails?), feel free to chime in at my talk page.

Who knows, maybe you can convince me that I was right from the get go, and this is less a case of Springee being deliberately dishonest (even though I'm very clearly not the only one who thinks so), and more a case of them being just completely clueless as I first suspected.

P.S. How different is that "middle ground" from what was originally in the article? The original claim was that "It has been contended that Ngo seeks to provoke left-wing violence." Compare that to the last substantive comment by Springee where he supports a wording because "It also makes it clear that he is directly provoking the left-wing activists to violence".

When there's one editor disagreeing, whether or not Ngo is provoking violence is "not supported" by the sources claiming that he's provoking violence. But now that Springee knows that there are eyes on their editing, it's important to "make clear that [Ngo] is directly provoking ... violence."

That doesn't evince an inability to understand the sources, or even a legitimate disagreement about the implications of what the sources say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Look, everyone, I hate to beat a dead ass, but disputes involving the major AE food groups (AP2, EE/BALKANS, ARBPIA, ARBIPA) have a much greater chance of resolving something (anything) at WP:AE. I used to sort of except AP2 from the mix, since there's tons of American editors so at least the subject matter will tend to be somewhat digestible to the average ANI reviewer. But probably not, either. The free-flowing, word-limitless threaded discussion at ANI just becomes too difficult to follow at some point. I suppose there's a not statistically-insignificant chance that someone may be driven by the heated nature of the conversation to do or say something truly egregious, but I wouldn't count on it. BTW, Springee, your OPs both at ANI and AE seem to always be way too lengthy. Please work on condensing, in general. El_C 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

El C If you're suggesting that expressing my well-evidenced view that Springee has engaged in blatant dishonesty for the sake of POV pushing is a personal attack, then we're going to be at odds here. As far as I'm concerned, that's a verifiable fact, and not one person has done so much as denied it, let alone made any case that it's not true. It's also not a view that's exclusive to me, as Bishonen, Only in death and Shibolethink have made clear.

If you're suggesting I change something about how I express that view, then I'm listening, but you'll need to be more specific. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants, I am telling you (not suggesting) to stop referring to "lying" and "dishonesty" on the part of editors in good standing. If you're trying to push me to sanction you so that you could fall on your sword, I'm un-happy to oblige, I guess. Otherwise, it's fine to express (and substantiate) that their reasoning is faulty. An article talk page is not the place to make a case for WP:TE. Hope that clears things up. El_C 14:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

El C, message received, but as best I can tell, we're not at article talk. Note that Springee's behavior in this very thread is more of the same: Shibolethink made a comment supporting my claims and accusing them of sealioning with plenty of diffs for evidence ([250]), to which Springee responded by (drum roll...) claiming no-one has supported my claims and demanding diffs ([251]). To be clear: I am explicitly asking for a boomerang here for POV pushing and blatant dishonesty. Also you can apparently add Dlthewave to the list of editors who agree with my claims here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Not the sword, you say, MPants, while unsheathing your sword. That is special, I'll grant you that. But I do take your point that Springee's "It's telling that no editors have supported MPants claims" is also quite high on the bizarro scale... El_C 15:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Am I to interpret the limits of your response to mean you don't take issue with Springee demanding diffs in response to being shown diffs? Or their backfiring attempt to WP:CANVASS another editor? Or their demonstrably and obviously false statements about the sources to which I provided diffs earlier? Or the WP:STONEWALLing that Dlthewave brought up on another issue?

I mean, I'm still waiting for someone to even disagree with any of my claims about Springee, here, or elsewhere. Some editors here have very clearly agreed with them, but nobody's disputing them.

You've got multiple editors, including a fellow admin telling you that Springee's behavior is a serious problem, and you've got diffs to evince that. How is acting on that of lesser import than continuing to repeat a warning I've already acknowledged multiple times while threatening me with worse?

I'll tell you plainly: you're not accomplishing anything worthwhile by repeating yourself to me. I've already acknowledged that I should have been more circumspect, and said I would endeavor to do so in the future. All you're accomplishing by continuing to harp on this while ignoring what 5-6 other editors have said about Springee here is convincing me that you care more about my tone that this project's core principles. I'd rather not believe that about an admin, but when my beliefs are based on what I'm seeing from you, it's hard to deny them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll tell you plainly, too, MPants: I'm trying to reason with both of you. If it's not working, it's not working. If you wish to disparage me, I suppose that is an approach, as well. But I do contend that my record speaks for itself. And with that, I'll leave all of you to your own devices, for now. El_C 15:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disparaging you, I'm describing my own reaction to what you're saying here. As for trying to reason with "both of [us]", would you care to point me to where you've tried to reason with Springee? I seem to have missed it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No. El_C 16:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is literally the exact same behaviour you were reprimanded for by Girth Summit in the ANI discussion I opened in June, for instance in this diff: I thought I'd made my opinion clear that MPants' accusations of lying were unfair, unnecessary, and needed to stop. I gather Barkeep49 also thought such comments were uncivil. While I apologised in that discussion for the actions I took which were wrong, you never did so, instead continuing to accuse me of lying, and being inhumanly stupid or manipulative up until your last comment (which you've repeated above), and making thinly-veiled snipes about me even after I had fully disengaged. So I really don't understand what El_C thinks a warning does, or how someone can be "fast heading for an indef" when they've evidently done the same thing for months and had no consequences for it. (No-one should ping me to this discussion as I am aware of it.) — Bilorv (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, I made multiple efforts to smooth things over with you there, despite your own incredibly poor behavior. I'm really not interested in continuing to argue about it with you, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's entirely possible if I had the time to read through this thread I would be sanctioning MPants. I see El C has given a clear warning about behavior not to do, which echoes the concerns I had and warning I gave at the thread Bilorv mentions. That said I agree with MPants that they did try to smooth things over in the end and that effort was not accepted. I am glad to see that there is no desire to continue arguing about it here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

*Arb mic drop!* El_C 15:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know how I can be any clearer, Barkeep49, that I don't want to be pinged to this thread. I am watching and replying. You don't need to read through the thread. Reading the OP's initial set of diffs, such as [252], would suffice. — Bilorv (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I apologize as I missed the small parenthetical remark prior to composing my original reply. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Making accusations isn't uncivil, in fact lying is the uncivil behavior we should be looking into here. That said, MPants really needs to tone it down a notch and consider using more informative language (It's inaccurate to say X because ...) if they want to have a productive discussion.

We need to look at the entirety of the issue though. There's a long-running pattern of whitewashing at the Andy Ngo article, with several editors (including Springee) challenging any negative or critical content no matter how reliably sourced it may be. For example, here we have an extremely long discussion over whether we should use "widely accused" or "frequently accused", with the objecting editors making no apparent effort to suggest an alternative. This really reads like a filibuster to keep WP:DUE content out by preventing the discussion from reaching consensus. I'm worried that the current discussion may be headed the same direction. If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering. –dlthewave ☎ 14:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Ooh, nuanced incivility, touché. Though probably undermined by the bold-is-hurting-my-eyes, the-goggles-do-nothing at the end. Guess whose patience has been strained? I am, of course, referring to Mlb96! El_C 14:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oh dear, you must've gotten a bad pair of anti-bold goggles. Is this easier on the eyes?

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

–dlthewave ☎ 15:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Man, woke up with a killer headache this morning. It is not abating. El_C 16:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Huh? Why am I being referenced here? Did I do something wrong? Mlb96 (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I guess the joke didn't land. El_C 23:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that my POV "is at odds with reality", please stop the false statements. The Non-Aggression Principle is definitely not at odds with reality. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• A short time back I commented at an RfC at Talk:Andy Ngo and it ended up on my watchlist. I checked back when I saw this discussion. I was absolutely shocked to see MPants' conduct there. And I am shocked again to see a few editors defending it here. Above an editor states, MPants is a seasoned editor,...they still understand not only the rules, but the spirit of the rules, better than most. That's all the more damning. I agree that they know enough to know WP:NPA#WHATIS: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views...Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden....Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Above they admit no wrongdoing and no intention of changing edit: I do not see commitment to avoiding this specific behavior, saying things like, Yeah, I do. And you can wait for an apology all you like. Are people claiming MPants hasn't engaged in personal attacks? Or that they have but the other person deserved it? What policy permits that? Why should they be let off the hook yet again for this behavior? Quoting the NPA policy again: A pattern of hostility...can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks...may face serious consequences through arbitration, and of course non-arbitration consequences exist. There is absolutely a "pattern of hostility" from this editor against those they perceive as right wing. (Presumably they and their defenders perceive themselves as unaffected by political bias.) Such toxic behavior keeps people from engaging in the topic area, including ones on their own side. A useful thought experiment would be to imagine a random newish editor or one perceived as right-leaning acting this way. Would we each feel the same way? If all they get is a warning, I want to see a commitment from MPants not to make any reference to the supposed political views of other editors and not to disparage any other editors as lacking in intelligence or in any other way. This is frankly the bare minimum behavioral standard on Wikipedia and does not restrict meaningful debate, and there needs to be some progress on this issue so we don't keep ending up back here over and over. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Edit: Regarding changes above, see below. I have more accurately conveyed my feelings while correcting an overstatement. Fair is fair. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem in this situation, and situations like these, is that--a few vocal defenders aside--everybody else is basically thinking the same thing: this won't stop unless we totally ban MPants from the site. Everyone (almost) will agree it's bad, but bad enough to boot him from the site altogether? Most admins will be understandably reluctant to take such a step unilaterally against a veteran editor absent something truly egregious (and let's all recall that the last time, a comment along the lines of go f yourself with an object covered in hot sauce and sandpaper, was not universally considered egregious enough for a site ban, so there's our frame of reference for "egregious"). Most editors will understandably be reluctant to vote for a site ban for the same reasons (myself included). It's the pickle we're always in. Springee knows this, it comes across in the defeatist tone of his posts. MPants knows this too and is openly gambling on it (despite that the last time he gambled, he lost). What's to be done? I don't know, outsource it to the WMF via UCOC seems to be the best idea anyone has come up with so far, and that's kinda sad but true. Levivich 17:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Levivich, I really think you're drawing a consensus where one does not exist...taking tea leaves and making Monet's Water Lilies. a few vocal defenders aside--everybody else is basically thinking the same thing: this won't stop unless we totally ban MPants from the site. It certainly appears that you think that. But it does not appear that the patrolling admins or many other commenting editors here think that.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    Hey crossroads, you were saying something about editors who are universally hostile to those with opposing political views? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

    No idea what this means. Is this an attack on Levivich, accusing me of hypocrisy, or what? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

    I'd like to think that the OG and largest Wikipedia is in fact not such a dumpster fire that we need the WMF to handle our internal affairs. Ultimately the bad behavior has to stop, that's my baseline. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  Above they admit no wrongdoing and no intention of changing,

  There is absolutely a "pattern of hostility" from this editor against those they perceive as right wing.

  Both of those are demonstrably, trivially false claims.

  and there needs to be some progress on this issue so we don't keep ending up back here over and over. I love how some people love to point out that I've been frequently reported here, but they always decline to look into the results of those reports, or ask themselves any difficult questions about the editors who've reported me here.

  There's a whole lot of "indefinitely blocked per..." notes on the talk pages of editors who've reported me. And there's a whole lot of "nothing sanctionable here" in the results of the threads bearing my name, but god forbid you acknowledge that basic fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  If that "Above [you] admit no wrongdoing and no intention of changing" is a "demonstrably, trivially false claim", then it is trivial for you to show me where you did so. I'll strike it if you find it. And as for your past reports? The results of past reports do not absolve subsequent behavior. And they haven't all been dismissed, as your block log testifies. Whether getting off the hook over and over again is an endorsement of your behavior or an indictment of Wikipedia's accountability systems is also debatable.

  Above I said, "I want to see a commitment from MPants not to make any reference to the supposed political views of other editors and not to disparage any other editors as lacking in intelligence or in any other way." You ignored this. Are you willing to commit to this? If not, why not? And if you can't, how is this not a claim that WP:NPA does not apply to you? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  If that "Above [you] admit no wrongdoing and no intention of changing" is a "demonstrably, trivially false claim", Here's four times in this thread I did what you falsely claimed I've "refused" to do ([253], [254], [255], [256]).

  Also, Atsme and Masem are two right-wing editors whom I'm extremely fond of, and there are countless others with whom I take no issue at all, including Mr. Ernie and Power~enwiki. Politics doesn't bother me and never really has: I have quite a few conservative and libertarian beliefs myself. But you know what bothers me? POV pushing. Dishonesty. Gaming the system. Undermining this project's core principles.

  As for a further "commitment": No. I've already said what I had to say in that regards. I'm not kowtowing to demands that I beg forgiveness in a situation in which an editor who made an obvious attempt to undermine this project's goals is walking away without so much as a warning. That's complete bullshit.

  I responded poorly to some obvious POV pushing, and the result is a bunch of editors whining about my tone and pretending that there's nothing more to worry about here, meanwhile me and several others keep pointing to the giant elephant in the room, screaming "pachyderm!" while you and the rest of that ilk plug your ears.

  Fuck that nonsense. I care more about this project than I do about my block log, and I've already proven that I'll happily take a block if it means I can do something to remove a bad faith actor from our roster of editors. If me continuing to argue for sanctions against Springee here bothers you, then I'd suggest you reflect on what's really more important; our ability to accurately document the subjects of our articles, or your personal feelings about etiquette? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  Add me to the list of users who agree that at least a "warning" boomerang would justified here. After finding this discussion, I have just spent hours catching up on the last six months of the Andy Ngo Talk page, and the POV pushing pattern is obvious. It's "assume good faith", AGF, and not "assume good faith and keep the assumption up even long after it has been refuted", AGDAKTAUELAIHBR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Moved by me from section below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Just edit conflicted with Tryptofish Gosh - this is a long thread. Don't have time to read it all in detail, responding to the ping above. I will say this though: MPants at work, if you come to the conclusion that someone is filibustering, stonewalling, being intentionally obtuse, flat-out lying, generally editing tendentious, there are things that you can do about that, whether that's getting more opinions on the content matter, or reporting the other editor at an appropriate noticeboard. What you shouldn't do is accuse them of lying on an article talk page - we tell newbs that all the time, they are for discussing content, not contributors or their behaviour.

I can't think of a situation where calling someone a liar is going to be productive in any way. They're very unlikely to say 'ah, shit, you got me, have it your way'. If you're wrong, and they are not lying, they will justly be upset and get angry, and productive discussion will become impossible. If you are right, and they are lying, they will be only too delighted that you have handed them a stick to beat you with. I think it would be helpful if you were to accept that calling someone a liar on an article talk page isn't appropriate even if you know for a fact that they are lying, and commit not to doing that again. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, you have once again managed to phrase something in the most reasonable way I've seen, in a thoroughly unreasonable situation. If you look at my response to Crossroads above, you'll see where I highlighted four instances in which I've already acknowledged that I went too far, and I'm not distancing myself from that now.

But what I'm continuing to do here is to argue for a boomerang. I've provided diffs that show very clearly that Springee was engaged in bad-faith behavior, and so far, Bishonen is the only admin to acknowledge that, despite several other users agreeing with me. If it'll help, I'll re-post the diffs (and provide others that evince a long-term problem with POV pushing). I just want an admin to do something that improves this project because frankly, I knew before this thread had started that I needed to tone down my response to Springee. If all that comes of this is a focus entirely upon my behavior, then this thread has been a giant waste of time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Not warranted. Making talk page arguments that some disagree with isn't sanctionable, even if it is thought that these align with a certain POV. I've seen this stuff before. POV pushing as an offense requires actual misbehavior, and I haven't seen that above or in the past. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You've seen editors claim that a source that says X doesn't support the claim X in order to whitewash a disreputable figure, and you don't take any issue with that, or consider it POV pushing? Wow. That's a shockingly naïve position to take, but you're entitled to your views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Even single words can be very important, per MOS:WTW. There can also be good faith disagreements over what a source is actually saying. Perhaps a source attributes a claim rather than saying it in their own voice. So must we, then. The claim that is allegedly supported could be too strongly worded. Or the sources used for it can be less reliable for the subject (like, why are people trying to cite music and pop culture magazines on political topics). I see no reason to impute bad faith and I'm not letting myself get sidetracked here further. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• If you think that someone is intentionally misrepresenting the sources or otherwise arguing tendentiously, and you can prove that, take it to WP:AE and lay out a careful, measured case there - as El_C pointed out above, the entire AP2 topic area is under DS. I don't think anything further constructive is going to come out of this mess of an ANI discussion at this point (and FWIW at least one of the other editors involved has been warned, so it's already boomeranged.) Nobody is going to read or be able to follow this massive discussion at this point unless they're already involved. --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Amid this wall of text, I'd like to quote some portions of MPants' comments in this section:

• "I've already acknowledged that I should have been more circumspect, and said I would endeavor to do so in the future."
• "Bilorv, I made multiple efforts to smooth things over with you there..."
• "I responded poorly to some obvious POV pushing..."
• "...frankly, I knew before this thread had started that I needed to tone down my response to Springee."

I fully acknowledge that I am WP:Cherrypicking those quotes, and they each appear within their own contexts. No question. But, whether or not MPants has it in him to point it out, I think these are things that should not be ignored. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Enough

At this point, this has become one of those ANI walls of text that are visible from outer space. I thank El C for attempting to wrap this up, and regret that it didn't work.

It's time for both MPants and his accusers to stop trying to get the WP:LASTWORD.

There's an awful lot of if an ANI thread stays open long enough, every editor with a grudge will show up going on here. What we have, in brief, are a lot of people (note: not everyone) who have acted suboptimally. So there are too many accusations here (note: not all of them) that are made with unclean hands.

But, that said, MPants, you really need to dial it down. El C "warned" you in plain English, and was right to do so. If you don't want to listen to him, then please listen to me. You are not helping your case by trying to refute every single thing directed at you. You are responsible for some of this, even if some others are even more so. WP:2WRONGS applies here. I know you have personal reasons that can make it harder for you to judge the emotional content of comments, but please hear me when I say that you are accumulating a history that has the potential to lead to another indef – even though we are not there now. If you find yourself editing in topics where the conflicts make you angry, or stressed, or fed up with other editors, then it's time to edit in more peaceful areas – that's something I've been learning about myself from my own personal experience.

MPants, please just acknowledge that you can, and should, and will, do better going forward. You don't have to claim that you have always been right. Acknowledge that there are concerns, and let us all move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish's sentiment about the overlong subsection above, but I feel that we're not yet done here. Here's why: MPants has said to me things like that you should go edit conservapedia [257] and (after a quite reasonable reply to this [258]) that if you don't care to be directed to conservapedia, then perhaps you should stop arguing as if you better belong there [...] I've seen more than one long-term, experienced editors indeffed over their inability to neutrally interpret sources. [259] On an earlier occasion, he also said things like that You've undermined your own position by descending to these pre-packaged, easily-debunked, canned arguments that one can find on any creationist website, complete with detailed instructions on their use and that your continued attempts to make it through emotional rhetoric is bordering on disruption [260].

This is not "playing fast and loose with sarcasm" (as some have suggested above), but plain personal attacks, and I have expressed my wish for this to stop at this ANI thread.

MPants response [261]: Apuagasma's argument above is the funniest so far and There's some incivility there, but it ain't mine. His rationale for this response is that my indignation serves more to illustrate Apua's POV than as a condemnation of me, because I doubt many editors disagree with the sentiment I expressed there.

Indeed, many in the long thread above have claimed that MPants only lashes out against POV-pushers, Trump supporters, pseudoscience loons, etc. I cannot help but feel that letting him claim that he can say to me what he said because I am pushing pseudoscience or creationist nonsense, amounts to a confirmation by the community that this is indeed likely to be the case. I mean, of course those who are familiar with my edits will know better (and I invite everyone to examine the context in which MPants said those things, and/or ask me about it at my talk), but it still feels like a personal smear that should not be allowed to pass.

If he just thinks it's funny and that it's all just due to my POV then there is no guarantee at all that this will stop, rather the opposite. I think that if his attitude about this does not change right here on this ANI thread, some kind of more forceful action must be taken. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that he should not have called what you said "funny", and I don't think that he should have personalized it at all. But at the same time, I did note just above the section break that he has been acknowledging more than what some of his critics are saying he has. Like you, I wish he would acknowledge this more definitively, but I also think that you may be too determined to get him to specifically acknowledge you. I think that if everyone keeps trying to get the WP:LASTWORD, all that will happen is that uninvolved editors will stop paying any attention to this thread. But yes, I'd like to see MPants make it clearer that he hears what people are telling him here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been reluctant to say anything for exactly that WP:LASTWORD reason (it's a temptation that I know I'm weak to), but I think MPants' last response to Apuagasma in one of the threads linked above was fairly mature and conciliatory: In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that the battleground mentality that has resulted in literally every single imposition of discretionary sanctions on a topic originated with two editors calling each other biased. [...] Now that that's said, I'd like to apologize for the tone I took the first time I addressed this. I should have been more decorous in responding, explaining myself more fully and explaining that I'm still willing to discuss any other topic. I most likely gave off a much more heated impression than was true, owing to my brevity and emphatic delivery, and that's not the case. [262]. That seems about as good a conclusion to a heated spat as I've seen in these parts. Other than that, I think Tryptofish's latest comment expresses my thoughts as well as I could. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I also spent some time looking at the Shiatsu talk page discussion, and while I don't want to get bogged down in the content aspects here, it does look to me like there were multiple editors on both "sides" speaking heatedly at one another. I think Apuagasma was consistently polite, but there were multiple editors strongly criticizing some of Apuagasma's points, so it's really not like MPants was the only one doing that. It's just that MPants is the only one named as the target of this ANI. I do think the quote found by XOR'easter is very significant here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: thanks for looking into that. Yes, it was a difficult discussion, and actually I have said some things there (to other editors) that I now regret, but no one there posted anything even approaching MPants' tone. There's a difference between somewhat heated and outright personal attack, and only MPants crossed that line (or rather, made a run and took a big leap over it).

@XOR'easter: true, but there was also another editor in that discussion to whom MPants had said that undermining the widely accepted dating- absolutely reeks of fundamentalist bias, and is a textbook example of the wedge strategy, popularized in a different topic that fundamentalists also get up in arms about [263], who responded to the conciliatory post you just quoted with I didn't appreciate the references to fundamentalist bias, but apology accepted. [264] Guess what MPants' response to this editor was? I wasn't apologizing to, or even speaking to you. [265]. Crossroads already quoted the relevant portions from what constitutes a WP:PA: using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing and accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. These clearly apply to all the diffs I've given. Since he apologized at least to me, I've been at (very) good terms with him during the past months. But just here in this thread he said that for his latest lash-out I can wait for an apology all I want. I appreciate that this refusal is largely because of the context here, but I'm really quite sure that you as well as Tryptofish would not be saying what you are if you were in my position, or in the position of those to whom MPants is likely to lash out again in the future if something is not done. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Please note that my user name is spelled Apaugasma (though Apau is fine too).

If it will be of any benefit (I am not sure), I want to endorse Tryptofish's advice to MjolnirPants at the beginning of this subsectuon. MPants, if you are actually correct about what is best for this encyclopedia, then you will be most effective by advocating your points calmly, clearly and referring back constantly to policies, guidelines and what high quality reliable sources say about these issues. Sarcasm, hostility, bitterness and a confrontational tone are counterproductive. That tone hurts your case. It does not help it at all. How can you advocate for your view of what is best for the encyclopedia if you are again indefinitely blocked? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, you have made your points. Repeating them over and over does not make them more persuasive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't feel Apaugasma's points were repetitive. The points, quotes, and diffs in this section were new and directly in response to others' comments above. Levivich 02:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You know what, I think you're both right! Cullen's point is well-taken, and Levivich's support much appreciated :-) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the letter-transposition; I think I was looking at a misspelled instance, and my fingers just copied it. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No, seriously, enough

On second thought, let’s not go to ANI. ‘Tis a silly place. jps (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Like. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! El_C 08:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is, indeed, no basis for a system of government. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Aquatic? No need to insult fishes here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"Help, I'm being oppressed..." - jc37 23:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Nor the lake ladies who sleep with them, verily. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP range 88.232.168.0/21 and 85.107.107.46/21 continued disruptive editing of football articles

I believe all edits under the two IP ranges is the same editor as they do the same disruptive edits on football related articles. The edits will either increase the size of the non-free logo in the infobox, will edit the dates on the establishment or dissolvement of the club, or just remove information about the club. You can see this has been an ongoing thing using a range of IP numbers, so was hoping there maybe a way to topic ban from football articles or some other way to discourage the IP from these edits? — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked both ranges. Looking at the contributions, all of their edits going back a few months have been reverted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Topic-ban violation by user 'BunnyyHop'?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In March 2021, the user 'BunnyyHop'[266] was given a 6-month topic-ban for "Marxism/Leninism, broadly construed". Earlier today (five months or so after the ban onset), the editor made these edits to the page for Cuba[267][268]. The edits are made in an article for a country with a Marxist-Lenist regime and ideology, and the specific content that the editor is removing is explicitly about the Marxist-Leninist regime of Cuba (the editor is removing peer-reviewed academic descriptions of the Cuban regime). The editor explicitly mentions 'Soviet and Communist Studies' on the talk page, which shows that the editor is aware that the content in question pertains to Marxism-Leninism. Several questions:

1. This surely falls under the topic ban?
2. In fact, isn't it precisely what the user was topic-banned for in the first place: whitewashing Marxism-Leninism as an ideology and whitewashing Marxist-Leninist regimes?
3. Doesn't this (coupled with the fact that the editor has barely edited anything else during the topic ban duration) suggest that the user has not learned any lessons from the topic ban and intends to immediately resume the tendentious single-purpose editing on Marxism-Leninism when the ban expires? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this falls under the topic ban. No opinion about 2, but the topic ban must be extended (technically, made indefinite with an appeal not earlier than 6 months).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of their topic ban. Based on their comment on their talk page, the editor seems to think that August is six months after March, instead of September. I think the topic ban should be indefinite, appealable after six months, and that the specific date should be mentioned when the topic ban is extended. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, Snooganssnoogans, there you go: if Ymblanter and Cullen328 agree it is, then that's what it is! Drmies (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? I think we often have similar opinions. I would easily name a dozen of users I would be surprised to agree with, but certainly not Cullen328.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because I disagreed with Ymblanter on one matter yesterday does not mean that we disagree all the time. I think Ymblanter does good work almost all the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Y'all are reading way too much into this. I had no idea you were disagreeing on something. The point is that if two experienced admins think it's a violation, it's likely a violation. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I overlooked the amount of time the topic ban was; I thought it had ended two days ago. It wouldn't make sense for me to wait five out of six months and violate that the topic ban. Nonetheless, I think you're stretching it a little bit, but that's something the community can clarify. If I was topic banned from liberalism/conservatism, editing the page of such countries, even if it related to repression, would definitely be difficult to declare if it is under the topic ban. This only qualifies if you suppose that the more broad guiding ideology of a country is directly related to that country or the content in question. If one believes that ideology is related, it would be within the topic ban; if not, it would be outside. There's no consensus in RS about this.

Nonetheless, I am astonished at how you're describing my comment here. I didn't "remove peer-reviewed academic descriptions". I reverted content to the status quo (before your addition) because I found many problems when I was checking the sources, and I pointed those problems out on the talk page, as per your diff, so we could discuss them. I'm not going to describe them, but they can be found here. If you believe that my verification of sources is "tendentious", I don't know why you say concretely where the tendentiousness is, instead of assuming that as true based on my topic ban. I made an effort to have much better collaborative behavior now that I thought my topic-ban was over, by being concise and not having any WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:WINNING behavior. I tried to create a healthy discussion by concretely pointing out problems I found in sources and what different reliable sources say, but it's a bit disheartening to think that my topic ban might influence the will of other users to try to build consensus, or that I'm on a mission to "whitewash" stuff when I simply want to abide the neutrality rules in an environment prone to systemic bias, which made in the past my approach towards editing less cooperative; something I now understand clearly and really want to avoid, because it's truly not the best way to neutrality. It's going to be grievous for me if my neglectful time counting results in a larger topic ban. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The topic ban says "broadly construed" and you are trying to construe it narrowly. Your comment at Talk: Cuba is an unambiguous violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Because there are just so many Marxist-Leninist -leaning editors running amok, we should definitely come down extra hard here. Terrorism cancelled! El_C 18:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Also, I'd submit that bunny-hopping is super-cheap. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but when I have my trusty TMP, no jumpity-jumpity needed. El_C 19:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• At this point, everyone just ignores my antics. I respect that. El_C 19:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. It's up to the banned user, and only the banned user, to respect the stated bounds of the topic ban, which was "all articles related to Marxism/Leninism". It's not "difficult to declare" at all: Cuba is a Marxist-Leninist country -> you edited the article about it -> you violated the ban. Someone said this better than me a long time ago, but when you're topic-banned, you don't go around testing the edges of the ban to see if anyone notices or what you can get away with, you steer well clear of the topic, such that if anyone says you violated it, we'd call them a fool. I think you made an honest mistake here with respect to the timeline of the ban, I'm an accountant and I count months wrong all the time, but from your own words you knew that this would have been a violation of your ban if it were still in effect, which in fact it was.

I suggest as resolution that the ban be made indefinite, and appealable at any time after the original duration (roughly one month from now). In other words, in order to avoid confusion, your ban will not expire, you will need to convince the community that it is no longer necessary. Does that seem reasonable? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this might work.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

When Drmies decided my sentence, he said he didn't want to make it resemble capital punishment, and gave me a second chance, in a time when disputes were long and ugly. I'm very grateful for your understanding and reasonable proposal. I'm going to use the appeal in a month because I'm ready to start anew, with the same cooperative spirit I had when I first commented on the country's talk page :) --BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• My concern is that BunnyyHop made a handful of edits between 5 and 10 march immediately following their TBAN, and was then inactive until their return - on the day they believed their TBAN finished - to jump right back into editing in the area from which they were TBAN'd. They certainly haven't done much to suggest they have any interest in contributing to any other area of the encyclopedia except the area from which they were banned. They note (above) that the original TBAN included an appeal option after 3 months because it wasn't designed to function as "capital punishment" (eg. killing their contribution generally just because of topic-specific sanctions). But their own decision to take a wiki-break effectively turned a TBAN into a BLOCK. That's their choice, but a single-minded focus like that is likely to make a ban appeal very challenging and so the above solution (while well-meaning) may have unintended consequences. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is apparently an accidental TBAN violation, but it is certainly a violation. When a topic-ban is imposed, the intention is that the time away from the topic area will lead the editor to improve their skill at constructively editing the project, or to contribute in other areas. However, sometimes, what happens is simply delaying the disruption. Some editors simply stay away from the project until the ban expires, and that is not encouraged. In light of the technical violation and the evidence suggesting that BunnyyHop is both eager to return to the behavior that led to the initial topic ban and uninterested in other contributions, I think a new six-month topic ban (this time explicitly stating the end date) is appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111 and 力: I only took a break from enwiki, but I continued to contribute to other parts of Wikipedia. I just didn't find anything outside of the contemporary history (or politics) topics that interested me and that was needing work here, so I decided to take a break on good terms. It just so happened that I opened that specific page, saw such a paragraph, and when I checked the sources things didn't add up. I checked the dates, thought my topic ban had ended two days earlier and decided to leave a comment with the problems I found. Why are you're saying I'm eager to return to the behavior that led to the initial topic ban? Was my comment on the talk page bad? How would I approach such a situation, then? I thought I made had made a good comment to be as collaborative and productive as possible. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 01:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The ban discussion claims you push a personal and positive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and your source-less opposition to article content making the fairly non-controversial claim that There are elections in Cuba but they are not democratic suggests that will continue. I may yet be talked into supporting an indef TBAN with appeal after 6 months. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@力: My opposition was not sourceless. I linked this article on a peer-reviewed paper that states otherwise. But that was later on; in the beginning, I checked both these articles, whose references are unpaged, and I couldn't find anything that verified such phrase. I stated this right at the beginning, that "I have tried my best to check where in those references their respective phrases are located". Unfortunately, Snooganssnoogans' reply did not contain any quotation or page. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• You're absolutely free to have a wiki-break, and on your own terms. My concern is about the singular focus; so singular a focus - in fact - that a fairly narrowly worded (in my view) TBAN left you with nothing of interest to edit elsewhere. Such that for you, a TBAN was effectively a BLOCK. You've acknowledged the edits on your return were in breach of your TBAN (I think) but made them because you mistakenly believed the ban had expired. Cool, that happens, and I don't care about the substance of the edits for that reason. But if you come to the community in a month and claim you've learned from your mistakes and will contribute productively elsewhere (rather than focusing on the area and editing that got your banned in the first place), no amount of good faith will make up for the fact that all evidence is to the contrary. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: Thank you. But can you be more clear on what you mean at the end? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

We're done talking here, I think. You can discuss this elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP Block Evasion (again)

The IP User:1.46.19.111 is by single-purpose editing behavior a block evasion, again, of rangeblock User:2001:FB1:10:0:0:0:0:0 ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Also I look at their edit history and I’ve seen that they disrupted Wikipedia for a while by editing unnecessarily. I think block should be anonymous only and block length should be around 6 months. Definitelyduke255 (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Homophobic abuse on Wade Keller edit summaries

An admin may want to change the visibility on edit summaries left by an IP on Wade Keller.[269][270]LM2000 (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

nb, the content in question was originally added by Cloudbearer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indeffed as a wrestling socktroll. 51.7.144.73 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the edit, blocked the IP for 31h and hid three edit summaries. No opinion on content they were adding.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Now also discovered and reverted vandal edits of the same ip from 1 August--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation account

Magitroopa 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Have already reported user at AIV. User is clearly impersonating me (through their username), and they are very much not me whatsoever. I honestly wondered how long it would take something like this to happen to me- and well, here we are.

Feel free to user whatever tools necessary, even checkuser. This account is the only one I have, I do not operate under any IPs or other user accounts. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User now blocked, but leaving this up for future reference... Magitroopa (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Magitroopa, if it even happens again, WP:UAA would deal with this swiftly. There's no need for anyone to prove an account isn't theirs - we'd block it by default unless they assert that it is theirs. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Darknipples

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just going to drop this here for other comment: Special:Diff/1037004023 —valereee (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Really lovely stuff. —valereee (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Better and better. —valereee (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And another accusation at my user talk. —valereee (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not a good look from Darknipples. Unless you're into that kinda thing I guess . (Sorry had to make the joke.) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Hey, I get it. Dark nipples are something 14-yo boys fantasize about. Not a thing wrong with that. :D But maybe here on WP, we leave that at home. —valereee (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

That's inexcusable. I've given them a couple weeks to grow up. If anyone feels I'm too harsh or not harsh enough, feel free to modify. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is sad. Way back in 2014, this editor was willing to discuss what they described as "my silly user name. What can I say? I have a relatively sophomoric sense of humor" and I expressed some concerns at that time and so did other people, but I felt at the time (and still feel) that it is not an overt violation of the username policy. This editor has been productive on and off ever since, and was a major contributor to a Good article about an important topic. This editor is not a troll. 78.26 wrote on their talk page, "Valereee was acting in an administrative capacity with concerns regarding your user name." I have problems with this claim. Valereee (who I usually respect) was quite confrontational about their seven year old username, did not say that it is a username violation, and did not offer advice about changing it. I find Valereee's tone quite troubling in this interaction, and not the tone expected of an administrator. This is a real mess, and nobody involved looks good. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I didn't say I was acting in an administrative capacity. I was acting in the capacity of another editor who was offended by this username because it sexualizes women. It's offensive, and I brought it up to that user because I thought maybe, after 7 years, they might be ready to say, "Oh. I guess what looked like snicker-snicker was hilarious when I was 14 now looks -- at 22 or whatever -- like I'm a jerk." —valereee (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I attributed the "administrative capacity" to 78.26, who has apologized below. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I did not say I was acting in an administrative capacity. I was acting in the capacity of any other editor. I did not approach that user as an administrator in any way. How is I see you've been queried about your user name before. What I can say is that it tells me I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me, and doesn't care whether I know they don't care. I'm sure it just probably seemed like a hoot 8 years ago, maybe when you were less mature. Now it's just kind of ugly. problematic? It's completely oriented on how the user name makes me, a female editor on Wikipedia, feel. It approaches women sexually. I am not easily offended, and I'm quite comfortable with sex and sexuality. The user name Darknipples is uncool, and I said that. As a colleague. —valereee (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Those two responses were somehow reverted/restored somewhere in the process and ended up duplicating each other.)

Oh, and by the way? They refactored that into: "I'm ugly. —valereee (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)"

—valereee (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Ugh, why was a user name with "nipples" in it ever allowed? Overt or not, it a fricking encyclopedia where women actually edit. </soapbox> Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Men have nipples as well. It could well be completely self-referential in which case who are we to argue? Nipple is a perfectly legitimate word. However I have no idea if it's intended that way, or if there is indeed another intent behind it. Canterbury Tail talk 01:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The user-in-question's name is (IMHO) an intentional provocation. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

((ec x 3) Welp, If I've judged the situation incorrectly, it won't be the first time I've been wrong. The user name is... certainly questionable. The personal attack is troubling. What gets me is that Darknipples made the personal attack, and then made turned it around that accusation against Valereee, making it seem that their own personal attack was the other party's [271]. I was flat-out wrong about the "administrative capacity" comment, for which I apologize to all. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I find the diffs provided by Valeree very concerning. As a non-admin, I would expect a short term block against DN. If this behavior had been levied against me, I would be demanding it. BTW, was this revert appropriate? @Acroterion:, I feel that Valeree should be able to express her opinion of her role in this scenario, even if she is incorrect and she has a duty to comport herself with utmost civility even in non-admin interactions. (I believe Jimbo has said something like this in the past) I still think her right to defend her intended tone is more important.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah I was a bit confused by that rollback. PackMecEng (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I bet an hour of fixing typos it was a misclick. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Darn, missed my chance. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah looks like, I've done it myself many times. PackMecEng (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  That was a misclick. Feel free to restore. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'll hold you to that promise. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  No worries, I figured it was a misclick, just recreated. Now we've got two of them lol. —valereee (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  This is getting out of hand. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Let's just leave it be before we edit-conflict ourselves to more confusion. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Valereee, by saying that it tells me I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me you're imputing intentions, and by saying that it's just kind of ugly you are being disparaging. Is there any kind of previous context here? If not, is there something about "dark nipples" that I'm missing? Is it specifically used for women in some cultural context that I'm unaware of (and that could well be, since I'm not a native speaker)? Otherwise, it seems to me that they could just as well refer to a man's nipples? I mean, if the term is indeed used in contexts that sexualize women, it is indeed offensive, and I would entirely understand your reaction in that case. Of course, that the way Darknipples reacted crosses the line in at least two ways (PA, and then turning it around, per 78.26 above) does not need any discussion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  There's a fetishization of dark nipples among certain cultures. Darknipples has been told multiple times that this is an issue. The fact they continue to use that name, even recognizing it's "sophomoric"...well, it's really hard not to think they simply don't care that it's a problem. —valereee (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Just a note, "sophomoric" seems to be their reason for keeping the username, as they implied they enjoy that type of humor. Seems like a good point of debate might be whether or not that type of humor is allowed for usernames. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  The "sophomoric" comment was made seven years ago, in the context of some self-reflection about the username. Repeating that as if it is something current seems a bit unfair. As I said back then, I think the username is "risque" but not an overt violation of the username policy. I was not an administrator back then, but now, if I saw such a username, I would take a look at the user's contributions to see if they are a troll fixated on breasts and cleavage and bralessness and the like. This is not the case with this editor. I had a number of conversations with them years ago, and came away with the impression that they are a caring person who wants to improve the encyclopedia, who made the "mistake", as it were, of selecting a username that drew negative attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, as well as sexualizing user names. Sexualization of women is an extremely serious real-world problem, and so sexualizing user names are bound to make some people uncomfortable, regardless of the intentions of the user who chose it. Still, I think that less focus on those intentions would have been helpful here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I completely agree, but I would point out that most all people have nipples regardless of their gender. Obviously that's not your point though as males experience much less (if any) sexualization of their nipples. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I should have said "and so sexualizing user names are bound to be understood by some people as targeted at women, thus needlessly making some people uncomfortable, regardless of the intentions of the user who chose them". In an ideal (or in a future) world, sexualizing user names would be no problem, but in the current one there are just too many bad associations that we could really do without here. By the way, the sexualization of women negatively affects all of us, and it are not only women who may take offense. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well said, I agree. IMO the username is pretty blatantly sexist. 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I can assure you that men's nipples are indeed sexualized. Mlb96 (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, and people who are affected by that may also unnecessarily be made to feel uncomfortable. But we also need to take account of the fact that it happens more to women, which is relevant because we have a gender gap to fight here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I support the block issued here by 78.26–I don't think it's excessive. This type of blatant refactoring of others' comments (from an editor who's been around as long as DN has) is unacceptable. Talk pages are not Tumblr circa 2012. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Valereee's comment was "I see you've been queried about your user name before. What I can say is that it tells me I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me, and doesn't care whether I know they don't care. I'm sure it just probably seemed like a hoot 8 years ago, maybe when you were less mature. Now it's just kind of ugly." (diff). That comment is out of line when addressed to an account created seven years ago and a two-week block for a single outburst in reply is ridiculous, particularly given that it is the first block for this user. I would prefer a simpler user name policy backed by a low-overhead way to have the community say whether a user should change their name. Until that happens, it should come as no surprise that an established editor reacts badly to being told that they don't care, and that it seemed like a hoot, and they were less mature, and that it's ugly. We don't know why people choose their usernames but a motivation for some is a desire to normalize certain terminology so that others don't freak out about it in other circumstances. That may or may not apply, and it may or may not be helpful, but it is not necessary to assume bad faith. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Are there any editors who identify as female and think this username is acceptable? Levivich 04:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Totally inappropriate diffs, appropriate block. DN has accepted the block on their talk page. The only business left over is the username issue. If there's consideration of the username early in someone's wikicareer and it's deemed acceptable at the time, it seems a bit unfair to require them to change it several years later, after they're made thousands of edits attached to that name. That said, I'll add myself to the list of people who do find it inappropriate, and I think that DN should change it even if I'm not quite behind requiring that change at this stage. For maximum consistency from the old name, may I suggest Desknickels, Dukenoodles, Darkneedles, or Dunknobles? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  User:Darknoodles seems usurpable. Levivich 04:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Knipple is Yiddish for a stash of money. [272]; dar is obviously a dialectal form of a German definite article. Dar knipples. The obvious choice. EEng 04:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, several older women I knew as a younger man called that a "foxy pocket". I guess Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source, is it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Foxy Pocket, eh? I really screwed the pooch choosing my username. Huge missed opportunity there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Cullen328, how is it that you knew these older women as a younger man? Were they in transvestite disguise? EEng 15:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Good block. Calling someone's username ugly is not a personal attack, it is a criticism of a username. A valid one in my opinion. Calling someone ugly is a personal attack. Changing someone's post so it looks like they called themselves ugly in their own voice goes well beyond the line into actionable territory. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• I also find the username distasteful, but it needs to be reiterated that it is inappropriate for an admin to post such a needlessly confrontational message. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• DP has been unblocked by Bishonen as "time served". I am assuming they spoke to the blocking administrator off-wiki because I don't see it on wiki. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Bishonen's comment includes a diff showing that the blocking admin said (above): "If anyone feels I'm too harsh or not harsh enough, feel free to modify." Further consultation would not be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• When searching for “darknipples” (on bing.com), the first link is “Images of Dark Nipples”, with the comment “these images contain adult content”. One click later, you get a quiz: which image should be chosen by this supposedly childish user to illustrate the personal page of User: Darknipples? Pldx1 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• There is nothing out of line about confronting someone whose username is frankly sexualized in a way that makes me uncomfortable. Imagine if you were in a professional workplace and you stood watching as a man introduced himself to a mixed group as “Hi, I’m Darknipples.” That is almost literally what this is, and I’m actually kind of shocked that anyone could think this is acceptable or that it’s inappropriate for one of the woman present to approach him later and tell him his chosen nickname was offensive and explain why. Or maybe I shouldn’t be shocked. I’ve had the experience of standing up to leave a meeting full of men and had one of them say with a smile, “We hate to see you leave but we love to watch you go,” and realized the rest of those men had all looked at my face to see if I’d react and now were going to watch me turn around and walk to the door. I have no opinion on the block or the unblock. All I wanted was for this user to give a think to their username, and instead they refactored my post in a juvenile way. —valereee (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, if in the first situation you describe it were one man introducing himself as Darknipples in a room where there were as many or more women as there were men, without any structural difference in rang or power between the men and women, I wouldn't necessarily see that as more inappropriate than most other nicknames around here. It would be different in a situation similar to the second one that you describe, with a room full of men who are obviously gleeful about approaching one woman in a sexualizing way. I understand that Wikipedia may sometimes feel that way, and that it generally more resembles the second than the first situation, and that is why I do think that the nickname is ultimately inappropriate here. However, User:Darknipples hasn't done or said the things that you've experienced, and they probably don't deserve to be treated as if they did. Basically, a boatload more of AGF was in order here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I do think it is a bit much that an editor complains that a name offends her only to be met with being told she is ugly, then when she sought out a defense for this she was called various things from aggressive to puritanical. If this was a work environment it would be a hostile one. There is a lot of victim blaming in this thread and a lot of making light of something that should have been taken more seriously. All I have to say on this matter. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The offending editor was almost immediately blocked and more than a few editors quickly expressed their agreement with valeree's concerns with the username. This thread was taken quite seriously from the get-go, and it is not 'making light' of it to suggest that the OP should have communicated their concerns in a less adversarial manner. Being offended doesn't give one carte blanche to be rude. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

      @Lepricavark, I'm open to the idea that I could have approached it with a milder "Hey, your username is pretty offensive, would you consider changing it?" But that approach had been tried, multiple times, by multiple users, so I decided I'd explain.

      I probably could have made the explanation itself milder, but really, why does the person in the room who is the target of the joke have to be the one who objects to the joke, and do it calmly and in the most measured-possible tone when she's actually quite exasperated to have discovered that this has been going on for seven years? If someone in the room who wasn't the target of the joke had been the one to object, they probably could have gone in without even being annoyed.

      I didn't actually intend to be confrontational. I was trying to explain as best I could why the username was a problem for me and likely other women who might not feel they could speak up. I questioned myself about that, actually...how could this username have been used for seven years? Was it really that offensive? It's just nipples, for gosh sakes...but, no. It's a user name, which every editor they interact with has to deal with, and it's a sexual joke they have to experience every time. —valereee (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • The problem with your analogy is that you initiated the interaction with DN. He didn't come looking for you so that he could offend you. Instead, you approached him with a series of bad faith assumptions. While there's obviously no excuse for his wildly inappropriate response (and nobody is making excuses, btw), I genuinely don't understand how you could have expected your first message to be well-received. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    This is a collaborative space where you literally leave your name wherever you go. There need not be formal introductions for one to see darknipple's name on their watchlist, or on a talk page.

    With regards to the name, maybe this juvenile humor was acceptable when it first showed up, but clearly it isn't anymore. The user's reaction was extremely inappropriate, specially for an experienced editor. It was a good block. Isabelle ^🔔 12:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think I agree most with HighInBC's comment directly above. Other than that, it doesn't help that WP:DISRUPTNAME is awfully broad/ambiguous for a policy. Can't WP:RFC/NAME be used for this purpose? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• If you ever again find yourself so hopelessly bored that you begin to think that pestering established contributors about their somewhat questionable usernames (or signatures, that's another one that we get to see here on the regular) would be a good idea, consider instead heading to Wikipedia:Maintenance#Maintenance_and_collaboration_resources. There's plenty of actually productive stuff to do around here. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There's no call for that either. I realize that logical argumentation is probably wasted on a logged-out/banned user looking to stir the pot for kicks, but there's nothing that says Valeree can't express her legitimate objections to a questionable username. I take issue with how she did it, but not with the fact that she did it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• I see the username as immature and distasteful, and one that I'd expect to see created by a vandal or troll. However, my personal thoughts regarding the username are irrelevant. In the end, I do not see it as a blatant violation of Wikipedia's username policy where administrative action is justified because of the username alone. Could it be seen as borderline? Debatable? Yes, but not blatant.

Valereee, I don't see the act of talking to a user or confronting a user about their username being distasteful and asking them to change it as inappropriate. However, I would've used much different words when doing so. The statement, "I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me, and doesn't care whether I know they don't care" will certainly be translated as casting aspersions on one's character and will likely result in a negative or heated resposne. It wasn't necessary or productive.

What Darknipples did in response was absolutely out of line, and violated Wikipedia's policies on civility and the use of personal attacks. I'll also add that it was quite an immature thing for Darknipples to do. Simply ignoring the message and not responding to it would've been better than what he/she did. I also think that the block in return was appropriate given the situation, though I wouldn't have made it for two weeks. I find that setting a block of only a few hours (24 hours maximum) will usually get the point across sufficiently in these situations.

In conclusion, the username isn't what I consider productive in relation to building an encyclopedia, but it isn't blatant enough for administrative action to be justified. Valereee's act of talking to Darknipples about his/her username was appropriate, but I believe that the words she chose to use were not. Darknipples responded to the message in an unacceptable manner, and I believe that the block, with time served, is enough. I think it's time that we move on now. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Didn't ArbCom oppose the use of microblocks (eg here), due to WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE issues? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah, then will you please talk to them about it in a way that won't offend them and will encourage them to make a change? Because really when a woman tells you that something is making her and possibly other women uncomfortable in the workplace, you should listen to her. Even if you think she's being shrill. :D —valereee (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

My take? Refactoring the comments of others is wrong, but so was Valeree's comment. There is nothing inherently sexual, or female, about nipples. Most of us have approximately two of them, and they come in a wide variety of colours and shades, like eyes, ears, and legs. DuncanHill (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone really believe this user created this name innocently and wasn't A) trying to get attention and B) trying to skirt the rules? I am not saying they intentionally wanted to offend valeree directly because they didn't seek her out. They joined seven or eight years ago at the age of 14 with a user name that definitely implies something sexual based on a simple google search. Did they do this with intent? Does that really matter? I don't think so. What matters is what image Wikipedia wants to present. Would this name be allowed in a professional setting? Regardless of whether they intended the name to be offensive when they joined they have been here for years now which means they have aged and they should know there will continue to be objections to this user name. We can discuss valeree's assumptions in her initial contact with the user but, ultimately, their response to her comments only leads one to believe valeree's assumptions are correct and this user lacks empathy for their fellow editors and how their actions can affect them. I am not agreeing that making said assumptions was the path that should have been taken but until you have been through sexual harassment, being objectified or worse, assaulted, you really can't understand the position that women face on a daily basis. As editors here, we are expected to act with a certain level of professionalism. It's not always required and sometimes we see examples of where we don't always follow that plan but it is still expected. This user name is immature at best and, at worst, under the right circumstances could be seen as sexual harrassment and I can absolutely understand why valeree acted the way she did. Should he be forced to change his name? No. Should he change his name? If he wants to be taken serious I would recommend it. --ARoseWolf 13:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: Don't you bloody dare assume that people commenting here in a way you don't agree with haven't been sexually harassed or assaulted. You want offensive? You just did it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

{{archive-bottom}}

• So just for the record, every single editor who thinks this username is OK is male, do I have that right? And all the women who opined think it's offensive. Am I wrong? Did I miss anyone? If I'm right, do my fellow dude-colleagues maybe want to rethink things a bit hmm? Like maybe defer to female editors on this one, hmm? Wikipedia is known as a toxic environment totally unfriendly to women, why might that be? 🤔 Here's an idea, men: next time this comes up, don't share your opinion at all. Nobody really cares if a man thinks something is or is not misogynistic. Levivich 13:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm surprised to see this comment after a female admin (me) unblocked Darknipples. I didn't comment in the thread, admittedly, but feel free to defer to me anyway, Levivich. As for the username, I've been aware of it for some time, and disliked it, but it never occurred to me to bother the editor about it, and I did not think it deserved Valereee's wording out of the blue after seven years of constructive editing. Bishonen | tålk 14:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC).

• (non-admin comment) It's the sort of username which I, as a male editor, consider both in bad taste and a timewaster; even if it doesn't violate WP:USERNAME. Such names encourage me to check their recent contributions, in case I've just found someone who lives under a bridge and milks billygoats. Narky Blert (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm male & I don't think the username is OK & as I mentioned (above), it's likely intentionally provocative. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

{{archive-bottom}}

• a female admin (me) unblocked Darknipples. Therefore, everyone can be proud of themselves: Dark is proud of his nipple fixation, Bishonen is proud of her unblocking, while Valereee can be proud of trying to enforce some inclusiveness. And so all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Pldx1 (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• And thank goodness for the male editors who can decide when this conversation has run its course. "Sometimes in order for there to be space for oppressed people to claim, someone else has to step back." But on Wikipedia, we go a different route. Levivich 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The overarching issues here can (and indeed, certainly should) be discussed in other spaces on this project at which it is appropriate to raise questions regarding community culture and priorities in broad strokes. However, this space is expressly reserved for discussing particular and live issues with the behaviour of specific users where said conduct does not conform to existing policies/community consensus. The block (which I for one think was a perfectly reasonable administrative action on 78.26's part, as a WP:2WRONGS matter and given the nature of the PA, regardless of valereee's undiplomatic approach) has been resolved and there seems to be a fairly clear consensus amongst the responding admins that DN's user name does not constitute a brightline violation of the username policy (which, I have to say, putting aside my own opinion on the name, seems to be the only possible outcome if one reviews the current wording of the enumerated criteria of WP:DISRUPTNAME). Valereee has even apologized for her part in the kerfuffle getting a little personal---for which she should be celebrated, since this was definitely not a situation where I think the community was going to be looking to force such a mea culpa from her. As such, there are no live behavioural issues (in the sense of editors not conforming to the expectations of community consensus as codified in present policies) to justify keeping this thread open in this space.

Mind you, I would rather the thread had been closed by someone who wasn't going to do so in such a slapdash manner; this variety of flyby/psuedo-dismissive close is one of the primary reasons I have becomes increasingly convinced that we are overdue to remove NACs as an option here at the administrative noticeboards. Nevertheless, the action of closing the discussion itself strikes me as appropriate in the circumstances. Again, this should not be the end of our community discussion on the underlying issues, any more than this dispute was the start of said issues. But this is simply not the venue for such a longform discussion about the need for prospective change of policies or the broader implications of current guidelines. I suggest the talk pages of the naming policy and WP:DISRUPT, as well as WP:VPP as the logical places to host such proactive discussions. Please feel free to ping me if you do initiate such a conversation, as I do have some concerns myself in this area. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think ... that User:WaltCip should retract her (generic pronoun) closure. Indeed, the letter-soup says that a closure should be rooted in policy, and not in the personal opinion of the closer. But this closure is nothing but "me and myself, the closer, I think ... this and that". There is a reason why the letter soup says that an obviously controversial discussion requires an admin closure. Moreover, I think ... that policy implies that inclusiveness is "academic 1." i.e. "educational, instructional, pedagogical, scholarly, clever, erudite, learned, educated, cultured", but not "academic 2." i.e. "unpragmatic, hypothetical, speculative, conjectural, indefinite, abstract, vague, general, impractical, unrealistic, ivory-tower, irrelevant, useless". A more clever and educated closure is needed. Pldx1 (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mspaintist

Edit war at Artem Dolgopyat. User:Mspaintist (also anonymously from his two IPs 109.65.11.107 and 79.178.19.156, which make accompanying edits on the user's other contributions elsewhere) repeatedly removes information on Dolgopyat's ethnic background along with numerous supportive sources in which his parents in separate interviews clearly describe their backgrounds with citations provided in bold text (e.g. [273]). Attempts to discuss this issue with the user ([274], [275]) led nowhere, with further removals of text and sources. The situation has seemingly reached a dead end and requires administrative intervention. --Simulacrum (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Good luck with it--on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well, as expected - no luck at all on the talk page, not even a reply. And is it OK for one user to use two accounts (User:אלקסנדר, User:Mspaintist) and 3 IPs to revert information strictly based on sources along with the sources? There's no way out of this situation. --Simulacrum (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)