Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052

User:عمرو بن كلثوم and Syrian Kurdistan

I believe User:عمرو بن كلثوم is editing tendentiously. The Talk page of the article Syrian Kurdistan is almost exclusively a complaints page from a wide variety of editors, over the past many months, about the behaviour of this user, and evident from the discussion is an obvious POV based on denialism, to whit: the user would rather the term Syrian Kurdistan did not exist, and is convinced (against all and repeatedly offered evidence) that the phrase is a neologism produced by expansionist Kurdish nationalists this century. The user would have the world believe there was never any such thing as a Syrian part of Kurdistan (i.e. within the 20th- and 21st-century Syrian Arab Republic); and the whole thing is some sort of conspiracy cooked up since the Syrian Civil War. The user has here embarked on an attempt to gain support for their POV here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#PhD_candidate_as_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_Syrian_Kurdistan_against_the_views_of_multiple_professors_stating_otherwise? and when another user sought assistance here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_book_by_the_PhD_candidate_Mustafa_Hamza_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_a_Syrian_Kurdistan? and will not take no for an answer. I suspect administrator action of some kind is needful. GPinkerton (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This complaint is really interesting. At the RSN, user Sixula suggested that it was not the right place for this debate so I quit following that page, but a few minutes ago I was notified of this complaint here. I revisited the NOPV noticeboard to find that user Pinkerton jumped out of nowhere and made conclusions for everybody, and then ran to report me here and accusing me of refusing to compromise. Obviously, they did not bother to visit the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page to see what's going on. There has been a discussion going on for days, we have provided enough evidence, including the all-important Treaty of Sevres map (for non-experts, that post-WWI treaty in 1920 shaped all Kurdish statehood claims) and a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan". We also provided sources showing the initial use of this term. For example, this report by the highly-regarded International Crisis Group reads:

The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province).

This issue is really too long to explain here, so I would rather have people visit the Talk page mentioned above. In brief, two or three users are trying to show this as an entity that has long existed and three other users (at least) do not agree with that, and argue that this term was produced by Kurdish nationalists during the Syrian Civil War. We are not arguing about the presence of a Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria. Finally, this is a content dispute, and I have not broken any rules. Actually, admin intervention in that page would really be welcome. May be at least provide protection for now. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Above, the user has illustrated succinctly the problem with their WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDHT attitude and refusal to accept reality. Below, one can see a long list of sources that very much do talk about Syrian Kurdistan, explicitly, and by name. As a synonym for Western Kurdistan it can be found in geographical research before the First World War. The claim of the all-importance of the Treaty of Sevres is a lie ignorant of history and wilfully oblivious to the sources editors may peruse below. This user's insistence on claiming that a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan" is exactly the kind of false narrative they have been bludgeoning people with for months (years?). Any look at any of the works will show that the editor's POV is divorced from the real world, and is apparently vocally, partisan as regards the al-Assad regime and its opponents. Some sort of admonition is surely required.

• In the Dispersion. World Zionist Organization, Organization Department, Research Section. 1962. This book tells the tale od the Kurdish Jews who lived in the one hundred and nintey towns in what is now Iraqi, Persian, Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan
• Ghassemlou, Abdul Rahman (1965). Kurdistan and the Kurds. Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. (i.e. the present-day Turkish, Iraqi and Syria Kurdistan)
• Chaliand, Gérard, ed. (1993) [1978]. Les Kurdes et le Kurdistan [A People Without a Country: The Kurds and Kurdistan]. Translated by Pallis, Michael. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-194-5. Are these three regions - Kurd-Dagh, Ain-Arab, and Northern Jezireh - part of Kurdistan? Do they form a Syrian Kurdistan, or are they merely region of Syria which happen to be populated with Kurds? ... Syrian Kurdistan has thus become a broken up territory and we would do better to talk about the Kurdish regions of Syria. What matters is that these people are being denied their legitimate right to have their own national and cultural identity.
• Gotlieb, Yosef (1982). Self-determination in the Middle East. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-03-062408-7. While the Kurds in Turkish, Soviet, Syrian, and Persian Kurdistan were held in place with and iron fist, the Iraqi Kurds fought virtually alone throughout the 1960s.
• Bruinessen, Martin Van (1992). Agha, Shaikh, and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-018-4. The plains of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan are the granaries of Iraq and Syria, respectively.
• Izady, Mehrdad R. (1992). The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-8448-1727-9. All of Syrian Kurdistan, half of central Kurdistan in Iraq, and about 15% of western Kurdistan is located in this warm zone. It contains the cities of Diyarbakir, Siirt, Mardin, Urfa, Qamishli, Afrin, Sanjar, Sulaymania, Arbil, Qasri Shirin, Ilam, Gelan, and Pahla.
• Kreyenbroek, Philip G.; Allison, Christine (1996). Kurdish Culture and Identity. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-329-1.
• Bruinessen, Martin van (1978). Agha, Shaikh and State: On the Social and Political Organization of Kurdistan. University of Utrecht. I shall refer to these parts as Turkish, Persian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan. ... Most sources agree that there are approximately half a million Kurds in Syria.
• Mirawdeli, Kamal M. (1993). Kurdistan: Toward a Cultural-historical Definition. Badlisy Center for Kurdish Studies. Turkish Kurdistan, an Iraqi Kurdistan, an Iranian Kurdistan, and a Syrian Kurdistan
• Bulloch, John; Morris, Harvey (1992). No Friends But the Mountains: The Tragic History of the Kurds. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-508075-9. The British and the French made it clear from the outset that they were unwilling to surrencder those parts of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan which fell under their control, and that an independent Kurdistan, if such an entity were to be created, would have to be in what was still Turkish territory.
• Jaff, Akram (1993). Economic Development in Kurdistan. Badlisy Center for Kurdish Studies.
• Gotlieb, Yosef (1995). Development, Environment, and Global Dysfunction: Toward Sustainable Recovery. Delray Beach, FL: St Lucie Press. ISBN 978-1-57444-012-6. The situation in Turkish Kurdistan is consistent with that of Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan.
• Meho, Lokman I., ed. (1997). The Kurds and Kurdistan: A Selective and Annotated Bibliography. Westport, CN and London: Greewood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30397-5. The information the author gets concerning Syrian Kurdistan is abased on results from field research carried out in 1988 and 1990.
• Berberoglu, Berch (1999). Turmoil in the Middle East: Imperialism, War, and Political Instability. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-4412-2. Then, in the 1920s, the Bedirkhan brothers introduced the Latin alphabet, which became standard in Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan.

GPinkerton (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We are debating a specific term. Can you provide the quotes showing that, instead of showing "Kurdistan" or Kurds in Syria, etc.? One more thing, we are about to reach consensus on the Syrian Kurdistan page. This shows that your claim of me refusing to compromise is false. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Check out this discussion out of many going on on that Talk page. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No, look at the sources yourself. Yours is the only voice on your side of this "debate". GPinkerton (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Actually me and other users also participated in the debate taking the same position as Amr. No on need to look at the sources themselves as the one who claims need to prove, so quotes and pages numbers should be presented. Finally, you can have tens of sources to support you but there are tens of them that support the other side and NPOV requires you not to ignore that. This complain is uncalled for and an attempt to force a measure from above to give one side of a long debate what they want! The users who are against Amr acts exactly like him, so if he is wrong, so are they. I am calling for an rfc to solve this.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: All of what you're saying is not at all relevant. This is only about Amr's repeated attempt to prove the term "Syrian Kurdistan" does not exist or is a recent coinage, whereas in the real world it is a coinage many, many decades old. This is tendentiousness. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Im telling you Im an active part of the debate and you are deciding for me that I am not? Seriously? You are now part of this content dispute, so go to the article's talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

CommentThis has nothing to do with Amr. This is all Konli17's fault. That page has been quiet for months and then all of a sudden he comes back after a long break from editing and starts his POV pushing again. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Konli17 is the user that should be blocked because he’s not WP:HTBAE and is just here to push his agenda. You should really see his other edits before jumping to conclusions that it’s Amr's fault. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thepharoah17: if you want to make a report about an unrelated matter you need to do it elsewhere. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, per your request GPinkerton, I'll call on other people to weigh in on this. @Supreme Deliciousness:@HistoryofIran:@Al Ameer son:. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Thepharoah17, The page was stable until Konli17 returned and pushed his pov points. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

See an example here (out of tens or hundreds) for yourselves how user konli17 changes the meanings by simple tweaking and removal of sensitive words to fake/change content and removing sensitive words (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc. Look at the long list of reverts and edit-warring in their edit history. Actually, they were blocked back in June for edit-warring. That is the user who needs to be disciplined here. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This argumentation is obfuscation and unconvincing whataboutery. GPinkerton (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Since you have obviously decided to take sides in the dispute at hand, bring on your evidence in the form of quotes from the links above you copied from user paradise chronicle! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: It's more than obvious you are unwilling to read. None of these sources were copy pasted from anywhere. I just did the most basic Goggle Books search, and provided you with hyperlinks so you can easily verify that each one discusses "Syrian Kurdistan". How many times? The quote is the same in every book listed: "Syrian Kurdistan"! GPinkerton (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

My friend, you are the one making claims here. Bring me your evidence (e.g. quotes). It's not my role to prove your point, it's yours. Syrian + Kurdistan does not equal "Syrian Kurdistan". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, it seems you are the one refusing to read since you failed to see in the Talk page in question how many editors were on each side. Regardless of the opinions presented here, you claimed that I am the ONLY one representing this side of the story. Now you are attacking the other editor sharing my opinion here. You are trying hard to push your POV, same as you did as the NPOV noticeboard, ironic. Obviously, you are not qualified to judge or point at others. And let's keep this professional without personal attacks like you did above accusing me of supporting Assad regime (with no evidence whatsoever)! And by the way, on this note the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (who declared Syrian Kurdistan) are allies of the Assad regime and there is plenty of evidence that I will keep for another time. So, better do your homework before throwing accusation around. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Rank hypocrisy. I've expanded with quotes since you're too unwilling to lift a finger to pull the wool from your own eyes and read a book. GPinkerton (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: There is nothing wrong with Amr ibn Kulthoums edits. "Syrian Kurdistan" is a lie and a fraud, there are editor at that page that are pushing kurdish nationalist propaganda lies and attempting to rewrite history. We should thank Amr ibn Kulthoum for standing up to the truth. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

More denialism. Just look at the sources! "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", all the way down! Your claim it is a lie and fruad is absurd. GPinkerton (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who is in denial here despite all the evidence. For the third time, I am asking you to provide actual quotes (SENTENCES) saying "Syrian Kurdistan" from before 2011. Good luck with that! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you read? Or do you only spew? Scroll up. Read. اقرأ GPinkerton (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to stop the personal attacks? What does that prove? You are always going to find some random authors (look at the author names) claiming things and naming things as they please. One of them is saying "I shall refer to these parts as Turkish, Persian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan". The question is, is any of that reputable? Do you have an international map showing this, or do you have a respected paper/media outlet, international organization showing this from before 2011? Since you pick up languages so quickly, I'll challenge your French, why don't you read this article to update your history? The bottom line you are accusing me of pushing my POV but you are doing a lot worse. Cheers my friend. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah sure. Read an article that has little to do with the topic at hand and that will convince me that all these respected academic sources are somehow worthless. What planet is this editor living on? On earth, Syrian Kurdistan is a thing. The idea the idea it didn't exist before 2011 is as laughable as the editor's understanding of epistemology. GPinkerton (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

WP believes in sourced content and two sides to the story. More personal attacks. I don't think I need to respond to that. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes the two sides of the story: "Syrian Kurdistan has never been uttered before 2011" (fairyland, POV) vs "Evidence for the existence of the term long before عمرو بن كلثوم would evidently prefer." (Earth, NPOV). Somehow I think including the highly idiosyncratic and patently wrong POV you are pushing without a shred of evidence should be given short shrift in consideration of WP:DUE. How much credence can we give these uncited illusions? GPinkerton (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• See also this User_talk:Thepharoah17#تحياتي Canvassing. GPinkerton (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

After your old argument of my one-person opinion failed, you are using a new tactic. How is this canvassing? Look at the user contributions! This user is very moderate, and not involved in any edit-warring. They participate in the discussion very positively. Check out for yourself! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to thank GPinkerton for opening this debate and I hope an admin would step in. As the one who filed the first two discussions about Syria Kurdistan, I'd like to add that there were already numerous high quality academic sources for a Syrian Kurdistan even before GPinkerton brought his sources. Amr Ibn will very probably not abide by academic sources has even removed[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Kurdistan&diff=988047662&oldid=988045551&diffmode=source updated and new academic sources] before. To clarify: I have added high quality academic sources for a Syrian Kurdistan with no adaptions to the text, and Amr Ibn removed the sources. Amr Ibn doesn't seems to not like the fact that Kurds live in Syria and sees the Kurdish liberators from ISIS as occupiers. Other times he claimed that they are occupiers after they captured a town from ISIS is here, here. There are others as well. It would be similar if we'd portray the Greek or French Resistance fighting against NAZI Germany as occupiers of territory in France or Greece. I think this is a tough POV, as the vast majority of the media and probably all of the reliable academic sources view the areas liberated by from ISIS as liberated and not occupied. I seriously don't know, how this editor came through with this denialism of Syrian Kurdistan for so long with such an edit history.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, look who's speaking! An edit-warrior recently banned and who refused to abide by previous arbitration result by user Nightenbelle on a different page. Back to the page in question, we were reached a consensus before PC jumped in and started messing things up again. This prompted user Applodion, an editor on PC side of the story to remove part of PC's controversial edit there. Furthermore, user Sixula just chipped in and suggested an rfc. As a reminder, Sixula was helping with the NPOV case before user GPinkerton imposed themselves and jumped to conclusions. Again, I invite Admins to visit the Syrian Kurdistan page and Talk page (and other pages if they wish) to judge for themselves and see who the disruptive editor/s is/are. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

And, ISIS has nothing to do with this. You are basically saying "you can either be with ISIS or PYD/YPG Kurdish militia". Well, I don't want to be with either of those. This is not focus of this discussion or any other discussion I am involved in. We have a content dispute about the origin and adoption of the name Syrian/Western Kurdistan. Here is another academic reference saying PYD created the name rojava (West Kurdistan) (PYD invented rojava. P276 last paragraph). In the summer of 2012, the PYD took control of some towns in northern Syria which are predominantly Kurdish-inhabited. Over the following three years, the party expanded its territory and established a structure of autonomous government and associated institutions which it calls “Rojava” (west Kurdistan). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Two of the editors who deny an existence of Syrian Kurdistan, user Amr Ibn and user Supreme Deliciousness wanted to move the page Syrian Kurdistan (Today called AANES) to Kurdish occupied regions in Syria in a move discussion in 2015.. Wanting to call Kobane Kurdish occupied in the midst of a siege of Kobane by ISIS... This might give you another insight into the mindset of the two editors. The edits of Amr Ibn are clearly tendentious and should have been seriously questioned by admins since years. For that an admin comes into the dispute.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should you support either ISIS or the YPG? The YPG-linked PKK and ISIS are both classified as terrorist organizations by the United States and the European Union. Is one really different from the other? Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

One doesn't have to support any of the two, but one can try to portray commonsense=vast majority of the academic views or an ISIL/Turkey POV which as to me, is not supported in any reliable source. The YPG is supported by the Global Coalition against ISIS consisting of 83 countries and NOT viewed as a terrorist organization by any country other than Turkey which literally imprisons academics for demanding peace.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

As Sixula told you on the NPOV page, "WP:COMMONSENSE is not viewed as a concrete argument, more as a "I believe my edit was common sense" but it is not something which you can repeat over and over, because if there is a lot of opposition clearly it isn't viewed as common sense." Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Please ping me when discussing things I've said on a separate page, I like to see what is being said about both me and my comments. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 23:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Sixula, that was an oversight on my part. Thanks for your input. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC about Syrian Kurdistan going on at the Syrian Kurdistan article talk page. Amr Ibn wants to have it understood that if a source (Kurdish or/and Academic non-Kurdish) mention Syrian Kurdistan and/or Kurds in Syria or depicts a map with a Syrian part of Kurdistan it signifies that there exists no Syrian Kurdistan and therefore is an invention by Kurds. See here the diff of such an argument. There he refers to the sources presented by me and others. The ones added by me mention Syrian Kurdistan and/or depict a Syrian part of Kurdistan.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed action

Editors opposing the unqualified use of the term "Syrian Kurdistan" need to be warned in some way to drop it. The phrase is not just "a term used" or "by some", and neither is it a conspiracy. Failing that, the relentless POV-pushing needs to be quelled in some other way. GPinkerton (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:2A01:4C8:461:94D1:8820:E9C9:28EB:AA01

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.

---

Has continued to vandalize own user talk page after being blocked. Mind revoking? Thanks. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

See [1] for evidence. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Talkpage access removed. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2020 (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.

Could use a second pair of eyes at 8chan

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.

---

There are some IP editors making some legal threats regarding the inclusion of a link to the 8chan website on the page about 8chan. I can see their argument that we shouldn't include the external link, but an uninvolved admin to help out with the edit war and legal threats would be appreciated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not make a legal threat; I removed a link to Child Pornography from Wikipedia that violates US Law and Wikipedia Policy. I was trying to get you to understand the situation and defer to legal staff at Wikipedia to make a determination. Wikipedia should not be linking to Child Pornography Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also creating a liability for people such as myself who have used Wikipedia in good faith and INADVERTANTLY (and because of Wikipedia) landed on a link distributing Child Pornography. This is an extremely serious issue and concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Just noting here that 71.203.10.104 has opened a discussion at WP:DRN#8chan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That discussion has now been closed under the reasoning of WP:NLT and because this particular discussion is also taking place here at WP:HAPPYPLACE.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

For now, I think we should just leave that link out until we reach a consensus on the matter. No harm can come of that. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Second that as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

None of us are lawyers (and those who are are not on the job). Pending a potential WP:OFFICE action (they might be interested in the subject), I don't think the legal argument is a good one. That being said, a link to 8chan doesn't provide any value whatsoever. -- Luk ^talk 00:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. We're not lawyers, but it's well within our capabilities to decide not to link to a site where we may inadvertently direct our readers to such content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Despite denying they are making legal threats above, I can't see how their latest comment saying "A link to Child Pornography has the unwitting effect of making Wikipedia Editors, Users, and Administrators Law Breakers. Law Breakers in the worst sense because a single Cached image from an unintentional viewing of Child Pornography meets the standard for prosecution." is anything but. I agree that the link probably ought to be omitted from the article, but the WP:NLT need to stop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt that anyone who wants to go to 8chan, out of curiosity or whatever, needs a link from us to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that linking to a site that ALSO hosts child pornography (or copyvio material, or whatever illegal stuff) EQUALS 'linking to child pornography'. That being said, IMHO this site would qualify for wholesale blacklisting because there is material on the site that we should not be linking to (and we should do our utmost best to make sure that it does not get linked), but a whitelist rule should be instated to a 'neutral landing page'. Although on a different level, we can link to sci-hub, we cannot link to a lot of the material hosted on sci-hub, thus the website is blacklisted, the root is whitelisted. For that, I think the IP was wrong here, as is removal of the root link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how this user is making legal threats. They are pointing out (correctly) that merely visiting a site like that can cache illegal images to one's device and thus meet the threshold for being prosecuted in the US. It's a no-brainer to omit a link to this site from Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Laser brain, their latest comment (linked above by GW) was probably okay until they ended with I was obligated to report this matter via the process established by the US DOJ and I copied the Wikimedia Foundation as a courtesy. Up until then they'd been on the right side of the line, IMO. —valereee (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Depending on a lot of things, they may be so required. Not sure what that does with WP:NLT (not something I've looked at closely), but I'd personally take it as a well-meaning notification. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2020 (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:ჯეო

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.

---

On 2 June 2019, ჯეო was indefinitely blocked (not by me) on the Commons for repeated copyright violations. After a series of unresponsive/IDHT unblock requests, I removed talk page access there. Since that time, ჯეო has made numerous comments on my talk page here on en.wiki relating to that issue ([2][3] [4][5][6]), including what now appears to be monthly (22 September 2020, 13 October 2020‎, 13 November 2020.) The Commons issues have been clearly explained to them there (their talk page access was even conditionally restored in September, which they promptly violated). ჯეო has also been emailing me; I've asked them to desist in response. Although the content is banal, the inappropriate venue; the IDHT regarding the issues and venue; the failure to honour requests to stop; and especially the frequency, which now appears monthly (and is not limited to en.wiki, e.g., [7][8][9]), cause me to consider this as having moved beyond inappropriate and into harassment--whatever its motivation. I might suggest an interaction ban, but am open to any other remedy/sanction that would result in ჯეო's desistance. Эlcobbola _talk 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's do this:

• I'll block them from your talk page.  Done
• You turn off notifications from them in your preferences.
• If you haven't sent them email yet: Don't! And turn off email from them in your preferences as well.
• If you have sent them email before: we can't prevent them directly emailing you, but if they keep doing it, you should be able to forward the email to someone with authority at WMF (not 100% sure how it works, hopefully won't need to research) and they will likely be WMF banned.
• I make it clear to them that if they contact you anymore about a Commons-related issue, they will be blocked indef from en.wiki as well. Hopefully that will be sufficient deterrent.

@ჯეო: Leave. Elcobbola. Alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I should add that we can't do anything about pestering you on other projects. You'd have to either talk to admins there, or try to get their account globally locked. @ჯეო:, is this what you want to happen? If not, then stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I just wanted to get unblocked on Commons, because I think I can start work and I can help this project, I was trying to explain it--ჯეო4WIKI (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@ჯეო: You won't be able to get assistance from any of us here on English Wikipedia. And ANI is not the place to do it. Sorry. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:27, 17 November 2020 (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.

Better policy about self 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.

---

We have come across a few editors over the years that are from other projects claiming they were asked to add content here as there job. Latest example was by User talk:Thehumantwig01 from Wikitongues who said I am an intern and it's my job to try to add these videos on as many pages..... Wondering if we should nip this type of stuff in the butt before it becomes even more common...with a better policy then we currently have. As in one geared to banning a site that does this type of actions related to paid editing to promote their own site.--Moxy 🍁 13:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure ANI is the best place to post this, but I agree. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

An intern eh? Are we getting into WP:PAID territory? Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Even if it's not paid, it's certainly a WP:COI violation. Every edit is adding "for Wikitongues" to the caption. For example, 1, 2, and 3 are their most recent edits. Woodroar (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thehumantwig01, can you explain a little more about this internship? Is there someone at Wikitongues coordinating the intern efforts that maybe we could discuss this with? I believe you're working in good faith, but we work by WP:CONSENSUS here, and if other editors are disagreeing with you about whether a language video belongs in articles that aren't about that language, you'll have to accept that or risk not being allowed to edit here. —valereee (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia logged me out so I didn't see these messages sooner. I am an unpaid volunteer intern with Wikitongues and I have been adding the videos of language speakers that they collect onto language pages and pages that I believe are related (such as adding language videos to the "language" portion of Wikipedia pages about people who speak the language or countries who have that language declared as an official language). If other users have an issue with me posting the video on non-language pages, I will stop. My issue was that very few people had issues until one user came and reverted 46 of my edits that nobody had messaged me about or had any issues with, which I didn't think was a "consensus" thing, and so I was trying to explain my case to him. I will stop posting them on language pages. As for adding Wikitongues' name for credit on the video, I wasn't doing that to try to like promote them or use Wikipedia as a way to raise money or anything for them, but in the videos I had seen on Wikipedia before beginning editing, the captions always cited the source they had gotten the video from, so that's what I did too. If I restrict the videos to only language pages from here on, can I continue editing? Thanks! Jessica Britt (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thehumantwig01, thanks for responding. IMO posting high-quality language videos to language pages is fine, although some videos may be less appropriate. I noticed one objection was to a video by a non-native speaker, another was to a video in which the multilingual speaker switched into English.

I personally am not sure I agree with Woodroar that this is necessarily a COI issue; that probably needs further discussion, possibly at WP:COIN instead of here. If it is, that doesn't mean you can't continue to do this work, only that instead of directly editing articles, you'd make edit requests on talk pages to get the videos added by another editor. It's an extra step, but the upside is that if that editor makes the edit, that shows at least one other editor thinks the addition is an improvement.

I also disagree that linking Wikitongues in captions is necessarily problematic. That would be something to get consensus on at articles; what I'd suggest is that if you add it in an article and other editors object, you accept that for that article, consensus is against you. If as time goes on you discover that you're getting pushback on it pretty much every time, I'd accept that as a general consensus. —valereee (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

But we're not talking about an intern with the Associated Press replacing citation needed tags with sources, something that's questionable COI-wise but almost definitely good for the project. Wikitongues has never been vetted by the community. It's not listed at WP:RSP, has never been discussed at WP:RSN, and doesn't appear to be widely cited by reliable sources. Plus their licenses may not be compatible with ours. I've seen plenty of artists and photographers blocked for spamming their content in articles, so we really shouldn't have different rules for non-profits. There really needs to be community buy-in for editing like this, at COIN—as you mentioned—and RSN, but possibly other noticeboards/projects depending on the circumstances. Woodroar (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Woodroar this is basically an RS-issue. I have commented on @Thehumantwig01's talk page on 12 Nov 2020: The addition of Wikitongues videos should be restricted to the page about the language featured in the video, and with maximal oversight with regards to its illustrative value. There are cases where speakers are non-native speakers, or native semi-speakers; further, there are many videos which contain introductory portions in other languages (usually the dominant standard language of the region), which is misleading for the casual listener. Don't leave this oversight to others. If you are not in the position to judge whether a video portrays the featured language in an authentic and illustrative manner, don't add it. Per default, Wikitongues is not a WP:reliable source. Given that at least four videos were removed because of such issues, I agree with the procedure suggested by Valereee above (edit requests on talk pages), as long as Wikitongues has not been community-vetted on WP:RSN. –Austronesier (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Interns are considered employees for the purposes of WP:PAID. There is currently no disclosure meeting the requirements. I also see no encyclopedic reason for adding the text "for Wikitongues" to the caption of all added videos (see MOS:CREDITS). That's just spam, and I'm removing the "for Wikitongues" part from the captions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup done. Thehumantwig01, in the future, we don't need more edits like the following: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2020 (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.

Blocked editor Abbas Kwarbai threatening Velella

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.

---

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

I've been checking Abbas Kwarbai's talk page every once in a while, and while they've been incredibly frustrated with the circumstances of some of their articles being speedily deleted, there are some wildly inappropriate messages being left on their talk page being addressed to Velella.

Diffs

Diffs have been revdeled by Kinu.

A later additional comment in response to their denied unblock request. It already veers into WP:NPA territory, but Velella being referred to as an illiterate Wikipedia editor and having allegedly made an evil act are, all things considered, tame. A specific section dedicated to Velella. More attacks on Velella, saying [they] don't deserve to be admin because [they] are not neutral but full of selfish and blunders. At this point, I left a comment saying that they should lay off of the personal attacks. Threats of violence made. They claim they would use all possible ritual [sic] to brutally attack [Velella], and ends end their tirade with: I will follow you through your dream and kill [them] you.

Recommendation

No one deserves to receive that kind of abuse on here (even if the threats are being directed to a cnidarian). At this point I think a revocation of talk page access or a site ban would be needed. If admins see any possible redemption that will work, though with Abbas' ire that may need to be considered a long time from now. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Many thanks Tenryuu for your report. I was about to report it here myself but you beat me to the draw. It quite made my little blue tentacles quiver. I think blocking of talk page access to all in this sock farm would be the appropriate solution.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access and removed the offending WP:NPA violations. Clearly that is the least that should happen here. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift action. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have also revdeled the last of the diffs posted above along with this one. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:25, 17 November 2020 (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.

TPA removal

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.

---

2600:1001:B10C:2557:80A6:46FB:C398:BFB6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2600:1001:B100:0:0:0:0:0/42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) Please remove TPA. Amongst other things:

• legal threats
• using admin templates
• duplicating article content
• more legal threats

Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Gah. It's a /42 and it expires tomorrow, so it might be best if a CU looks at it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• It doesn't expire until January 18. However, pinging @TonyBallioni: as the blocking admin/CU. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Pretty sure that wasn’t the target, but I went ahead and extended it for a year without TPA. If I recall there were multiple issues on the range and if we’re having disruption that’s ongoing without any massive collateral extending it works. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2020 (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.

100+ vandal edits on Myles Turner within the last 24 hours

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.

---

Myles Turner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is being vandalized at a very high rate. I did leave a wp:rfpp, but thought this should be bumped up. Adakiko (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Page protected. Adakiko (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I also pinged an admin privately to indef three accounts created specifically to vandalise the article; two of them had enough edits to autocon-bust a few days from now. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm going through the single-purpose accounts and blocking as needed. Thanks for the report. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

One of those accounts isn't so much an SPA as it is a compromised account by the looks of it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked these accounts:

• User:Jpegan
• User:Ethmatcai
• User:Moedallaz345
• User:Yessir9644987664356
• User:Paidbyballmer
• User:Imjuskyre
• User:Hiro418
• User:YaMutha1234
• User:Aaron 456.67
• User:Chitowncubs123
• User:Bepiscola
• User:E1hyp3
• User:RL1016
• User:Ijfiod34ur9n
• User:WikiTwitter290

-- Fuzheado | Talk 05:49, 18 November 2020 (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.

110.170.144.xx range conducting BLP Violation

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, i found that IP range 110.170.144.xx conducting vandalism and BLP Violation on Phum Viphurit. These users has reported in AIV but needs a long respond and quickly become stale. Let see how IP vandalize the article:

• 110.170.144.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 110.170.144.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 110.170.144.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This three users needs to be rangeblock because of distruptive behaviour. 180.244.189.223 (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a week. Rangeblocks area better suited for vandalism across multiple articles. The self-protection will stop the issue for now.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2020 (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.

Edmund the Martyr

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.

---

Could someone pop over to Edmund's article and remove the COI edit that keeps being added such as this please? I asked Favonian but they declined and I am at the 3RR threshold (and in any case, there's no sign of this new single-purpose account stopping). The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit and notified the editor about this discussion. GiantSnowman 17:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Must have beaten me by a nanosecond! I agree with the reasoning here and will also keep an eye on the page. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for three days to cut short the event spam. Acroterion (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

and with his feast day coming up on the 20th thank you all for the work. Edmund Patrick – confer 22:46, 18 November 2020 (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.

Mahni Gorashi

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 have some concerns about the article Mahni Ghorashi. I suspect that some citations in that article might be faked.

The article, created by SPA Matt123071, came to my attention when, via category watching, I noticed an extraordinary number of categories, which I removed (several times; another user had done similarly before). I then noticed some extraordinary claims about the subject's musical and literary achievements, so I checked out some of the provided sources. They failed verification, and I tagged them as such, with detailed |reason=. Then eight editors, all with only 1 or 2 edits, showed up and provided different sources for some of the disputed claims. They also failed verification.

Today, a challenged citation about the subject's musical and literary achievements was replaced with a glowing review of the subject's recital at Carnegie Hall. That source looked very convincing, until the non-professional web page title, "Page", made me look closer and I noticed that the URL, new-york-concert-in-review.com, was a variation of the legitimate URL nyconcertreview.com. That legitimate website doesn't return a result for https://nyconcertreview.com/?s=Ghorashi, nor does a site-specific Google search. A WhoIs query for the cited domain returned that is was created today. Lastly, I Google-searched for the first sentence in that review, and the three results were all for a different pianist. Looking again at the cited source in the article, I noticed that that review was just above the subject's purported review, and the first paragraph in both reviews is almost identical. Finally, I looked at the HTML code in the cited source, and immediateley noticed that the review text was not there. While I'm no HTML maven, I found that the review text is transcluded from here (must be viewed as raw).

As I write this, it occurred to me to check his claimed teaching activities. The provided source for MIT Sloane, is a fake similar to what I found above, as is the one for Stanford, and poor fakes they are, too. The MIT domain was created yesterday, as was the Stanford one.

I'm pretty sure that Mr Ghorashi exists, but I'm almost just as sure that all of his music credentials are faked, and some of his academic credentials are misleading or overstated.

I'm here because I don't know what to do next. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed what I think was the BLP-violating stuff; the article could use another pass. (1) it should be EC-protected, but RFPP is backlogged again; (2) the lead image probably isn't a self-portrait as claimed in local and commons file tags, and (3) if it is, the account probably should be verified and autobio tags added to the article; (4) not sure if this subject is notable in the first place. Might be a job for AFD but I'll leave it to someone else to decide. (And Michael Bednarek I think you need to post {{subst:ani-notice}} on the editor's UTP.) Lev¡vich 06:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

+EC for 1 week. —valereee (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2020 (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.

Creating a carnivore diet page.

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,

I'm interested in writing a page on the carnivore diet since I noticed there is none.

Since I didn't find a page about it I googled and the third search result is about a reddit thread about it being remove by vegan activists.

I asked a question here about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Diets_and_vegan_activism

The carnivore diet article has been removed and the topic censored by a biased editor who is a vegan. He has slandered me to be another user and called the topic anti-science and quackery.

Now, I'm interested in writing a good article with reliable sources, and I know what that means. I'm a mathematician. However that would take some time and since the responses I got don't seem encouraging I have doubts in investing my time just for the article to be removed by biased editors.

Is there any way for me to post the done page, have it reviewed for accuracy and if it is OK close the article to some editors who are obviously biased against the subject?

Or just stall their edits until they are reviewed?

Thank you.

Apologies if this is not the place to ask this, I'm new. JustANameInUse (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Try reading WP:AGF until you understand what the problem is there. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I did. The editor responsible has vegan and animal rights in his user page, calls me biased, the topic against science and quackery. I'm asking how to fight that. Should I even try? JustANameInUse (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

JustANameInUse is a case of WP:NOTHERE with a battleground mentality to stir up an imaginary flame war between "vegans" and "carnivores". So far he has called four users biased "vegans" without any evidence. For those who have no history on this matter there has been a serious issue on Wikipedia regarding the carnivore diet in regard to sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry. If you check the history of the carnivore diet article before the redirect many accounts were blocked earlier this year [20] and on the monotrophic diet article. The carnivore diet article has been advertised on multiple "carnivore diet" boards on Reddit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BecomeFree BecomeFree] and his other socks skyisdeep, Moresdevin etc were blocked for trying to recreate the carnivore diet multiple times or promote it on other articles. Several other accounts were blocked for meat-puppetry. JustANameInUse a new account is trying to promote the carnivore diet and remove criticisms of it. This user has edited the Monotrophic diet and tried to remove the word "fad" from several articles in relation to carnivore diet on a self admitted IP. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC) [21]. These edits are disruptive and have been reverted by multiple editors. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not call four users biased vegans. I already explained all that, you are interpreting facts to satisfy your bias. I'm not here to promote anything, which I can't say for you. Your whole user page is about veganism and animal rights. Previous users don't concern me, I'm interested in writing an article, not sponsoring a diet, unlike you. Perhaps you should read WP:AGF JustANameInUse (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"The carnivore diet article has been removed and the topic censored by a biased editor who is a vegan" etc. On Wikipedia all public edits are logged. We can see you calling different editors vegans and you have an obsession with talking about "bias". You have done that over at the help desk, do we really need to list diffs? Your edits are disruptive. If you want to re-create the carnivore diet, then why not draft it? You have turned up on a brand new account complaining about alleged vegan bias. You are not helping your case. You want to create the carnivore diet article then why not just do it? All drafts are reviewed btw. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Again with distorting facts. I want to, that is why I asked the question and all I got was hostility from you, nothing constructive. Being attacked by a obviously biased editor and laughed at by an obviously biased editor is the reason I asked here how to protect myself. Pointing at a bias doesn't make me combative or anything, no matter how you like to present me like some carnivore quack I'm just interested in an unbiased exposition. Unlike you and all your behavior here proves that. JustANameInUse (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"It is OK close the article to some editors who are obviously biased against the subject". Facepalm. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are you so condescending? I explained I'm new and asked how to protect myself and an article against biased editors and you are laughing at me? JustANameInUse (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

What you can try if you want, is this: Read WP:YFA carefully. Follow that guidance to write a draft as well as you can, see WP:TUTORIAL on how to add inline citations etc. Then submit it for review. See what happens. If your WP:RS are good, sufficient and correctly used, you have a chance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2020 (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:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

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

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

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

Edits by AndyCBaer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uesr:Mulman82

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

93.138.76.165 and Government of National Salvation

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

---

One looks at the talk page User talk:93.138.76.165 shows that this IP is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia, and is now making personal attacks via edit summary [22]. Could someone please block them? I have protected the article. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have also been attacked by the same individual. [23] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Tictictoc various issues

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.

---

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

See contribs.

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

My request:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor inserting extreme POV additions to Syrian civil war related articles

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was a previous civility ANI thread in October that ended when AleviQizilbash retired [24], followed a few days later by a return to editing and a one-week WP:DE block by EdJohnston [25]. Recent edits like this have multiple problems (initially demanding democratic reforms genocide was a surprising change), and when those problems were raised at the UTP, responses like [26] (quoted above) and [27] are not civil. When concerns about those responses were raised at EdJohnston's talk page, responses like [28] and [29] are also subpar. We have the sweet apology above but the subsequent post at the article talk page [30] makes me think we should fulfill the request made on Ed's UTP. Lev¡vich 06:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:AlsoWukai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TrottieTrue: Fair enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring by WilliamJE

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.

---

FYI

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

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

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

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

1- His last edit to Mike Straka was in 2013[31]

2- I came to Essex Country Club after this post[32] was made to a WikiProject talk page. A talk page I've made almost five dozen edits[33] to going back as far as 2010.

3- Working on alumni related edits is something I do all the time. Just one example, this USER talk page post[34] I did 3 days ago.

The above allegations are absurd. What I removed from Straka were multiple links to Amazon book pages. Is WP here to promote an author's books? Nope. It is bookspam. The complainant was told twice to make a bibliography section similar to one found at Mary Higgins Clark without the Amazon links but they shrugged it off. One of shrugs included this edit summary[35]- 'rv malicious removal of sourced content. Even you don't believe that this material is not encyclopedic or reliably sourced; you're just doing this out of spite. This time read WP:PRESERVE, WP:POINT and WP:DICK, especially the latter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E-960's topic ban

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

1. [36] on Christian minorities fleeing Europe to the new world.

2. [37][38][39][40][41] edits leading to the edit warring report, on abortion in Poland.

3. [42] discussing editing on "Jesus Christ King of Poland" from six months ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note to the reviewing administrators - please relate this to just closed at "no action" report where the same new account (Astral Leap) has already brought up the above issue.[43] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comment by E-960

I would like to say that other editors/admins involved in the "abortion" discussion did not necessarily see it as directly infringing on the ban [44]. Also, given that there is an sock-puppet investigation going on, I did point out that an unusual patter of editing occurred during the "Jesus Christ King of Poland?" discussion on the Poland talk page (which occurred well before my t-ban), raising concerns to administrators regarding disruptive editing, entrapment, creation of multiple user accounts, and/or harassment (which this may well be part of — connected to another bigger issue) should not be silenced by evoking a t-ban. I would like to point out that Astral Leap's account was only created in February of 2020, and given the ongoing investigation regarding a flood of new accounts, who get involved in exchanges with editors and topics connected with Poland, I am not comfortable with how this situation is unfolding. --E-960 (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I went ahead and self-reverted on the first point [45]. Indeed, the ban affects Christianity topics as a whole and European Secularism specifically, I got things a bit mixed up in my mind, and when making a series of edits on the United States page, I carelessly added the word "English" in front of statement related to "dissenting Christian groups". I acknowledge this was a honest mistake on my part, as I unwittingly just lumped the ban as pertaining to European related articles only. --E-960 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@E-960 You accidentally revealed your IP --> [46] Are you okay with that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

• NOTE: Also, I'd like to raise attention about user:Astral Leap account activity, it appears that the vast majority of the user's edits actually relate to either being engaged in admin board or talk page discussions, but lack any meaningful article content editing — mostly relegated to "mico" edits, such as the following examples: [47], [48], [49], [50] or [51]. I raised the issue with contributors who are familiar with the on-going sockpuppet investigation to perhaps see if there is a connection. --E-960 (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Several months you say? Let's see... you opened an account on February 8, 2020 [52], and you edited for 2 minutes (total 2 edits). Then you came back on February 15, 2020 [53] and edited for another 50 minutes (total of 10 edits) with two more edits on February 22, 2020, where you spent 11 minutes. Then you went dormant for 3.5 mothns and returned on June 5, 2020 [54] were you made several edits until June 29, 2020, for a total time of approximately 13 hours. Then you went dormant to return on July 11, 2020[55] to spend a total of 3 hours editing in July. Then 5 hours in August [56], 5 hours in September [57], and then you perfectly wrote and linked this [58]. In October 2020, [59] you edited for a total of 4 hours, and in November, you edited for approximately 30 minutes before you wrote this [60]. So to let's add this up (give or take), you have been here for a total of 31 hours spread out over a few months, and then you arrived here with a perfectly formulated, flawless report.[61]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note - [62] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:23, 20 November 2020 (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:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler

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 get some uninvolved admin eyes on User:Bus stop's behavior at Talk:Parler? It's getting absolutely ridiculous. I initially created the RfC in part because we were going in circles, but it doesn't appear to have helped. The user keeps WP:REHASHing the same arguments over and over and over again—claiming that people have not explained why the mention of antisemitic content on Parler ought to be included in the lead when they have (often more than once), and most often repeating the WP:OTHERCONTENT argument that "if it's not in the lead of Twitter, why should it be included here?". Multiple users have asked them to stop, but they are continuing. I don't know if they genuinely believe it's a legitimate argument or if their intent is to overwhelm and derail the discussions there, but the end result is the same. Talk:Parler#Description_of_this_service is the most recent example of the behavior, but it can be viewed up and down the talk page including in Talk:Parler#Heavy bias circumvents guidelines of conservative, dispassionate descriptions. Please remove subjective and unsubstantiated "antisemitism" claim and in the RfC. They began doing this on November 7 (see my comments then: [63], [64]) and have shown no sign of slowing.

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

• Myself: [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]
• IHateAccounts: [73], [74], [75]
• Slatersteven: [76], [77]
• XOR'easter: [78], [79]
• Grayfell: [80], [81], [82]

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

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

• Bus stop is on a roll again--an AP2 topic ban would be a great help. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• This has happened many times at AP articles, often over minor issues or trivia, as at Donald Trump and Stefan Molyneux. [83] SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop's first comment in this mess, to the best of my knowledge, was their inserting language ranting about "social media oligarchs", specifically naming Twitter, in a response to a thread that an abusive user titled "User GorillaWarfare Twitter Troll" [84]. The abusive user in question vanished after GorillaWarfare asked for others to step in here [85]. It got more crazy when Bus stop jumped in to support the abusive user's illegitimate call for a "vote" [86] in which said user accused GorillaWarfare repeatedly of being a paid employee of Twitter, and then they went back to complaining about and trying to compare Parler to Twitter [87][88][89][90][91].

This has been going on for the better part of two weeks now and I have felt for several days that it had passed into the realm of Sealioning and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing behavior, but today's comment that started with "I am merely asking you for your reasoning, GorillaWarfare" and falsely accusing GorillaWarfare of being unwilling to defend her reasoning [92], followed by regurgitating once again "There is no reason this article should deviate from the Twitter article. Left-leaning politics is not a reason" [93], was definitive. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is standard operating procedure for Bus stop. Even when it is explained to Bus stop that they could easily get a consensus for their desired edit, Bus stop can't resist the opportunity to browbeat an editor instead of simply seeking an easy consensus. Here's my experience in which I explained to Bus stop that I would not oppose their attempt to change consensus. It seems that Bus stop relishes the bludgeoning process. Sundayclose (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I've warned Bus Stop multiple times about bludgeoning since July, including this one which referenced a commitment on their talk in September of 2019 to no more bludgeoning discussions. —valereee (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'd support an AP topic ban. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think a rate limit would be more effective, like a sitewide restriction of 3 posts per thread, appealable in six months. I don't think the posting-too-much is limited to any particular topic area. Lev¡vich 19:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • A rate limit seems like it would be easy to circumvent by just starting a new thread. --WMSR (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Indeed -- part of the issue has been that Bus stop is bringing up the same argument at practically every new thread on the page (and the page has attracted a lot of new users who are starting new threads because they don't know to read up on the talk page to see if the discussion has already started). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Levivich. If bludgeoning is the only behavior issue then some sort of voluntary/mandatory restriction on talk page discussions is in order. Perhaps they are allowed 1 reply to another editor per day unless the are reply to a comment made directly to them. This can be a bit of rope before an AP2 tban. Springee (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Given MastCell's comment about prior blocks (below) I have less faith in my more narrow approach. Springee (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm pulling that back. The most recent block was from April 2011! [94]] If that was the last block I think some rope should be allowed in this case. Springee (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• An AP topic ban seems like the minimum appropriate response, given this editor's history. He has at least 3 indefinite blocks in the past, primarily (it would appear) for obsessively partisan editing and a fixation on tagging people he identifies as Jews. Each indefinite block was lifted in exchange for mentorship and a promise of good behavior (here's a representative example). His mentors are mostly gone from Wikipedia, but he's still here, and his behavior is still poor (as the diffs above demonstrate). At some point we have to show at least some nominal respect and value to the constructive editors who have to deal with Bus stop's disruptive editing, instead of endlessly enabling him. Cutsomized post restrictions would potentially be appropriate if this were the first, or second, or even third instance of disruptive behavior, but we're well beyond that. An AP2 topic ban would be appropriate and can be enacted by any uninvolved admin, although an indefinite block is also more than justified by his history and ongoing disruption. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I would like to see what they have to say about the situation but mostly I am swayed by Levivich and Springee. Seems the most common sense and helpful approach. PackMecEng (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• AP topic ban. Pretty simple. They've had plenty of rope over the time and haven't changed behavior.--Jorm (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Topic banned. I've topic banned Bus stop indefinitely from all pages and discussions concerning post-1932 American politics. Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
• I'm late to this party, and here only because I saw the notice of indefinite AP topic ban on Bus stop's UTP. He has been a clear net-negative on article talk pages for years, and my exposure to that has been mostly outside the AP area. So I agree it's not just AP, and perhaps a more appropriate sanction would be community ban, but the AP ban is far better than nothing. By the way, the serious problems also include persistent circular and repetitive argument that tends to make it less likely that arriving editors will read any of the existing discussion, largely defeating its purpose. Despite repeated exhortations Bus stop has seemed unable to grasp the concepts that a discussion is more than a debate between two or three editors, and that one doesn't need to keep repeating the same arguments over and over. While I doubt this TBAN will be the end of the Bus stop problem, it's a welcome step in the right direction. I only wish it didn't take years to reach this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, I think this [95] is relevant. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This [96] is completely bonkers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Endorse AP2 Ban Bus Stop definitely has a bludgeoning style of debate (regurgitating ones' arguments and asking odd questions about that which causes discussions to go in circles) and while I don't edit many AP2-related pages, this comes up on the WP-space pages where AP2 factors come into play - BLP/N, Jimmy Wales' talk page, etc. policy pages, etc. Assessments above related to highly partisan editing and not using those discussions to try to come to consensus but continue to push a point are my experience, and reviewing the talk page of Parler shows the same problems (mind you, I see valid points raised on neutrality and tone but Bus Stop is going at it all wrong). --Masem (t) 16:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Site ban now BS has just violated his TBAN on his talk page. This has been a long time coming. It's time to stop wasting community time and resources on this. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban but a 1 week block including talk page might work nicely as a cool down period. I've looked over the Parlor lead. It clearly fails IMPARTIAL but the general editorial atmosphere there is too toxic to bother with. I understand why an editor would be pissed. It also doesn't help that IHateAccouts seems to be campaigning for action against Bus Stop [[97]]. Clearly Bus Stop's emotions are up. Let them come back when they calm down a bit. Springee (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:JustANameInUse and talk page access

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.

---

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

Since then, they have made two unblock requests that failed to address their blocks and instead ill-advisedly attacked other editors, doubling down on accusing editors of veganism, continued to double down too on his belief that it is [not] a personal attack to expose bias and a user who vandalizes wikipedia because of his ideology [98], and has indicated that he no longer wants to be unblocked, which is the reason why he has TPA in the first place. If he no longer wishes to be unblocked, then I see no reason why he should have talk page access either, especially if it's only to continue to double down on accusing editors without evidence of bias.

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

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

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

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

User:Mike Novikoff

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'm sorry if this not the right place to discuss this (if this is the case, please move my message to a more appropriate location), but I have found myself in a fight with a user named Mike Novikoff. I saw him removing stress (accent) marks from names in the Cyrillic script (enclosed in a {{lang-ru}} template) and I've tried to stop him, but he continues. I have pointed him to WP:BRD and suggested that he starts a serious discussion of the issue on the Russian project talk page before continuing, but he doesn't want to listen. There's also another user that helped him.

Mike Novikoff even wrote an essay about the necessity to remove stress marks from Russian names (WP:RUSTRESS), which he promotes by including a link to it in his edit summaries. I've tried to move the essay to his user space, but he moved it back. (By the way, the essay is badly written, and it looks like an attack page against the Russian Wikipedia where Mike Novikoff is currently blocked.)

I don't really want to fight and I don't care much about the Navalny and Lenin pages where Mike Novikoff reverted me 3 times or so already, but I'm afraid that he starts to remove stress marks en masse. I'm concerned about the articles that don't have Russian-language versions. (There are many, cause the Russian Wikipedia has stricter notability rules.) And if there isn't a Russian version, there will be nowhere to go for the information on correct pronunciation, the information will be completely lost.

By the way, Mike Novikoff's essay says that an IPA transcription "is already present in most of the articles that need it", but that is simply not true. And Mike No\vikoff has already removed stress marks from some articles that didn't have an IPA transcription. Examples: [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are links to previous discussions:

• User talk:Mike Novikoff#WP:Stress marks in Russian words
• User talk:Retimuko#Alexei Navalny

As you can see, I've tried to explain to Mike Novikoff and Retimuko that most (if not all) Russian encyclopedias and dictionaries mark stresses. And that if they wanted to remove stress marks, a wide and thorough discussion would be necessary. But they don't seem to understand. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Moscow Connection, I've found that the best thing to do when you are in a dispute with another editor is to get more, knowledgeable editors involved in the discussion so it evolves out of a "me vs. you" tug of war to a "how can we improve this?" discussion. So, I was going to recommend you bringing this subject to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia but it looks like most talk page messages there get zero responses. Are there places in Wikipedia, maybe Wikipedia:Manual of Style or Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages involving language, accents, stress marks and the like where some other editors could weigh in on this matter? I think you need to broaden the discussion beyond just the two of you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia is essentially dead. Probably WT:MOS could be the best place to discuss the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing what is written in the source

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

---

User:Griboski ,changing what is written in the source.She changes something irrelevant and adds her own or deletes what is written in the source and has been doing it constantly, for months. Someone notices it from other users and returns it, someone doesn't, so he writes what he doesn't write in the source, here is an example today.[[107]] , [[108]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.60.225 (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Note - most probably we have more of the same IP editor who has been active lately [109]. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

90.255.128.0/17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rude and aggressive comments from User:Sam Sailor

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 discourse can be seen here on my talk page. I nominated a page (Zappa (film)), which I thought non-notable, for deletion about 3 weeks ago. it was hastily declined. OK, whatever. But User:Sam Sailor seems to have taken exception to this, questioning, among other things, my knowledge of the Danish language, my editing history (which I stand fully behind), making (in my belief) unfounded accusations of disruptive editing, and generally communicating in an aggressive and generally uncivil manor towards myself.

Additionally, upon further inspection, he/she has made reverts of at least one edit I made in an unrelated article, Astronomy (song).

Also, the editor in question has made rude commentary about the incident on another editor's talk page.

I have also explicitly informed them not to contact me again.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@L1A1 FAL: First, you seem to have ignored the big warning telling you that you must notify any editor you bring up for discussion. I will do so for you, but please make sure to do so yourself in the future. Anyway, I don't see why this is at ANI. You asked the editor not to contact on your talk page. Fine. If they editor kept contacting you, I could understand an ANI thread, but that has happened yet. Reverting a single edit they saw in your edit history (I assume) is clearly not anywhere enough to count as WP:Hounding. Their discussion with Lugnuts seems to be just two editors exasperated at what they felt was a terrible nomination. The stuff on your talk page seems mostly fine. Asking you if you spoke Danish was reasonable under the circumstances. WP:BEFORE means you should generally look for sources before nominating and although it looks like a bunch of English sources were found, it's possible most sources for a Danish film will be in Danish, so if you didn't understand Danish, completing before would likely have been difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, remember that while you are allowed to ask editors not to contact you on your talk page, this doesn't mean you can escape responsibility for your edits. If there are problems with your AfDs and an editor has tried to help you but you've ignored them and told them not to contact you, they will be well within their rights to bring it ANI to have you sanctioned e.g. topic banned from AfD if the problem continues. The community is likely to accept that attempts to discuss the problem with you were limited by your refusal to discuss the matter, and that therefore sanctions may be warranted even with limited attempts to resolve the matter first. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The AFD was speedily declined, within 24 hours. I had minimal opportunity to respond to the matter. Offer help? Sam Sailor didn't even contact me until after the matter was closed. He contacted me over a matter that was, by that point, closed. I find that nonconstructive, to say the least.

The particular edit he reverted was a valid edit that I made, removing informtion not relevant to the target of the article. I believe he simply reverted it based on my edit summary, and their and my back-and-forth, rather than the actual matter of the edit, or having any knowledge of the subject themself.

I did not see the warning. That is on me. I am beyond exasperated with this editor, and just wanted this issue addressed.

And why should I be sanctioned? I didn't act in bad faith. The matter was over when he/she contacted me. I tried to engage them.. I've never had any issues about AFD before, so I believe that your understanding of this matter is incorrect. Their communication with me was unnecessary, given that the AFD was declined, and it was additionally, needlessly accusatory and WP:uncivil.

Additionally, they came at me today, after probably about a week of no communication. While they probably ultimately have good motives, there is no reason that the substance of their conduct should not be addressed.-L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Again it's a single edit. Right or wrong, it's minor enough it's unreasonable to expect sanction over it, the same way it would be to sanction you over a poor AfD or not notifying them. If there is continued dispute over the edit, take it to Talk:Astronomy as always. There should be no reason why it needs to be at ANI. If there is a continued pattern of reverting your edits especially unnecessarily, or following you around, then sure sanction may be justified. But not over a single edit. Also substance of what conduct? What on earth are you talking about? Editors aren't required to use Wikipedia 24/7 nor are they required to respond to stuff straight away. You've told them you no longer welcome communication. Just leave it at that and stop wasting everyone's time. If you continue to make poor AfDs, that's on you, so please do seek feedback in appropriate venues if you're not willing to discuss the problems. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Looking more carefully, I see you did say "And unless you actually have something to discuss, please do not contact me again, or a complaint will be filed" and the editor responded. Them replying after you said this seems okay since they felt they did have something to discuss. The fact you didn't welcome their reply is unfortunate but it wasn't a clear request to stay away. Their reply could have been more polite, but yours could have been as well. Now that you've left a clear request to stay away, this should be respected and I've reminded them that they should do so. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw your comment on their page, and can't help but feel as though you have more-or less invited them to counter-report me. I find this unfortunate. I also had more to add, but it got caught in an edit conflict. I'm not retyping it, as I feel that this is going nowhere, and I have real-life matters to attend to. I would greatly appreciate it if you would address Sam's tone in his communication, but I can see you feel different than I. Good day.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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

It's hard to follow this, but it looks like there have been some personal attacks by User:Sam Sailor. Sam appears to have argued back against an AfD nomination by User:L1A1 FAL that Sam considers to have been poorly thought out. User:Nil Einne provided some good advice above to the filer, L1A1 FAL, and I doubt that any admin is going to sanction anybody due to what's reported here. When you open an AfD and then appear to forget about it, and object afterwards when it got speedy closed, you don't have much standing to complain. Thanks are due to the filer, L1A1 FAL, for striking through their last comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

Nick Cordero

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

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

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

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

User:Dbernwies

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

71.236.44.248

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.

---

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

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

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

I want to update

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.

---

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

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

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

Reblock Polish date-changing vandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

• "That's the problem with African-Americans; they are so hard to impress and make the lives of people of others races a total misery."[110]
• "He's Jewish because his surname is of Jewish origin."[111]
• "The degree of Austin's Aboriginal ancestry has to be mentioned since he can be mistaken as white at first glance."[112]
• "The amount of Wighton's Aboriginal and European ancestry has to be mentioned since he can be mistaken for white at first glance."[113]

Other disruptive behaviors include changing the musical origin of a musician to their place of birth without any reference for place of birth,[114][115] and conflating surname origin with national heritage (Brazeau surname gets "Franco" heritage, and the Jewish surname example above.)

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

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

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

Trương guy

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 Trương guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been constantly engaging in WP:NOTHERE behaviour over the past few months by article blanking (here, here), making racist remarks (here) and on edit summaries as well as having little to no interest in working collaboratively. User would also remove and blank warnings by other users on their talk page. ShelteredCook (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) ShelteredCook, please notify the user in question on their talk page about this report, as is required by policy at the top of this page and when in the edit window. You may use {{subst:ANI notice}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)  Done –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• The user has received multiple warnings from multiple editors, but they haven't edited in two weeks, which is part of their general editing pattern. Blocked for 1 month to see if we can get their attention. —valereee (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: Did you intend to block for one month or for 31 hours? The current block status for Trương guy is set to the latter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    The Bushranger, dammit. I am twinkle-incompetent, apparently. Thank you, corrected. —valereee (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    No worries, glad to help out! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:43, 22 November 2020 (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.

Clear legal threats

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.

---

By Osmanomar01 on the article Somalia here and here, both in article text and edit summaries: ...we will therefor start the legal process to taking down the Page which contains info on Somalia which is the the exclusive right of the Somali Goverment. Warned about legal threats by myself here after the first threat and before the second, even clearer threat. Please block immediately as pending changes is obviously not working. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, Ivanvector. That was commendably fast. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  Your section title was commendably concise in my watchlist ;) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 22 November 2020 (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.

Edits by User:Alexbrn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, Gd123lbp, I said before your good faith was not an issue. But now it is, since it seems you are just lying. If you're going to accuse me of edit warring on Ioannidis' article (for example), you need to provide diffs (hint, you can't, because they don't exist). Alexbrn (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI I just requested temp ECP of the Ioannidis article at RFPP. Lev¡vich 22:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ECP might be an idea at Sucharit Bhakdi too, since there seems to be a concerted attempt to revert it to its "absolute mess of undue weight" state. Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, there are so many to choose from it is difficult to be specific. As I have said previously the user made huge edits on Bhakdi's page without a discussion in the talk page. Other editors who contested his "heavy handed" edits discussed this with the user and then a discussion took place. (only after the fact. Look at most recent edit wars with users such as Eric and Gcmackay on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sucharit_Bhakdi&action=history Alexbrn then referred to user eric's edits as "weasel wording" which is inappropriate.

A similar edit war is happening resulting from Alexbrn's edits on: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jay_Bhattacharya&action=history such as:

"User eric: rm two inappropriate, seemingly gratuitous template pastings; Bhattacharya is person and a professor, not a "fringe theory", and there is no non-neutral info here" - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jay_Bhattacharya&oldid=989981500

On this page there has talk page discussion about the edits. (this was after the Bhakdi talk page discussion, so the user ignored the arguments made on Bhakdi's page) The key point here is that the edits they have been making are clearly highly contentious and done without discussion on them. They are also involve aggression and threats of blocking to other users.)

The user made similar edits on: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Ioannidis&action=history most recently (and with other editors mentioning it):

19,573 bytes 0‎ Protected "John Ioannidis": Edit warring / content dispute ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 03:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)) [Move=Require administrator access] (expires 03:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC))) thank curprev 23:07, 22 November 2020‎ Llll5032 talk contribs‎ 19,573 bytes -36‎ shorten, rm sub-heading to de-emphasize study thank Tag: Visual edit curprev 21:30, 22 November 2020‎ 62.74.62.138 talk‎ 19,609 bytes +2,977‎ Undid revision 990103489 by Alexbrn (talk) bogus copyright claims are a lame reason to undo edits in whole. Don't do this on Wikipedia. Tag: Undo curprev 20:57, 22 November 2020‎ Alexbrn talk contribs‎ 16,632 bytes -2,977‎ Reverted to revision 990079471 by Llll5032 (talk): Undo

Luckily, users said that a talk page discussion should take place and Alexbrn made some very reasonable comments talking about reliable sources: see santa clara study talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Ioannidis Nevertheless, the discussion ended with the santa clara study being added back in (though reduced in length), so again the edit they originally made was not appropriate. The objectivity of this user is highly questionable, despite some reasonable comments about using good medical sources on John Ioannidis' page. Look at the kinds of words they use to describe Bhakdi and others (crap, pseudo science, conspiracy theorist) ((they undid the conspiracy theorist claim after a user on his talk page called them up on it. That talk page discussion is also very revealing about motives behind the edits.)) Look at my original point on the Bhakdi talk page about NPOV about not using these words as if they are fact - state them as opinion instead. Gd123lbp (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question, about your accusation (in your post timestamped 01:59, 22 November 2020), in which you accused me of edit-warring on the Ioannidis page. You were asked for diffs to support that. You have not produced them. You have now compounded things by accusing me of instigating an edit war at Jay Bhattacharya, an article I have effectively edited once. Do you actually know what edit warring is? You are telling an outright lie in your unevidenced claim I described Bhakdi as "crap". Back it up, or retract that accusation. (I notice, BTW, you have recently been warned[116] for making personal attacks, which these unevidenced accusations seem to be another example of). Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This case can be closed, as the accusations have not been proven. Gd123lbp is herewith admonished to not accuse other users without proving it using diffs. If Gd123lbp continues to do so, I would recommend a topic ban. I think a topic ban is more appropriate than a block, as written in the text of the user warning template used by Newslinger, because a block would seem rather punitive and short lived to me, while a topic ban would serve to counter the tendency of WP:OWN exhibited in this case. ◅ Sebastian 18:51, 23 November 2020 (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.

Editor 152.32.98.93 repeatedly adding factual errors

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.

---

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

Editor is repeatedly added at least two factual errors, is changing/adding figures w/o citations, and making edits without citing any sources. This seems to have been going on quite some time under more than one IP address. If my experience with the IP's Rajang River edits are the norm, I suspect a lot of erroneous information has been added.

• edit diff: Rajang River - river length, basin area, and river discharge}} - Note changed river length from 563km to 760km - I found several sources for ~560km length
• edit diff: Rajang River - changing only basin area and river discharge}}
  • Rajang River basin map is less than 70x40km which would be a rectangle 2800sq km, hardly 50,000 sq km.
• edit diff: Daule River - unsourced. Is this the Daule River only or the Daule river + Guayas River segment to the sea? I don't think the Daule River by itself is 330.2 km. As the Daule is very convoluted, its length probably changes year to year.
• edit diff: Borneo - a lot of unsourced figures.
• edit diff: Balui River - unsourced length.
• edit diff: Negros Island - added many redlinks w/o sources.
• edit diff: Kalamansig - added one river length w/o source.
• edit diff: Mindoro - adding redlink mountains w/ unsourced elevations
  • edit diff: Mindoro - a different IP adding redlink mountains w/ unsourced elevations

Adakiko (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This likely static IP has continued to make unsourced edits after UTP warnings and after this thread was opened; the IP has made no talk space edits. I think a block is merited. Lev¡vich 23:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 152.32.98.93 (talk · contribs) one month. The user makes factual errors and is unwilling to communicate; they continued to edit after being warned. Since August they have made over 250 edits. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2020 (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.

Concerns about AichiWikiFixer's competence and lack of communication

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.

---

AichiWikiFixer is a relatively new user who has made countless page moves without discussion or explanation and it is not immediately obvious to other editors as to why. Particularly my concern is that this has been brought up with them numerous times and they continue to do these moves without an edit summary or anything remotely resembling an explanation. I don't know what het solution here is but I think AichiWikiFixer needs to cease page moves until they can demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with other editors, get consensus or at minimum - actually explain why they are doing what they are doing. Also pinging Nihonjoe who has attempted to communicate with them unsuccessfully. Praxidicae (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see a notification (although it's damn hard to tell, I might have missed it on that maroon backgroun) so I've added one. —valereee (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I notified them as soon as I filed in the previous section where I gave them a last warning. Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I knew I might just be missing seeing it. Jeez, that background. —valereee (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Another on the long list of issues surrounding this mess...;) Praxidicae (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not so much their edits (which have generally been fine, as far as I have seen). It's that they do not use an edit summary explaining why they are making the page moves. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That and the mass moving of pages without any formed consensus. I find that the most disruptive. Praxidicae (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've brought this issue up before. Some of the moves appear to be acceptable, but many of these should go to WP:RM or at least be citing some sort of consensus, somewhere on the issue. And some are just strange, like moving Yamagata, Yamagata to Yamagata (core city), a very unusual disambiguation style. The real issue is the lack of communication - they don't respond on their talk page, they don't leave edit summaries, so it's not clear if any of the concerns are "getting through." If they continue to not respond, I would suggest at least revoking their permission to move pages without a discussion. SnowFire (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Even since opening this thread they've continued to ignore messages, moved pages and haven't engaged a single editor. Isn't there anything that can be done? Praxidicae (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I have indefinitely blocked AichiWikiFixer for disruptive editing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:52, 23 November 2020 (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.

Repeated disruption at Matt Taven

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.

---

Neither a temporary user block nor page protection has yet dissuaded Gojo Bonito (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• By the way, this looks like a persistent long term problem that has involved multiple IPs, so there may be multiple issues here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  Hey CD63 - I've indef partial blocked. Gojo Bonito - if you get consensus for your changes on the talk page, someone else will implement them. If you show that you can edit collaboratively, you can ask to be unblocked. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Girth Summit. If they were evading a block as 50.234.254.130 (talk · contribs), not to mention using the other IPs to edit war there, I'd request more than a partial. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    • I'm on mobile right now, not easy to investigate fully. Anyone else want to take a look? Thanks for your vigilance CD63 (is it Bob? Sorry if I've mixed you up with another IP contributor)  GirthSummit _(blether) 20:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

      • Yes, it's Bob. Best, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, add 2601:196:4600:A5E:89BE:99C8:F430:4D8C (talk · contribs) to the list of IPs. Block evasion. Please indef the sock master, block the progeny and protect the article. And rev/deletion of the defamatory/personal attack edit summaries. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bob, tidied up I think. I have blocked the account and the /64; I haven't protected the page yet, but will do that if any other IPs start up there. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Girth Summit. Quite the recent edit history for that article. I expect they'll return in a few weeks, if not sooner. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one summoned EEng considering wrestling is one of his favorite topics. Atsme 💬 📧 15:06, 23 November 2020 (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.

Repeated Disruption at Mustafa Nadarevic

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 anonymous IP 5.43.72.55 has made countless edits on the Mustafa Nadarevic wikipedia page suggesting that Nadarevic's Nationality is determined by his citizenship, not his race. These claims are false as Citizenship (by Wikipedia's definition and countless other definitions) is "a legal status in a political institution such as a city or a state" whereas Nationality "denotes where an individual has been born, or holds citizenship with a state. Nationality is obtained through inheritance from his/her parents, which is called a natural phenomenon".

My concern is that this IP is spreading misinformation regarding a deceased person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Nadarevi%C4%87&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanHunt1010 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

EthanHunt1010, I've blocked you for 31 hours for blatant edit warring. When your block expires, discuss the matter at Talk:Mustafa Nadarević. Nationalistic edit warring will not be tolerated. Now, I will go count the IP's reverts and issue another block if appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Possible edit-conflict here — I didn't mean to step on your toes C328, but noticed the IP editor had been reported. They've been a pain elsewhere, so I changed their block from a local Talk:Google Chrome block to a site-wide for 2 weeks. Their MO seems to be: make changes, ignore and delete user talk page notices about those changes, and then engage in petty edit-warring. Petty, since their back-and-forth at the Google Chrome talk page was about reinstating their pointless, non-constructive comments like these. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Cyphoidbomb. Two heads are better than one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both blocks. But I find it ironic that the one thing both edit-warriors agree on (that Mustafa Nadarević was Bosnian, regardless of whether he should also be listed as having other nationalities) is not supported by any references in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2020 (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.

Suspected sockpuppet violating 3RR multiple times

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.

---

24.104.250.197 has been violating 3RR on MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet and going against consensus. In addition, he is a suspected sockpuppet of Olsen24, see here for more. Is there anything I can do to stop this, as it is malicious, time-draining, and annoying. Thank you for any help. Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 02:51, 23 November 2020 (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.

Vandals impersonating established users

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.

---

Recently, the vandals Destrroyeraa (talk · contribs), TormadoLGS (talk · contribs), and JavaHuricane (talk · contribs) have been impersonating @Destroyeraa, TornadoLGS, and JavaHurricane:. All vandals have now been blocked and globally locked, but this behavior is very disturbing and frightening. For example, in this edit, the vandal used the real signature of JavaHurricane, and the victim may overlook the username and blame JavaHurricane. This is a huge problem for the Wikipedia community, and needs to be dealt with immediately. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Amazing, that they were able to create such 'similar' named accounts. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: The vandals are suspected socks of Wyatt2049 (talk · contribs). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was going to suggest that a checkuser try to establish the IP or range of the three vandals named here, who are obviously the same person, and if those results are helpful, establish a block or rangeblock. Destroyeraa's comment may provide a shortcut to this process. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Common victims are @ChessEric, Hurricanehink, TornadoLGS, Favonian, ToBeFree, GeneralNotability, and Suffusion of Yellow:. This vandal is sneaky, and know what is going on. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Destroyeraa, the sock which was impersonating me is My Royal Young, not Wyatt2049. Wyatt is not impersonating me, and I hope it will stay so. JavaHurricane 17:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: but why was the sock doing similar behaviors of the other socks of Wyatt2049? It's really fishy to have three impersonators in three days. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Destroyeraa, MRY is known to impersonate other LTAs. And in any case Wyatt's MO and targetted users are different: MRY targetted the usual users. JavaHurricane 17:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I can give more details, but in a private place rather than AN/I due BEANS and DENY concerns. JavaHurricane 17:15, 23 November 2020 (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.

Legal threat at Anthony Sabatini

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.

---

See this diff here. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the user had been warned. I warned them via the {{uw-legal}} template. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't encountered a legal threat...in a while, certainly, if ever...and I'm not au courant with the processes. Also, I'm fairly woolly-brained even at the best of times, so... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I left some educational material for the GOP and went on to semiprotect because of this revdel'd edit]. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha - in all the excitement I seem to have missed that. Thanks for the hat tip. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:32, 23 November 2020 (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.

Muirchertach1 and WP:TE/WP:3RR

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

SPA and IP on James Veitch (comedian)

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.

---

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

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

I've protected the page, which seems like the only justifiable action at the moment. There could be dodgy editors on both sides of the argument. Deb (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2020 (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.

Rangeblock please – Plymouth in Greater Detroit

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.

---

Regarding the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Music vandal from Greater Detroit, the range listed below has been active recently. Same behavior, same interests. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• 2600:1702:37D0:7960:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2020 (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.

Lutz Fehling is back

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 person, a crank who uses IPs to post, was disruptive on the Teahouse last year, and a range block was put in place. [117]. I know them from earlier this year and their attempts to promote "Whiteheadsches Syndrom" in relation to the Holocaust, which got them a partial block. [118]

Now they're back, still promoting the apparently non-existent psychiatric syndrome [119], [120] and pushing silica gel as a cure for schizophrenia. [121], [122], [123]

This person is very persistent and will simply repost their stuff over and over again, sometimes not very coherently. [124], [125], [126]

Is there any chance of a range block now, earlier rather then later? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

IPs used:

• 89.15.238.133
• 89.15.238.121
• 89.15.239.157
• 89.15.238.80
• 89.15.237.116
• 89.15.236.236
• 89.15.238.88
• 89.15.239.182
• 89.15.238.24
• 89.15.236.212
• 89.15.237.98
• 82.77.223.28
• 197.48.93.4

P.S. The editor was indeffed from de.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Would anyone oppose if I wrote up an LTA for this user? Also, perhaps an edit filter would be helpful here. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 02:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• An LTA sounds like a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I blocked Special:Contributions/89.15.236.0/22 for a month. There are a couple of tiny good edits in that range but not recently. 197.48.93.4 (talk · contribs) has only edited once, in May 2020, and I think no action at this stage would be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (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.

Edit warring with multiple accounts

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 Bloodlands, Greenpie78 (talk · contribs), 96.65.25.1 (talk · contribs) and 96.65.1.249 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• 48 hours for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2020 (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.

Shakshak31

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.

---

Shakshak31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ever since the eruption of the new Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, some new user/IPs have arrived to this site, including User:Shakshak31, who seemingly is not here to here to build an encyclopedia, but rather, to be on a mission of Turkification.

Some of his diffs:

Personal attacks: speak properly dummy. I'm not sockpuppet of someone. I just didn't see the archive

Major lack of WP:CIR [127] [128]. Honestly this person is impossible to work with, admittingly I don't have the best patience for this kind of stuff, yet my point remains.

Removal/alteration of sourced information and edit warring in a GA article to push his own POV, completely ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and whatnot [129] [130] [131]

Some of these removals include cited stuff such as:

Basarab's name implies that he was of Cuman or Pecheneg ancestry, but this hypothesis has not been proven.[8][11][12]

A scholarly hypothesis states that he was descended from Seneslau, a mid-13th-century Vlach lord.[4][5]

Changed the lede as well: Although his name is of Turkic origin, 14th-century sources unanimously state that he was a Vlach. -> There are multiple theories about his ethnicity.

Anti-Iranian behaviour or at least more disrespect from his side:

I'm deleting my own comment. because the iranian guy deleted my other comment.

== Persian chauvinism == Hello teacher, farsi editors on wikipedia are making Turkish history Iranian. They constantly write "Turco-persian, Turco-afghan, persianized" to Turkish states, but for example, they treat safevis whose origins are controversial as if they were purebred Kurds. Also, I added the posters to the List of Turkic dynasties and countries list. The guys watched all the articles about Turkish. If anything they don't want, they say unreliable source and delete it directly. I've never seen such a lousy site. These are the thieves of history. I will be glad if you can do something. I, too, that same farsi complained to someone I don't know called sockpuppeti and I will be banned soon. Come easy to you. You can delete the message after reading it.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I've already explained all my edits about Basarab on The talk page. [132]--Shakshak31 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I never deleted the sentence he was talking about. It's still there. I just cleared the page, made grammer edits, and deleted theories such as the theory that his name came from the dacio-thracian language. Because Dacian-thracian language died out almost a thousand years before Basarab's birth. [133]--Shakshak31 (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Also this translation sucks. what is "hello teacher"? Lol--Shakshak31 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If User:Shakshak31 is responding here, can he explain his comment, "these are the thieves of history" (Google translated from Turkish). I am familiar with past disputes about the origins of the Safavid dynasty. Over the years, that page has had to be protected about 15 times, mostly to deter people who want to make the Safavids more Turkish and less Persian. Sources seem to agree that they were both. If Shakshak31 shows by his talk comments that he is unable to edit neutrally in this domain, some restrictions may be needed. Also, if you really think this is 'a lousy site' why wouldn't you take your efforts elsewhere? At present I'm not convinced that Shakshak31 is a sockpuppet, though socks are often known for their sudden arrival on Wikipedia with strong opinions that they make known immediately. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston It's not about the Safavids. I added the Afsharids to the List of Turkic dynasties and countries because they were Turkmens from the Afshar tribe. Also Nader Shah's mother tongue was Turkic and Nader Shah doesn't have any Iranian (as ethnicity) ancestry. But a Persian editor revert it. That's what that sentence was about. --Shakshak31 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Shakshak has made unacceptable statements in his edits as can be seen above, referring to other editors as "thieves of history", amongst others. When confronted with these edits, right here at ANI, he still refers to another editor as "a Persian editor",[134] a clear violation of WP:NPA. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that Shakshak31 is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Interesting that @Shakshak31: became active again a few hours after his disruption at Basarab I of Wallachia (which he forced on the article by edit warring) was partly reverted by another user. He is yet to answer what he was asked here. He has now resumed his attempt to Turkify the article once more by removing sourced info and this time even adding his own personal opinion [135] [136]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

First read what the sources state and then talk. [137] [138]--Shakshak31 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

We've literally already had this discussion, you are trying to force a theory into a fact. Hell, you even added your own personal words to the article. WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT at best. We have rules here, which you are breaking right left and center. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Curiously, User:Shakshak31 has created a userpage at User:MLP050 and then moved their own User & Talk pages to it. At the very least, this is a bad page move that needs to be undone. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ouch. I have reversed that move so the links in Shakshak31 (talk · contribs) are correct. I also explained on their talk about WP:RENAME. This thread is likely to be archived with no action unless something dramatic happens shortly. If further problems occur, feel free to put a brief explanation on a talk page (an article talk page if a content dispute) and ping me from there. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2020 (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.

New user, new activity in the Poland date-changing vandal case

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.

---

• Main page: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Poland
• Three days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Reblock_Polish_date-changing_vandal
• Three months ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Suggestions_please_–_rangeblock_the_Poland_IP_date-changing_vandal

Yesterday, new user Katarzyna180 showed up, making the same edits as previous IP vandals from Poland.[139][140] Today, new activity appeared from Special:Contributions/37.248.214.25, directly following Katarzyna180 with the same edit.[141][142] Can we reblock the range Special:Contributions/37.248.208.0/21, and indef the new user? This is the first time I have seen that the vandal has registered a username, but they may have started their disruptive career with a username back in 2018 or earlier. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that Katarzyna180 has also edited Polish-language Wikipedia,[143] with every edit reverted. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the date-changing nonsense. I indeffed Katarzyna180 (talk · contribs) and blocked 37.248.208.0/21 for six months. I'll record my edit summary so I can find it later: LTA per ANI permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Right on, that should do it, until the vandal finds the next chink in our armor. Thank you for the blocks. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2020 (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.

Next United Kingdom general election

I notice that User:BigPPers amd User:Excul mandem are adding vandalism and trolling content to the Next United Kingdom general election article. I have reverted twice, I think, and am not an Admin so can't go much further. Is there anything someone can do? Seems rather committed to adding nonsense. doktorb _words^deeds 13:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've protected the article for a day and Czello (talk · contribs) has opened a sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigPPers. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What an odd page name. The ultimate current events, crystal ball, never stable page Slywriter (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I've indeffed both accounts. This appears to be an 18 year old promoting himself and his imaginary political party. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

NOTHERE editing

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.

---

• Serge853 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's edit history (which are all marked "minor" for some reason) consists exclusively of blanking sourced information for no reason. Darkknight2149 18:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Examples: [144], [145], [146], [147], [148]. No other activity exists from this user other than edits like this. Edits like [149], [150], and [151] further show that they are not acting in good faith. Darkknight2149 18:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Never warned, despite having enough reverted edits to be blocked from editing. Could indef to get their attention. They edit only a few times each month. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this account as not here to build the encyclopedia. All this person has ever done for nearly two years is remove random content without explanation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 25 November 2020 (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 disrupt

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.

---

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

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

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:Teishin acting in an insulting and unconstructive way

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 abovementioned user has been extremely hostile while I have tried to improve Western philosophy and Hellenistic philosophy from C-class or uncited articles into higher quality. They seem to think this is their territory and that I should stay out of it.

Here are some insulting and hostile comments they have made:

• If you need a "source" to explain to you . . . you do not know enough about this subject matter to edit it.
• the user in question is contentious and has lots of time on their hands.
• Just recently an editor who is knowledgeable about editing Wikipedia and who edits prolifically has decided to become interested in editing a few summary pages involving one of my main areas of expertise . . . I have over 1,000 such edits. I've also had a book published in the field . . . Any advice on how to persuade this editor they are in over their heads on this subject, and that they should refocus their prodigious editing efforts on topics they better understand?

And what are my sins? Have a look for yourselves: Talk:Hellenistic_philosophy. While I try to stay true to the sources, this self-proclaimed expert editor is trying to refer to other Wikipedia articles and their own expertise to make claims. They have literally not introduced a single new source to the conversation, other than quoting existing articles. They change their position when it gets challenged, and try to claim what the true meanings of authors' words are, which are apparently not the literal ones. This is such obstructive editing, it is absurd. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Keepcalmandchill, so your three accusations of edit warring have not produced your desired result, but instead have gotten you a warning to not edit Hellenistic philosophy without Talk page consensus. Since that approach did not produce the results you desire, I see that you wish to continue the conflict here. As I have described to you, ancient Greek philosophy is a complex subject. It is not a subject that can be mastered with just a couple of introductory books on the history of philosophy. Correspondingly, a claim that one is staying "true to the sources" does not describe the situation. The situation is that you keep introducing errors into the article. You have even introduced claims that contradict those on the very pages that you're linking to, and of which you are ostensibly summarizing. When I've pointed this out to you, you have absolved yourself of responsibility for ensuring accuracy, and instead dismissed the point as WP:Circular.

Such things cannot be described as improvements. I've edited collaboratively in this category for many years. It is a vast and deep category involving the hands of many, many editors who have worked to build out pages not only describing the individual philosophies, but also pages on subtopics, technical terms, and individual philosophers, none of which you have contributed to or in which you have demonstrated any expertise. Despite that, based on citations you derive from just two introductory books, you have decided you understand the field well enough to summarize it. And should any editor point out that you are making frequent errors of fact and interpretation, you accuse them of being insulting and unconstructive, and you hound them relentlessly. Teishin (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I had to make three edit warring reports about your behaviour. I mistakenly withdrew the first two when I thought I could work with you. Should not have done that. Because the last one did not involve you breaking the 3RR, you got away with it (the first two did). Again, I ask everyone reading to go to that talk page and ask themselves whether that is construction consensus-seeking in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, or something else? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

When I go to these diffs, and read the kerfluffu at Talk:Hellenistic_philosophy, it seems like this dispute consists of two editors disagreeing vehemently about what ought to be in an article, without seeking a third opinion or opening an RfC... I think you should both contemplate those options (I would be happy to provide a third opinion or a comment on Ancient Greek philosophy) before resorting to ANI (what?) and the Help Desk (what????) The only likely result of this AN/I thread is going to be @EEng: posting the Burma-Shave meme... jp×g 02:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC) NEW ANI THREADPROBLEM ACUTECLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave (with thanks to creffett) EEng 04:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to hear your third opinion. I have posted about this on the relevant wikiproject noticeboard, but there are not many editors in this area. I did not think it appropriate to ask for third opinion or rfc every time they challenge my edits, which is basically every time I edit the page, as I would be flooding the request pages. The reason I went here is because the other editor is not interested in compromising, as they clearly want me to stop editing in this domain (as they clearly have said in the Help Desk) and therefore they are just blocking my edits on any grounds possible. But I am absolutely happy to get more attention to this article from others. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Keepcalmandchill, you need to make up your mind. If you want to ask for a third opinion, the location for that is, as JPxG told you, WP:3O. In that case, we can close the thread here. If, OTOH, you want to complain about chronic, intractable behavioral problems, then be aware that such complaints can backfire, if the admins here get the impression that the complaining person themself “is not interested in compromising”. So far, I don't see in this thread any diffs that actually show a readiness to compromise on your part. ◅ Sebastian 12:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm I am confused what the red text above saying "closed" is then. I did not ask for third opinion here, the person above offered it and I said they are welcome to do so on the spot. Like I said above, this is not a sustainable solution if everything is getting challenged. If you want examples of me proposing compromise, see here

and here. I have also modified many of my edits in response to the issues raised by this user. So can you please clarify whether this is still an active case or not? Nobody has addressed the comments linked to above made by this user, which seem like a pretty serious attitude problem. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You mean the text by EEng? That was just a silly joke, don't take it seriously. Yes, the case is still active.

Both your diffs looks good, and also the communication that followed, which still can be seen at Talk:Hellenistic philosophy#Cynics etc. and Talk:Western philosophy#Compromise: Division between classical thinkers and their schools. So why didn't the first lead to a mutually agreeable solution? In the second case, the reason seems that Teishin saw problems which nobody has addressed since. The answer to why that didn't work is probably too much detail for this thread; can you please write it there? ◅ Sebastian 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In both of those cases, compromise was reached! It may look like I left Teishin hanging in the second one, but I went and adjusted my edits in accordance with their wishes. At that point I thought we were on good track, and withdrew the two 3RR cases I had made because of them. But subsequently, Teishin started to revert a section titled "Background" on Hellenistic philosophy because they did not want an exact ending date to be mentioned (there was none + they were reverting more than that). There is a section in Talk:Hellenistic philosophy about it, took forever for them to even respond to it (they were still commenting on other stuff meanwhile). Keepcalmandchill (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that sounds good. Can you back it up with diffs, please? ◅ Sebastian 16:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, sure thing! These are diffs of both the edits and talk page, ordered chronologically. It only covers the issue of the background section.

Teishin, 12:54, 14.11.2020: "remove claim. p5 of the source cited says no such thing"

Teishin, 13:23: The claim based on p5 imputes a firmer claim than the author makes. Indeed, the author said: "This is often defined as the time beginning with the death of Alexander the Great, in 323 BC, and ending wherever the historian you’re talking to decides it should end (It does mention 31 BCE, as a popular choice, but whatever.)

Me, 14:54: Removed the exact ending date which was challenged

T, 02:17, 14.11.2020: The content provided in this background seem unnecessary. The dating has already been handled in the immediately preceding lede. Moreover, the terminology re replacing is inappropriate. Cultural periods do not replace one another

Me, 02:19, 15.11.2020: Insufficient reasoning to remove. It gives more much more detail than the one-sentence lede, including important historical context. Changed wording on periods, though

T, 03:12: okay, if you won't accept removing it, I'll try to correct it

Me, 03:18: Then explain what you are removing and why

T, 03:18: I gave an explanation at 02:17, 15 November 2020‎. How about you explain why this needs to be here?

Me, 03:21 It gives critical background information, if you disagree with that, take it to talk page and explain why it should be removed.

T, 03:26: No, you take it to the Talk page and explain why it needs to be here.

Me, 03:33: You said: "The content provided in this background seem unnecessary. The dating has already been handled in the immediately preceding lede. Moreover, the terminology re replacing is inappropriate. Cultural periods do not replace one another." I said: "Insufficient reasoning to remove. It gives more much more detail than the one-sentence lede, including important historical context. Changed wording on periods, though." Why is my reasoning not sufficient? It gives more detail than just dating. Just saying it's "unnecessary" does not help much. I have changed the terminology on the periods changing, even though cultural epochs by defintion do replace each other

Me, 03:01, 21.11.2020: Reinstating the material in question since no response given

T, 01:45, 22.11.2020: (Too long to quote, mainly reposting the above edit comments)

Me, 01:45: Yes, I see that you believe there should be no mention of the exact end date for the period, and there currently isn't, so what is the problem?

T, 02:39: There is the problem that you and I are now both banned from editing this page unless we agree on the Talk page, and this ban is due to the complaint you posted at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. There is also the problem that the article mentions an end date. The current article says: "and was followed by the predominance of Ancient Roman philosophy during the Roman Imperial period." With respect to philosophy and not other socio-political matters, Hellenistic philosophy continued long after other period demarcations. Prior editors were wise in not making any claims about when these philosophies ended, as the matter is so disputed. For that matter, see Modern Stoicism and Neostoicism that warrant articles (and I know of others that do not), suggesting that no end has happened. Consequently, claiming an end here would not seem to be warranted.

Me, 03:17 Then you can add cited sources disputing this claim, just as has happened in the Hellenistic period. I don't understand why you insist on removing content, when you can easily add new content to reflect nuance.

Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Teishin, I would like you, too, to back up your claims (that is for now just the ones in your post of 16:04, 22 November above) with diffs. ◅ Sebastian 16:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian Some background info for better understanding the diffs.

1. Hellenistic philosophy is a page that, among other things, covers a wide range of ancient Greek thought.

2. Prior to editing Hellenistic philosophy Keepcalmandchill had never edited on any page associated with Hellenistic philosophy. There are a huge number of articles. See Index_of_ancient_philosophy_articles for a list.

3. Keepcalmandchill has relied on only a handful of sources. See on Hellenistic_philosophy#References the repeated citations of Grayling, Adamson, and Sellers – all of which are introductory books.

4. Prior to this month Hellenistic philosophy has typically been edited only a few times a year. If you compare the state of the article prior to Keepcalmandchill’s first edit to how it has looked since 2008, the general structure and approach of the article has largely remained consistent. Keepcalmandchill endeavored to massively restructure the article, doing so without opening a discussion about the matter on the Talk page.

Here are some diffs that should be considered. First, there’s this important 8 July diff that has not been discussed [[152]] in which Keepcalmandchill removed a large amount of content from the page, arguing “These are not Hellenic schools... They are either pre-Socratic or classical, and are listed under different articles.” Keepcalmandchill appears at this point to be unaware that these schools (which included the Cynics!) were active during the Hellenistic period and are routinely discussed as “Hellenistic” schools. The proper name of the era is, of course, “Hellenistic” not “Hellenic”. To accommodate this concern I re-organized the article to re-include the removed schools, noting that while they originated in the Classical period they remained active in the Hellenistic period. See [[153]]

On 12 November Keepcalmandchill began their recent campaign to radically overhaul Hellenistic philosophy starting with the Cynics, relying on Adamson’s book as a source. [[154]] . Note in this diff that Keepcalmandchill moved the Cynics out of pre-Hellenistic into Hellenistic, exactly opposite of what they did on 8 July, and that they added dates for the Hellenistic period “(ca. 323-31 BCE)”, which is a claim their own source said was widely disputed. At [[155]] I moved the content about the Cynics back into the pre-Hellenistic section. At [[156]] Keepcalmandchill made their first reversion, saying “There is a source that defines it as a Hellenistic era school of thought. The founding is not as important as the time of greatest flourishing.” Hmm, that’s interesting. It’s not only adamantly opposite of their 8 July edit, but if that position is sincerely believed, then why didn’t Keepcalmandchill address the other pre-Hellenistic schools on the page and apply the same rationale to them – i.e., return the article to its structure prior to their 8 July edit and get rid of the Pre-Hellenistic header? This would be necessary to make the article logically consistent.

Also as part of that 12 November edit Keepcalmandchill created a new section describing the Hellenistic schools of thought. This edit introduced errors that I addressed separately in [[157]], noting “no, not all of these schools were Socratic, nor were they all focused on ataraxia.” All of the claims Keepcalmandchill introduces here are based on their interpretation of material covered between pages 5 and 8 of Adamson’s introductory book on Hellenistic philosophy. I have this book. It is a breezy, narrative-structured survey introduction that is part of Adamson’s series of introductory books on the history of philosophy. Keepcalmandchill promptly reverts the edit [[158]] saying “Why are you removing sourced content?” disregarding the reason I gave with the edit. It seems to me that someone with a basic knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy would know that the Epicureans and the Pyrrhonists were not Socratics, which one can learn from our own articles about those schools, and that not all of the schools were focused on ataraxia, which one can learn from our own article on ataraxia. And if they did not know that, then at least they might be intellectually charitable and further investigate the claims in question, or to at least recognize that they had been given a reason.

Next, I moved the Cynics back to the category of pre-Hellenistic [[159]] In reaction to that, Keepcalmandchill does [[160]] where they introduce editorializing into the section headings, changing ==Pre-Hellenistic schools of thought== to ==Pre-Hellenistic schools of thought with less significance== and == schools of thought== to ==Main schools of thought== and again moving the Cynics. They also decided to create a new category “== Religious schools of thought ==” and move the “===Eclecticism===” section out of the article, all as part of the same edit, saying “To avoid an edit war, I'm changing the sections as follows: 1. Pre-exsting schools of thought with lesser significance; 2. The main schools as recognised by the literature; 3. Religious schools (which conveniently covers the rest, except for eclecticism which I'm moving over to the Roman philosophy article.” This, of course, did not avoid an edit war at all. It just added new major changes and an audacious claim that their interpretation of the beginning pages of one introductory book represented what was “recognized by the literature.” This edit was followed by nine more mostly minor edits in the following hour. I followed that with a reversion which was promptly followed by an undo saying “No explanation given”. I followed that by an undo with the comment “all of these changes were explained before. Stop your edit warring.”

Right after that I opened up a discussion about the matter on the Talk page [[161]] (Interestingly, the first time since 2012 that there’d been an issue requiring discussion.) As one can see in this discussion, Keepcalmandchill’s argument is based on the idea that there are “main” schools of Hellenistic philosophy, but if you look at the organization of the page, it is organized chronologically and Keepcalmandchill’s edits fail to address that. Instead they just insist that because the Cynics are “main” they must go with the later schools. They did not create main/non-main and move the schools accordingly. They just kept insisting that the Cynics belong where they chronologically do not, even though back on 8 July they thought the Cynics did not even belong on this page because of the same issues about chronology. Yet somehow Keepcalmandchill thinks it was appropriate to say to me “you have not actually provided any source saying the Cynics are Classical period." It seems to me that knowledge of the basics about the chronology of the Cynics would be information necessary for anyone presuming to be knowledgeable enough about Hellenistic philosophy to write an encyclopedia article about it. Besides, they themselves made exactly the same claim on 8 July about the Cynics being in the Classical period, but now they fault me for not providing them with a source for such an easily verifiable bit of information? Is there a word to describe such behavior? That someone should start an edit war over such a matter, then escalate that conflict making the complaint presented here, even after they’ve already been given a warning about the issue by EdJohnston at [[162]] …. well, that’s something for other people to opine about, as I am a party to the dispute and one would need little imagination to figure out what I think of the matter. I am, however, sorry that you have to be spending your time reviewing all of these details and dealing with this dispute. It seems to me that EdJohnston's action should have ended the matter.Teishin (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the first diff of this thread, If you need a "source" ..., it immediately looks bad for Teishin, as if they were flouting WP:RS. However, if one looks at the content of Teishin's statement, it appears (here again, a diff would help) that Keepcalmandchill insisted that Diogenes should be taken out of the Classical period without a RS, which deviates at least from this self-proclaimed non-expert humble administrator's understanding significantly enough to warrant a source. In short, IMHO this diff makes both look bad. ◅ Sebastian 16:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, Originally Diogenes was covered by the rest of the Cynics under the Hellenistic schools, with a source confirming this placement, before Teishin removed that.This source then goes on to cover Diogenes with the rest of the Cynics who have been placed firmly in the Hellenistic period, so I was asking for a source that clearly links him in the Classical period over the Hellenistic one. I was thinking of the periods as thematic, rather than strictly chronological. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: There is a case involving both users at WP:AN3#User:Teishin reported by User:Keepcalmandchill (Result: Both warned). If this is basically the same case, then this is a violation of WP:FORUMSHOP. ◅ Sebastian 20:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is basically the same case. See my discussion above of the diffs.Teishin (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not the same. The other case was only with regards to the edit warring. This is about a broader problem of behaviour. In the other case, the administrator did not comment on the discourse at all, only determining that both of us had edit warred (although, I have not broken 3RR at any point). If I hear an administrator give a ruling on the discourse, I will accept it as the final word. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit late for you to say that now. WP:FORUMSHOP says about this: “Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.” You may argue that you hadn't read this, but this is something common sense and regard for others should already advise. This would have allowed us all to clarify that question firsts, before delving in the details. I am very tempted to simply close this discussion along these lines. But since both of you already took the effort of providing your evidence, and since I'm interested in the topic, I ask that everyone lay off the discussion here for a couple hours, while I study the new evidence. ◅ Sebastian 08:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, Yes, I understand and apologize. If I may suggest, putting up a notice about WP:FORUMSHOP at the top of the page might help avoid these kinds of mistakes in the future (not that the lack of one excuses my behaviour, just think it might make your and other admins' lives easier). Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You are free to make such a suggestion at WT:AN. However, it is not likely to be adopted, since for such requests the most common reply is that the more notes there are at the top of the page, the fewer people will read them all. Because there's no such note, I did not officially reprimand you, but instead appealed to your common sense and regard for others. If people posting complaints here had more of that, it would be the biggest improvement for all of us here. ◅ Sebastian 09:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I read some of the evidence, but it would take more time than I have now to go through it all, and I think it would be more productive to let bygones be bygones and move on. What I read so far already gave me a new idea, which I would like to suggest to both of you – see #Suggestion for a resolution below.

Keepcalmandchill's evidence:

T▷ 12:54f, 14.11.

("remove claim. p5 of the source cited says no such thing") – Since I don't have the print sources in front of me, I can't say whether that is true.

K▷ 14:54, 14.11.

(“Removed the exact ending date which was challenged”) – not a removal, but an addition

Teishin's evidence:

8 July diff

In itself, this is no violation of Wikipedia rules: It contains a clear edit summary which makes sense and followed WP:BRD, as can be seen from the ensuing discussion and the compromise cited by Keepcalmandchill above. The deletion made sense because Pythagoreanism Sophism, and Cynicism flourished in classical time, and can be distinguished from later schools such as Neopythagoreanism, Second Sophistic, and Neoplatonism. The case may not be quite as clear for Peripateticism, but then the commonly followed advice is to only reinstate that one school instead of the complete revert that followed. (In this context, it may be worthwhile to remember that Gallilei argued that Aristotle would not have agreed with the Peripateticists of his time. Presumably, a similar argument could have been made in Hellenistic time.) The error Hellenic instead of Hellenistic is very likely an inadvertant mistake, to the correction of which it is hard to imagine Keepcalmandchill raising any objection. Bringing that up here seems a frivolous waste of everyone's time. ◅ Sebastian 10:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for a resolution

Now I have an unusual proposal: Instead of imposing any further restriction, which would be a shame since you are both well-intended editors who have proven that, at least sometimes, you are able to very reasonably collaborate, I suggest the following:

1. I could watch the pages on which you interact for a while.
2. Under certain conditions I could simply revert a post. I would do so without much deliberation, which means that none of these reverts should be construed as a reprimand. It would be just a quick measure to keep the discussion on focus. As conditions for my reversals I suggest:
   1. if my first impression is that a message may lack respect or consideration.
   2. if a message appears to veer off topic.
   3. if I see what I believe to be an inadvertent mistake, such as “Hellenic” instead of “Hellenistic” I may correct it. The person writing the message should treat such a correction just as one would treat a bot's edit: If you disagree with it, simply revert it. Note: This subitem was added after the first reply.
3. The moment one of you realizes that both of you are working disharmoniously on the same article, ey will ping me so I can watch the article. For that, I'd rather not rely on WP:PING, since I already experienced delays of several days from that. Instead, e-mail may be an option, since I will be less likely to miss it. Another option would be a dedicated page where only the article link and a time stamp is entered. I would prefer that option over a note on my talk page, since it would not clutter my talk page and also allow others to monitor the situation in an easy opt-in way.
4. If one of you adds a reference that can't be checked online, you will send me a picture of the page per mail.

Would that work for both of you? ◅ Sebastian 10:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, I am definitely happy with this! Thank you very much for offering to use your time to improve the editing experience. Just a question, are we allowed to add content on the page without prior permission, and if we do require prior permission, does it have to be affirmative or simply a lack of objection? This is just in regards to new content, for reversions I will always start a discussion and seek full consensus. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I would allow it, but I must admit that I haven't checked whether there are any other rulings currently in place. This above suggestion wasn't meant to contradict any admin having decided otherwise. If there was a different ruling, please point the issuing admin here, so we can discuss it. (BTW, please note that I added the subitem about corrections above after you posted your reply. I hope that's OK with you.) ◅ Sebastian 11:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, Yes, the subitem is completely agreeable. The ruling on the edit warring was given by EdJohnston, and requires consensus for any edits. I have asked for feedback on edits I would like to make, but have received none. So if the requirement is a positive affirmation of my proposals, I could be de facto blocked from editing the page if nobody responds to my posts. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer; I now see Ed's message on both your and Teishin's talk page, and am embarrassed that I didn't take it into account sooner. I asked Ed to take a look at my proposal. If he doesn't agree as it's written, there are maybe some chances for compromise:

1. You could both observe WP:1RR (I voluntarily committed to a similar rule, Don't re-revert, which works well for me.)
2. Maybe Ed could set a time limit to the restriction, basically turning it into a keep-calm-and-chill quarantine. (Sorry about the pun, it was too tempting). Then my suggested resolution could become active after that.

◅ Sebastian 12:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. I feel like the best system would be one where every time new content is added, a corresponding discussion is opened on the talk page where all disagreements are then hashed out under your supervision. This would allow for maximal new contributions as well as maximal opportunities for challenging them without edit warring. But I of course leave it to you two to decide how to proceed. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm a little surprised that you're saying that, since I defended your edit of 8 July (first item of Teishin's diff list above) by saying that you followed BRD then. Are you now speaking from the experience that that turned out to be quite painful for both of you? ◅ Sebastian 13:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in this case I think it is better to do it this way. But this is the first time in a year of constant editing that I've had to do so. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian, I am honored that you feel that our past contributions warrant such an investment of your time on this matter. Given the scarcity of such resources, I thought EdJohnston had been sufficiently Solomonic in issuing warnings to both parties not to edit Hellenistic philosophy without Talk page agreement. Forcing the pace of change to slow down greatly and to require discussion and deliberation appears to be working. It may be informative to look at the discussion on Talk:Hellenistic_philosophy#Proposal regarding editor GPinkerton’s proposal which was made 22 Nov. Due to the warning, both parties can only discuss the matter. GPinkerton has not effected any edits on the matter. You might consider what’s going on in this discussion to be evidence that EdJohnston’s approach is working and should be continued; however, if you prefer your more labor-intensive approach, I’m fine with that as well. — Teishin 17:33, 24 November — continues after insertion below

Thank you, Teishin. What motivates me is also that I'm interested in the topic. Compared with WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, which was one of my most fulfilling commitments, it will be much less distressing to learn about Hellenistic philosophy than about assassinations, village bombings, bus attacks and burnings of libraries.

Yes, the idea of adding a time limit on the matter seems to be a good addition. Most people lose their passion for making major overhauls of a page when the opportunity to do so must be put off to several months in the future or when in the near term it requires extensive explanation and discussion. Teishin (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"Most people lose their passion for making major overhauls of a page when the opportunity to do so must be put off to several months in the future or when in the near term it requires extensive explanation and discussion". Sebastian, this is what I mean. The goal is to stop me from editing the page altogether. This is why it is crucial to be able make edits first and then discuss them. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Keepcalmandchill: This train of thought doesn't seem to be forward looking and seems to go in the opposite direction from your argument above (at 12:50) for at least some restrictions. I herewith give you the homework to think about a good faith explanation for T's statement. (In this context, User:SebastianHelm/principles#A4GF may help.) ◅ Sebastian 22:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian, Sure, I will put that sentiment aside and not assume bad faith. What I meant at 12:50 is that adding new content should not be restricted, but should always be accompanied by a talk page discussion under which objections can be made instead of reverting. When I tried to work with the current system here, Teishin simply wanted to shot down my proposal without asking for any elaboration of the proposed content. It had nothing to do with the Cynics, which is mentioned for some reason. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Good news – EdJohnston agreed with me going ahead with the above plan. He added a suggestion for a source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, explaining “When deciding how Wikipedia should approach a topic, it is sometimes worth considering how tertiary sources organize their own material.” I like that suggestion, and maybe we can make it a condition for lifting Ed's rules that you guys both obtain a copy of that book and read the pertinent portions?

That said, per Teishin's statement that EdJohnston’s approach seems to be working and merits to be continued, we can keep it and wait with my plan until both of you feel the time is ripe for a change. Or we could agree on an intermediate level of severity along the lines of Keepcalmandchill's message of 12:50. So, Teishin, what do you think about implementing my above plan with the modification that both of you can not use WP:BRD? ◅ Sebastian 22:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian I don't understand why SEP would be elevated as a source above others. It literally has no article on Hellenistic philosophy. — Keepcalmandchill 22:32, 24 November — continues after insertion below

Well, that's ultimately a question for EdJohnston. But for us, what you say makes the task of reading up to the topic even easier. So we'll just keep the condition for the duration of a library lending period and then switch to another (alternative) tertiary sources you both find helpful. ◅ Sebastian 22:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, the current system is not working in my opinion. When I posted a proposal for new edits, Teishin did not respond despite having the time to make complex arguments elsewhere on the page. Surely proactive participation in discussion is a condition of the arrangement? (Correction: they did eventually respond but not in what I would call a constructive way). Keepcalmandchill (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not happy to close this on another note of personal accusation. But I get the point that trust is not at a productive level yet. That means we got our work cut out for us. ◅ Sebastian 22:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

So, since everyone is fine with the labor-intensive approach, let's close the case with that decision. ◅ Sebastian 22:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Agreement copied to User:SebastianHelm/Philosophy. Please use the talk page of that page for any further discussions about this agreement.

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.

Killing of João Alberto Freitas

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 folks. This is way out of my experience. We have this page Killing of João Alberto Freitas here, which was already skirting notability but now we're seeing 'people involved' being added in and identified. I reverted the edit [163] citing NOTNEWS because I'm not quite sure where IDing people who haven't been tried for a murder as involved in that murder sits. Can an admin please look at this and tell me if I'm going mad or not? Thanks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no way in hell that listing 'people involved' in that way (i.e. giving names, with no explanation whatsoever of what their alleged involvement even was) is even remotely compliant with Wikipedia policy. If the names of an accused are ever included in such an article, it needs very good sourcing, a clear explanation of what exactly they have been accused of, and wording which makes it unequivocally clear that they are allegations, as yet unproven. First though, it needs to be established that a Wikipedia article is merited at all, which I'd say is currently open to question. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but you're going mad. Or, rather, you're incorrect. Take a look at Killing of George Floyd, Killing of Rayshard Brooks, Killing of Ahmaud Arbery or any of those BLM articles; there is almost always a "people involved" section, which identifies the victim, the police officer(s), and other significant persons. This is because those individuals will not have their own pages. This page is not "skirting notability", I think it's just a language barrier issue and also the page is at the wrong title (or an incomplete title, but in any case, not the common name in English). This incident might be the "George Floyd" of Brazil (only time will tell how big the protests get, but they're already national protests); it's been covered by international media. I will fix up the article a bit shortly, but this is a content dispute; there's no BLP or NOTNEWS violation here. And we do sometimes identify people who are accused of crimes even if they haven't been convicted (subject to BLP policy of course, specifically WP:BLPCRIME). Levivich (^harass/_hound) 18:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Being a police officer doesn’t make someone a “high profile individual”. The fact that almost all BLM related protest articles are noncompliant with BLP for the wrong reasons doesn’t mean the issue should be widened to other articles. In fact, it suggests that the editors who frequent BLM articles are somehow ignoring the fact that BLPCRIME states that for any previously low profile individual, content suggesting they may be involved in a crime should not be included anywhere. And note that the page it links to describing what is/not a high profile individual makes very clear that routine job duties do not make someone a high profile individual when their job is a “run of the mill” job like police officer. I have no concern with the article existing - the event seems notable - but the onus is on people adding the information to prove the individuals in question were high profile, otherwise BLPCRIME prohibits any mention of them in relation to a crime - sourced or not. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, Stating in Wikipedia's voice that an individual is 'involved' in a killing, rather than that they are alleged to have been, prior to any conviction, is a violation of WP:BLP policy. This isn't open to debate. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Um, the persons arrested for a killing are "involved" in the killing, regardless of whether they are guilty or not. Being arrested makes them involved. (Especially when there is a video of the killing depicting said persons.) The person who was killed is also "involved". These are the "people involved" in the killing. I don't particularly care for that subject header as it's rather vague in my view (I'd rather use "victim" and "suspects" or something like that), but this ain't no BLP violation, and if it is, we're violating BLP on hundreds of BLM articles and somehow no one has noticed so far... Levivich (^harass/_hound) 18:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In an article about a person who was killed by police, we include the names of the police officers who allegedly killed the subject. Especially when those officers are arrested. This is no exception. FYI I've moved the article to use the full name as most commonly used in English-language sources, restored the content about persons involved, added some sources, inc. in English, and removed the notability tag. There is still plenty of expansion of the article that could be done, but I don't see any policy issues with it. Levivich (^harass/_hound) 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In any article referring to alleged, as yet unproven, crimes, we make it absolutely clear that these are allegations, regardless of whether the allegations concern police officers, security guards, or anyone else. I have made minimal changes to the article to reflect this, and I suggest you ensure that any further edits likewise comply with Wikipedia policy. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we please have some outside attention to this. Rather than discussing this either here or on the article talk page, it seems that people are intent on edit-warring a WP:BLP violation into the article. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not see anything here that qualifies as a BLP violation. The individuals noted are the accused, and the article makes it clear that they are only accused at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as the article stands now, it appears no longer to violate WP:BLP. Hopefully it will remain that way. And maybe people will use the article talk page to discuss any further questions, rather than ANI threads, edit summaries and postings to user pages. It would make things a whole lot simpler... 109.159.88.9 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I opened a thread at ANI because I was concerned at the way these people were ID'd in the article and thought it potentially a serious violation of BLP that possibly would require rapid admin action or certainly a more experienced judgement than mine. I'm not going mad, it seems, which is nice. Sorry if I disturbed anyone, we can close this now and all go home for tea. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2020 (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.

Gary Lineker

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.

---

Seems somewhat vile to me some of these edits, don't know if they should be striked out know. An admin might want to review. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2020 (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.

Please disable talk page privilege of blocked WP:LTA

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.

---

• 90.254.163.75 (talk · contribs) Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2020 (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.

NorthBySouthBaranof

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 editor NorthBySouthBaranof seems to revert politically contentious edits, edits intended to improve an article's neutrality, on articles that have serious left wing biases in certain places. This has been a problem for a while, starting with George Floyd's article, where I wanted to add more information on Mr. Floyd's medical examiner report. He reverted that edit, and claimed that reverting his revert was a blockable edit warring. Looking at his userpage, you can see many cases, and even more if you look in the talk page's edit history, of people complaining about him reverting edits intended to improve the representation of both sides in an article.

He has been a significant hindrance in me trying to improve the representation of all people, regardless of whether or not they are progressives or conservatives, in articles. It seems that I try to remove more liberal biases than conservative ones, but the fact of the matter is that there are more liberal biases than conservative ones.

Thanks, --JazzClam (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you considered the parable of The Mote and the Beam? Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boomerang sanctions against JazzClam

• JazzClam appears to be here for political reasons rather than for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. See WP:NOTHERE. The least response would be a post-1932 US politics topic ban. Otherwise an indefinite block. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• 1st choice, Indef block. 2nd choice TBAN post-1932.(derp) for JazzClam; I have little confidence in their desire to not propagandize or (in their eyes) RGW. That they spread the POV pushing to an area outside post 1932 US politics and that they bring a complaint to ANI when someone does not go along with their agenda makes clear they would not be able to contain themselves. They are NOTHERE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support TBAN post-1932 - This user JazzClam has some constructive edits outside of political topics. But I saw a few red flags while browsing their contribs. They thought it okay to use a draft page to put together a table of the toxicology report for George Floyd ([164]) while pushing to include info about a "fatal" fentanyl level in his blood. Recently, nearly all their edits have been to keep "NPOV" by removing Trump-critical content, and even "China-centric" content ([165]). There is also this user page edit that is somewhat concerning. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Moving towards closure

Who pinned this, and why? (While the template User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil contains a date of 21 November, that date has long passed, and it still doesn't get archived.) ◅ Sebastian 10:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: The pin is until 21 November 2030, i.e., the point is to prevent it being archived until it is closed. It was pinned in this edit by Levivich. I agree with Levivich that, in light of the clear consensus in the previous section, this should not be allowed to drift away without a close. Hopefully an administrator will come along to close it soon. --JBL (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I now issued the ban on User talk:JazzClam. I hope I did that correctly, since that was the first time for me, and it added to my uncertainty that the code for AP2 seems to be just “ap”. ◅ Sebastian 14:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

didn't you !vote for it? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I voiced my support above. Maybe I misunderstood WP:UNINVOLVED, then. Since you seem to interpret the policy differently, I will self-revert the notice. Thanks for pointing that out. ◅ Sebastian 15:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm:, I'm unsure if your implementation of the topic ban was all correct as you voted and you haven't logged the topic ban. A general rule that I follow is you don't close / implement consensus if you voted in the discussion. My thoughts are that there is clear consensus for a AP2 topic ban, so if it becomes an issue (i.e. others find fault in you implementing the ban) I would be happy to take over the enforcement of the AP2 topic ban as I have not voted. You also must log the sanction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again. So I guess the easiest is if we let it stand for now, while I log the sanction. Sorry about the complication. ◅ Sebastian 15:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. That will work. To note I don't have a problem with you implementing the ban, but its just that I wouldn't want the topic ban to be cast into confusion if the implementation is seen as an issue. I'll close this as I don't see consensus or further discussion happening for any other action. tool posted this just after the discussion was closed. I agree with the close. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:31, 25 November 2020 (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.

Cunard Afd Practices

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

advertisement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Cunard does legwork that we want people to do for an AfD, finding what sources exist. It was a problem when he took up a massive amount of space in the discussion. Now that nearly all of the content is hatted, I have no issue whatsoever with the practice. Yes, Cunard always goes for keep ... and is about the only one of the always-keepers that actually backs up that opinion with sourcing. Sometimes those sources are misguided, but often they're not. Looking at ZocDoc AfD, I see NY Times, Wall Street Journal, journal articles, etc. Those aren't garbage. Yes, you're free to respond/challenge those sources and it's entirely possible they don't constitute notability (I haven't looked closely at them yet), but these aren't self-published press releases/spam. They're the kind of thing that anyone would find if they set out looking for sourcing, and which you should expect to have to counter if you're arguing to delete. We have plenty of people who fill AfD with baseless keep (or delete) !votes based on handwaves to sources or personal interpretations of notability with no effort whatsoever. The problem is not someone who does the research. The copyvio claim is IMO a big stretch, and I'm surprised anyone is willing to act on it without finding consensus that including a limited quote, with attribution, is a copyright violation (or that including multiple quotes from multiple sources for some reason makes it worse). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't call e.g. a 268 word quote a "limited quote" (see the first quote I removed here, it's about 1/4th of the full article. In the second AfD I pruned, the first quote was 198 words[166]. The Brownlee quote was 249 words, from a 590 word article. That's not a "limited quote" at all, that's excessive. And yes, adding more and more quotes makes it less and less defensible to claim fair use and brings it closer to being a copyright violation. (Note that I have only removed these from the two most recent AfDs, but the practice can be found in many older ones, like a 360-word quote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Art Association, many long quotes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street Medicine Institute... Regularly adding 10kb+ of quotes to AfDs is not an acceptable practice. Fram (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • From where are you getting the idea that 268 words, 1/4 of a work, or 249 out of 590 words, are excessive? Lev¡vich 16:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
      • If I would write an article and someone would copy 1/4 or 1/3rd of it, not even to comment on the quote (e.g. criticising what I wrote or praising the prose), but simply to strengthen a point they are making, then I would consider this as clearly excessive. When someone routinely does this, even more so. There is no hard-and-fast rule for this, ut if 1/4th isn't excessive to you, then what is? Anyway, looking online gives rules of thumb like "max 300 words from a book-length work", or "best at the most 10-20% for a short work". Fram (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
        • It doesn't matter what you would consider or what I would consider. Neither of us are experts or authorities on copyright law. You are expressing personal views/assumptions/results of online research, none of which make a good basis for claims about copyright law. In other words, if you don't know what the rules are... Lev¡vich 17:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
          • There's so much wrong with that response... For starters, there is no hard-and-fast rule, that's the main issue with fair use application. Wikipedia has historically treated this much stricter than required by law, see e.g. our fair use rules for images which don't even allow such images on an article talk page even if you would discuss it, nor in a draft article. And then, when I do try to find some outside guidance, from things like Stanford Uni, it still isn't acceptable and even those aren't a "good basis". I would like to see you propose an alternative then. Would quoting 99% of a copyrighted book (with attribution) be acceptable to you? 75%? 50%? 25%? Where and how do you draw the line? Or are you proposing not drawing a line at all and letting people quote as much as they like, as long as they use quote marks and attribution? That won't fly. We have to draw a line somewhere, and posting more than 1/4 of a work is generally (and by me) considered excessive (just like posting many long quotes is more excessive than just posting one, as there is less and less need to post additional quotes, so less and less justification of "fair use"). If you can't suggest some better alternative, if you can't actually indicate what the rules are and what is or isn't acceptable then, then I will continue with that rule of thumb. Fram (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

    • • For the sake of not pressing it further. Sure. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• What reams of text, User:scope_creep? I see a list of references. I feel guilty now for just providing links, instead of such well formatted lists of references. Personally, I'd be more concerned by the first delete vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok, that once again, did 7 delete votes in 7 minutes, which quite clearly means they did not do the required due diligence. I'm also concerned you aren't doing enough WP:BEFORE nominating. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Fram has removed the quote walls, you'll have to check page history. (E.g. this) Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. But boxed. Not sure they needed to be removed - small amounts of quoted text should run afoul of copyright - though perhaps some were a bit long - not quite sure where that line is. At the same time - I don't even see anyone posting on Cunard's talk page in month, and only a single post there since summer! Has User:scope_creep tried to discuss this before coming here? Cunard in the past has been dragged to ANI (see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1042#User:Cunard, rather unnecessarily in my view, and now has added quotes to demonstrate the RS. And now there's complaints about that. To me, this looks more like an attempt to bully an editor that one doesn't agree with, than anything real. Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• First of all, I find User:Cunard to be one of the single best contributors to AfD. I find that he makes it really really easy for me to evaluate sources. He provides great detail and finds sources that I can't find even after looking for 10+ minutes. Secondly, in the worst case, just hat it. Third, I'm not a lawyer, but I do teach copyright law as a part of my job. With my understanding of fair use, it is really really unlikely that this wouldn't count as fair use. Really. If copied onto a commercial site (which our licence allows) and if indexed in a way that made it so that one could easily find the quote when looking for the article? Then it *might* get debatable and I'd recommend to anyone who asked me to contact a lawyer. In any case, I see no problem with what he posted. I *do* see a problem with Fram's reversion. He shouldn't be editing someone else's text. If he really thinks there is a copyright problem, he should be asking for it to be removed from the history too I should think. There is a whole template and set of directions for dealing with copyright issues. See [167]Hobit (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Removing copyright violations / excessive fair use without taking further action is often done. Yes, one can go the extra mile and ask for revdel of the revisions, but in this (and many other) cases that would be overkill. People removing fair use images from pages where they aren't allowed usually don't bother with revdel and so on either. As for the fair use, remember that we are and have always been way more strict than what may be necessary by law. Fram (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Images and text are two unrelated things. Images aren't allowed unless you can prove its necessary, and reduced to be as low quality as possible, this is for server load reasons. There is nothing wrong with quoting parts of a news article in a deletion discussion to prove it gives coverage to something. Dream Focus 12:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
      • "For server load reasons"? So somehow free images don't produce server load issues, but fair use one do? That sounds rather unlikely, anything to back up your claim? Fram (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
      • You can check this at WP:FILESIZE, your claim is totally wrong. Fram (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Huh, I stand corrected. Exception: If the image is copyrighted and used under fair use, the uploaded image must be as low-resolution as possible consistent with its fair-use rationale, to prevent use of Wikipedia's copy as a substitute for the original work. Anyway, as far as the text goes https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html explains it quite well. So you need to undo your incorrect removal of text. Dream Focus 15:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
          • That link doesn't indicate that my removals were correct or incorrect, it basically boils down to "it depends" and "every judge can decide on their own" (no, this is not a legal threat, I wouldn't start a legal case over extremely blatant copyright violations, never mind over these good-faith borderline cases, and I doubt anyone else would). There is no fixed, easy-to-use rule, that's why you can find all kinds of advice in books and online (from good sources); but if they do give numerical values, then 10-20% or 300-400 words (whichever is less) seems to be often used as a rule of thumb. The quotefarms I removed violated this at least in part. See also Masem's comment below, who is kind of an in-house copyright expert (together with User:Diannaa and some others I now forget, User:MER-C probably as well). Fram (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
            • I call BS on those numbers. For a purpose like Wikipedia's, it would be a lot higher. There are 4 prongs to fair use, the amount is only one part (the 3rd). To claim some number or another without looking at the other 3 is silly and wrong. If you don't understand fair use, you really have no business trying to act as an enforcer in that area. And if you are going to claim there is some % or word count that is problematic independent of the context, you really don't understand fair use. Wikipedia may choose to be more strict, but there is no indication that it has done so for a case like this. In any case, let's discuss the copyright issue at WP:CP (where you have also started a discussion on this same issue). Hobit (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
              • "A lot higher" than copying 42% of an article? Indeed, if you don't understand fair use, you really have no business in that area. Dumping large quotes from many articles without actually discussing them in any way is not fair use, and the responses by other people (including you) have indicated that "it is easier not having to go to the article" is the only reason to support this. "Fair use" doesn't equal "makes my life easier". Calling things "silly" or "bullshit" may sound impressive to you, but doesn't make you any less wrong. And of course, why you feel the need to reply here four days later when the discussion about this aspect is already happening at the location you, in your wisdom, indicate as the right one, is unclear.
              • Let's analyze whether you know what you are talking about, shall we? "There are 4 prongs to fair use"? You mean the four prongs we have for images at WP:FUR? You are aware that we are dealing with text here, no with images? For quotes we have 3 prongs, not 4 (oops), at WP:COPYQUOTE. Above the three prongs, it already states "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.", and the first prong concludes "Editors are advised to exercise good judgment and to remain mindful that while brief excerpts are permitted by policy, extensive quotations are forbidden." Not "are forbidden unless the other two prongs are met", no, simply forbidden. If the other two prongs aren't met, then even brief quotes would be forbidden. But even if the other two are met, you still need to keep the quotes brief, not extensive. That's our policy, not some silly bullshit. If you don't like, go to WP:VPP and get it changed; but don't pretend it doesn't exist or may not be enforced. Fram (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
                • Fram, my statement was "There are 4 prongs to fair use". Please see Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors. Hobit (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
                  • We were talking about Wikipedia policies, which are different (more strict) than the law. I'm not here to enforce US law. Fram (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
                    • @Fram:"There are 4 prongs to fair use". Anyone even vaguely familiar with the copyright issues should have recognized that statement as referring to the relevant US law that dictates if Wikipedia is violating copyright. Instead you call it "some silly bullshit". You refer to our policies as determining what is "fair use" when they have nothing to do with that at all--fair use is a legal concept, not a Wikipedia concept. And when it comes to Wikipedia rules, your complaint at WP:CP got shot down. Please stop acting like you are right here. You clearly don't understand the law and you have been told you were wrong on Wikipedia policy. But you stand by your guns and insist that editing someone else's comment and then complaining here and on WP:CP about them was the proper thing to do. Hobit (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
                      • Hobit, I don't care about the US law, the US law about fair use is not relevant to me. We have policies and guidelines about what enwiki allows or not wrt fair use, and these are different for images and text (though obviously the basics behind them are the same. If you don't know that there is a "fair use" concept in law, and a stricter "fair use" concept on enwiki, then it is useless discussing this with you, but it does explain your wrong notions about this. We have Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, a "policy with legal considerations", which specifically states "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law." Emphasis mine. For the record, I did not call the US law "some silly bullshit", I said that our policy is important and shouldn't be dismissed as some silly bullshit, taking two words you used in the post preceding mine. And also for the record, the CP discussion was not "shot down", the closure[168] was "the quotes probably shouldn't have been there in the first place but them staying there doesn't really make a difference", or a "no consensus" basically. That's not "shot down", that's not "upheld" either, that's "people don't agree and it was in a grey area". Fram (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
                        • That's all great. But you still don't seem to understand that fair use is a legal term, not a Wikipedia term. "There are 4 prongs to fair use, the amount is only one part (the 3rd). ". You didn't understand that was a reference to the US law. If you are doing work enforcing copyright rules here, you really really should have. Wikipedia rules are built around that law because that's the law that applies to Wikipedia. Again, at least educate yourself on the topic before continuing to work in this area. What I said shouldn't have been confusing, but you either misunderstood it or willfully ignored my plain meaning. Either is troubling. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
                        • I said your numbers were BS. There is no bound in fair use doctrine or Wikipedia policy that makes those numbers "bad". There are instead words like "excessive". You can't just claim that some percent or total word count is "excessive". You have no basis for doing so, it is going to depend on context. That was my whole point'. And the one Levivich is making here and at WP:CP too. If you feel there should be such numbers, propose that update to our policies. But don't just claim that "X%" or "Y words" is clearly excessive. Context matters. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
                          • You know that terms can have both a legal meaning in the US, a different legal meaning elsewhere, and a Wikipedia-specific meaning? That when we e.g. state that non-free images must have a "fair use" rationale, that this is a rationale which has to follow the Wikipedia rules? Since for fair use the enwiki rules are more strict than the US law, it doesn't matter what US law states? Again, it does not matter if quote X is allowed under US law. Really. It doesn't. Your continued insistence on US law is not helping you here. As for the numbers: fine, forget the numbers. Enwiki allows brief quotes, and forbids excessive ones. In the context, I believed these quotes to be excessive; a whole serise of long quotes without any discussion of them. The context somewhat mitigated this (using them in an AfD makes some sense, e.g. simply putting them on a user page would be worse), but not sufficiently. In my opinion, yes, just like many things we do here, many policies and guidelines that are being enforced, are opinion-based. There are no fixed numbers or statements for harassment, incivility, CIR, NOTHERE, ... People get warned, blocked, reverted, ... based on the opinion of others about what the policy means. Sometimes this is blatantly clear, sometimes it is borderline, sometimes it turns out that nearly everyone disagrees. But discussion of this is done in an adult way, listening to each other, and appreciating when someone tries to provide background, statistics, examples, whatever, to justify their position. Discussion should not be done in a "gotcha" way, like here. All you bring to the table is "no", all the while ignoring enwiki policies and guidelines completely and discussing law instead, as if that was what I was trying to enforce. If you believe that our non-free content criteria should not be any stricter than US law, then it is up to you to get the policy changed. But ignoring policy, and trying to scare people away from enforcing it (not by actually showing that they interpret the policy incorrectly, but by claiming that it isn't required by law, and by calling what is presented "bullshit" without presenting a better (or even any) policy-based alternative), is weak. Unless you change your approach, I'm done discussing this with you, and will ignore your advice, as there is nothing in there with a solid basis in our policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
                            • Thanks. I think we've managed to resolve the actual point that matters: Arbitrary values of number of words or % of original work aren't enough to claim that there is a fair use problem--it needs context. I'm glad we agree on that now. What I was calling BS was your just stating numbers and claiming that was enough. Sounds like either I misunderstood you or you've changed your mind, either way we are good going forward. The other main issue, you not being familiar with the principles of fair use in US law (which is what our policies are based on), is assumedly now fixed. If you haven't taken the time to read the Wikipedia article on fair use in US law I pointed you at, I'd urge you to do so. Again, that's what underlies our policies and where terms like "fair use" in our polices are taken from. And I believe not understanding that creates potential for poor enforcement actions (as I believe happened in this case, and yes, I know you disagree). All that said, if you continue to edit other people's AfD votes on this basis, without getting consensus somewhere, we'll likely be back at ANI. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• For notability AFDs I would always take at least 15 minutes to analyse the article and its possible references – sometimes I take far longer. Now, I realise some people just throw in a !vote one way or another but I hope, for substantial articles, those swaying the final close will have done considerable work. Therefore "it takes so long to work through the text and determine if it valid and often it is not" puzzles me. Surely anyone nominating or supporting deletion will have gone through such references already and will know which are unsuitable in their view. You do not need to study them all over again. For some matters other than notability, such as promotionalism, it may be possible to take a view without studying large numbers of references and you can quickly skip over any suggested list of references. An invalid deletion harms the encyclopedia and can sometimes be devastating for editors who have put in hours of work creating it. It is not something that should be done in a hurry. I welcome Cunard's work and have found it helpful on AFDs I have tackled. Thincat (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The copyright issue needs to be separated from the behavioural issue. The initial issue that was raised here was behavioural, and is totally without merit. People are expected to provide evidence at AfD for their position, and Cunard does so. If you disagree then simply say why the sources provided do not meet notability guidelines, or ask in the discussion for the best sources to be identified if you don't feel like looking at them all. The copyright issue was raised later and is better discussed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 November 19. I must add that I have had several instances where the nominators at discussions or others who are asking for deletion have asked me to provide quotes from sources that I have added, or even copies of the whole source, so this practice needs to be stopped if it is a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Providing a quote to support a request at AFD is reasonable. (Providing whole sources on the other hand should not be handled on WP, or at least, not the source text). The issue here which is partially behavior and partially copyright is blinding including quotes from a source dump. The source dump is "good" (this could be improved but nowhere close to a blockable issue), but quoting each article with that source dump is both a copyright issue as well as behavior (how does that help at AFD if that quote hasn't been requested?) --Masem (t) 18:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It helps me because then I don't have to click on the link or find the most relevant section. In any case, probably best to keep this discussion about behavior and have the copyright issues discussed at WP:CP. Hobit (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• For what it is worth, I think that providing excerpts from the sources is very helpful. I'd much rather look at few key sentences from a source, showing in-depth, non-trivial analysis than be given a link to a source and a claim that somewhere in it there is substantial coverage. Of course, per WP:QUOTE, such quotes should not be overly long. Fair use and all of that. As for the behavioral issue, this boils down to whether the sources are good or not, on average. And whether Cunard learns to avoid low-quality stuff like press releases. Sometimes he finds good sources, sometimes bad, but since he has been here for years, I'd expect that the ratio of good to bad should be increasing over time. If it is not, hmmm. Honestly, even if most of his sources are bad, this is just a bad vote to ignore by the closer, but nothing sanctionable. The onus is on the closers to distinguish good arguments from bad, WP:AFDNOTAVOTE and all of that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• In terms of behaviour, I see nothing at all actionable or objectionale in Cunards use of sources at AfD. On the contrary, providing actual quotes instead of just links is quite helpful in understanding the depth and the nature of the coverage involved. If there are valid NFC concerns here, that's a different matter, but that's a much more technical and special question that belongs at WP:CP. From the diffs provided nothing jumped at me as an obvious NFC violation although there were a couple that did seem longer than I'd like. Nsk92 (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Can this please be closed? The other issues don't generate new comments, and the copyright issue (or non-issue for some) has been handled at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 November 19. The continued posts here only bring more heat, no light. Fram (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What was the outcome of the CP you opened? Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, my personal opinion is that it's not a serious breach of copyright, and using quotes to illustrate an argument is fine, but in the future I recommend @Cunard: to use smaller excerpts and/or less quotes at afd. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:19, 24 November 2020 (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-hopping editor from Adelaide

original headline: Chronic, intractable behavioral problems with 124.169.236.71

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

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

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

It appears that the person editing from 124.169.236.71 moved over to 124.169.252.67, which got blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. So the person then moved over to 124.169.225.142 and is continuing (wouldn't that be block evasion?). John de Lancie is now page protected for a week (extended confirmed protection), so that page is safer for the time being. Here's a summary of the IP hopping this person has done so far:

• October 6 (7:17) – November 6 (20:49): 124.169.229.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• November 6 (22:02) – November 21 (23:17): 124.169.236.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• November 22 (3:08) – November 22 (4:36): 124.169.252.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) BLOCKED for 24 hrs beginning on Nov. 22 @ 5:44
• November 22 (21:38) – present November 23 (01:07): 124.169.225.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

– 108.56.139.120 (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Now he has hopped over to 124.169.237.27:

• November 23 (06:46) – present: 124.169.237.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

He's at it again at André Sogliuzzo (history). Any suggestions on how to deal with this disruptive editing by an IP-hopping editor? – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we get some admin attention on this? – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• 124.169.224.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) anon-blocked for 1 week. This is a busy range with several other anonymous good-faith users on it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

IP vandal

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.

---

Chronic IP vandal using false edit summaries to remove any mention of India in articles and inserting Pakistan in its place. E.g: "I added citations for information that was not cited." (removes content and sources than add anything); "I removed information that was not cited." (removes clearly cited info along with POVPUSH insertion). These are the boilerplate false edit summaries he has been using to carry out his vandalisms all over wiki since at least late last year, can't believe no action has been taken until now. A range block is needed here considering the scope of vandalisms and high IP hopping. Gotitbro (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Uanfala who dealt with a few of these IPs some time back. Gotitbro (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Very disruptive. Blatant vandalism and POVPUSH here. Seems to be changing/removing everything India-related and replacing them with "Pakistan" and "Southwest Asia"! (which doesn't even include Pakistan). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

They're from the same geographical location (Porter Ranch, California) and have the same ISP (Spectrum). Maybe a range block is in order? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be 2605:e000:230e:b400::/64. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Noting that QEDK has blocked the /64 for two weeks. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:26, 24 November 2020 (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.

SPA repeatedly violating NPA

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.

---

EddieLeVisco Claims to be Ed Gold, and his single purpose is to complain about that article, including obvious personal attacks such as [169], [170] (calling all male editors egoistic). They have been de facto banned from the Teahouse, see Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Posts by EddieLeVisco, and when people have tried to help them at Talk:Ed Gold, this user's harassment is meaning editors no longer want to discuss that page. All in all, this user is a massive time sap on the encylopedia, and is not here to contribute positively, only to harass and insult well meaning editors because that article doesn't match their preferred version. Thus, I believe an indef block is warranted. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely but with a note on how to get unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This retaliatory post on his website [171] won't foster much goodwill... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2020 (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.

Brancojuan

I am transfering the below report from WP: ANI. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Brancojuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Juan Branco:. Making legal threats. Block evasion of an IP making legal threats. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It is too complex for AIV, but I am reporting here. This is extremely against our rules, and I would like a block. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

HurricaneTracker495, I hope you don't mind me having changed the formatting of the report to distinguish between the quote and your message. Regarding the threats, which diff specifically is "extremely against our rules"? Special:Diff/990489742 seems to have been dealt with (Special:Diff/990490605, Special:Diff/990492058, Special:Diff/990499472). Perhaps Destroyeraa can explain why this suddenly requires a block. The page has been full-protected by uninvolved administrator GorillaWarfare, the user has been warned and has retracted the threats far enough to make a block seem unreasonable to me. A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(see below for more details) @ToBeFree: not sure. Just know Destroyeraa reported to AIV. @Destroyeraa:, explain why it needs a block. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

HurricaneTracker495, I agree that moving the report to ANI is a good idea, but you wrote "I would like a block" – I just wondered why. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Because I saw they talk page with a {{uw-nlt}}(or whatever it's called)warning. Your recent edits to Juan Branco could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Your edit summaries on this article are suggesting a threat of legal action - such threats are not compatible with editing Wikipedia. Please stopNigel Ish (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC). Additionally, WP: COI violations. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Well. Thanks HurricaneTracker495. Copying reports from AIV to ANI is probably fine; adding a comment at AIV that the report is now duplicated by an ANI discussion is also helpful. Just please get an actual overview of the situation before asking for sanctions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not currently see a need for administrative action beyond what has already happened; the user has last edited over 22 hours ago, can't edit the article and is likely already being watched by far enough users who know how to request or take action against further disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ToBeFree: they were also in an edit war and violating WP: COI. At the very least, a warning should be given. However, it seems to have died down. Note that they may have been violating WP: NLT, they have made 4 reverts, and WP: COI editing, possible breach of WP: PAID. Wait to close the discussion for Destroyeraa to comment. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(If these are autobiographical edits, any "payment" concerns are, well, obviously inapplicable. There have been both administrative action (page protection) and warnings, so I'm not sure if the request is about prevention or punishment. I didn't indent my last message as an informal way of proposing a closure; I'm not sure if there's much left to discuss.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: The editor is evidently 2a01:cb04:b16:b300:35fb:2fac:387d:ed62 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who is currently blocked due to legal threats. The editor is block evading. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: I don’t think he knows about our sock policies. @ToBeFree: I think a {{uw-sock}} warning could work, which sternly tells him that abusing multiple accounts isn’t allowed. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: This is more block evasion than sock puppetry. Also, BrancoJuan may violate the username policy, such as a username of BidenJoe or TrumpDonald. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears ToBeFree blocked the account with account creation disabled as a well known username block and I gave a personalized version of {{uw-sock}}. Signing off now. I will likely not be avaliable for the rest of the day. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495 and ToBeFree: BrancoJuan is Juan Branco, as it says on Juan Branco’s article. The guy has been self promoting himself for several years, and has a history of making legal threats. Juan Branco#Self-promotion of Wikipedia. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

User is blocked indefinitely with account creation disabled as a well known. I also personalized {{uw-sock}}. Signing off now, I may be unavailable for the rest of the day(and it’s only 4:16PM in my location). HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I have applied a modified version of {{uw-ublock-famous}} that does not encourage the creation of a new account but requires verification or renaming instead, as block evasion / sockpuppetry concerns have been raised. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

can someone just make {{uw-uhblock-famous}}? HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

New user spamming multiple articles

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.

---

Ghgunning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding used-car valuation data to multiple articles using www.theclassicvaluer.com as a source. Would I be right in mass-reverting? DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) ka-BOOM!

Or, at greater length, no way is that used car dealership a WP:RS. Narky Blert (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: has blocked so I went ahead and rolledback the lot. DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely, see WP:LINKSPAM. No comment on whether or not an average auction price is useful information for encyclopedia articles on classic cars, but this user is clearly just blasting links to pretty obviously their own website into multiple articles, and we would need better sourcing than that. User parblocked from editing articles indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:52, 25 November 2020 (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.

New user spamming his paper on different talk-pages

Marcus H. Mast has a new fringe paper on inedia in the Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing journal. [172]. I do not have access to the full paper. Unfortunately the user seems to be spamming exactly the same message onto many different talk-pages [173], [174], [175]. It's seems to be promotion of his paper. What should be done here? Should his promotion be reverted? Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Yeah sorry the link wasn't working for me earlier. It is now [176]. Having read it the paper doesn't really bring anything new to the table. There's also a lot of unreliable paranormal sources that he cites. Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing has not been used on Wikipedia because the journal has a history of publishing pseudoscience. Marcus seems to be using Wikipedia talk-pages to promote his paper. The way he was advertising was like it is ground-breaking but there is really nothing new here which hasn't been said before. He's basically calling for more studies on inedia and tighter controls. I think we would all agree on that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy, did you notify the user on their user page? ◅ Sebastian 13:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

[Redacted obvious trolling]

Obvious trolling is trolling. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Washingtonians Article contains False, misleading, disgusting, information that "could" lead some to think that our founding fathers were Cannibals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washingtonians episode 12 Someone with username Dirkbb has apparently fostered a narrative against known history and against logical plausibility in an attempt to tarnish the names of our founders and gain some hideous defamation name for himself. ie He says G.Washington's canniblistic nature was verified by such and such,,, yet there is no proof other than generic sourcing of very dubious value . It is truly FICTION and should not be allowed on the internet, as it just furthers wrong values and assumptions. ie Instead of thinking : If they were were indeed cannibals than why did so many die at Valley Forge? (not logical if eating well) He even says G.W. had a man shot every day to provide himeself (G.W.) with meat ?? Truth is Generals have always historically ate the best of whatever area they were in, So if there was cannibalism, it would not be at the Generals high Level of Rank. This guy appears to be nurturing a false pretext and motive for a onerous disgusting act to provide a dis-ingenuous "story" designed to make a name for himself AND dis-inform others which as said, could cause other to emulate this fictional animal like behavior ie Jeffrey Dahmer types. PLEASE PUT A DISCLAIMER AT THE TOP IN BOLD SUCH AS " THIS FICTIONAL STORY IS UNTRUE, Un-Verified, and should not be for anyone who is seeking sanity to read or give any credibility. THANK YOU  ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceInvent (talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC) @PeaceInvent: The article "The Washingtonians" begins by saying "'The Washingtonians' is the twelfth episode of the second season of Masters of Horror, directed by Peter Medak." It is quite clear that this is describing an episode of a (fictional) television show. Generally speaking I would recommend bringing any concerns about an article to that article's talk page (in this case, Talk:The Washingtonians), but while you're here I will point out that Wikipedia does not generally place disclaimers in articles: Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2020 (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.

PA's BLP violation and socking

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.

---

Born Again Yoyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was going to report them for vandalism but then saw this [[177]]. This is over this edit [[178]] also made by Horn Again Coco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), clearly a sock.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked as I was making this report.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Born Again Coco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another one. It must be half-term somewhere. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I missed that as so similar. I think a range block maybe in order.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Already done, there are a whole bunch more of them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:42, 26 November 2020 (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.

Overdrive999

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 continues to make vandalism on certain pages and reverts edits on other users. He thinks that everything airs on TV but not everything in reality. All he is doing is making WP:DE and calling me a dumb kid. But WP:WINARS, so this user is just being the dumb one. I hope he gets blocked so I could now relax and calm down from him. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

BaldiBasicsFan, the editor will not receive a block simply on your request. Can you provide evidence of the misbehavior you are talking about? Diffs, or links to edits is what is customarily offered. You must also notify the editor that you have lodged this complaint against them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, it looks like Overdrive999 has already been blocked by EvergreenFir for WP:NOTHERE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad he's gone for good. Now I will relax and recover. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2020 (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.

Long running revert war

Someone using the IP 63.140.96.155 (talk · contribs) has been involved in a long-running revert war on several articles related to Star Trek. They were blocked back on the 17th for this, then after the block expired they went right back to reverting to their "preferred version" on said articles [179], [180]. In some cases, these edits introduce factual inaccuracies and there's been zero attempt at talk page discussion or consensus-building by the IP editor. I think a longer block is warranted. ♟♙ (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

First: only one of your diffs was a revert to a Star Trek article. Second: the IP was correcting a claim that was in fact incorrect. Stat Trek Voyager is the third sequel in the franchise not the fourth as claimed. The sequence is 'Star Trek [TOS - original]; Star Trek Next Generation [TNG - first sequel]; Star Trek Deep Space 9 [DS9 - second sequel] and then Star Trek Voyager [third sequel]. There is no series between the original and the first sequel identified as 'TAS' in the reverts by SonOfThornhill as claimed. Neither the Star Trek article mentions such a series, nor is there an article for it (whatever 'TAS' is supposed to signify). 86.140.67.152 (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is at Star Trek: The Animated Series. It has a section at Star Trek. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the list of television series at Star Trek so not a serious sequel. No serious Star Trek fan considers it a proper sequel either. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And... I believe that this makes it a content dispute. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with EnPassant and MrOllie. The Animated Series IS canon whether you like it or not. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If you acknowledge it's a content dispute (which you are on the wrong side of) why did you subsequently make this edit with a false claim of vandalism? Calling an edit you disagree with "vandalism", when it clearly is not, is sanctionable. Grandpallama (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No it isn't. It isn't listed in the TV series on the article Star Trek so clearly no one there thinks so. And from the edit history, I am definitely not the only one who thinks so. I count three people who disagree with you. Ergo, this is a content dispute and you are in the wrong because you never started a discussion on the talk page and even though there now is your attitude, both there and here, is that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

It isn't listed in the TV series on the article Star Trek is objectively incorrect. And you still haven't explained why you are calling other editors vandals. Grandpallama (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And even if it wasn't, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Second time someone's made the "another article doesn't say so" argument in the last week, on wildly unrelated pages too... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

In your opinion, but clearly not everyone's opinion. They are vandals for continually reverting without making any attempt to discuss on the talk page (per WP:BRD). At least I did raise the issue on the talk page, but it has only been met with a response based on 'I am right, everybody else is wrong'). 86.140.67.152 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We actually DID raise our voices at the talk page. You just didn't read it. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And we also have the pot calling the kettle black because you have accused me of vandalism (thrice) so making the same claim a about some one else is pure hypocrisy and the weapon of some one who is in the wrong. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out that 86.140.67.152 has already broken 3RR at Star Trek: Voyager. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment So now we have TWO Anon IPs edit warring at articles related to Star Trek (The Rodney Reed edit seems to be an outlier). And one of them has appeared here to derail this thread into a content dispute. Edit warring, particularly after a block issued for same, is never acceptable regardless of who is "right". ♟♙ (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's an uninvolved anon IP, to suggest that maybe everyone involved in this should read Wikipedia policy on proper sourcing. Which excludes what other Wikipedia articles/lists say, and the alleged opinions of 'serious Star Trek fans'. And after they've read WP:RS, they should take it to the talk page. Assuming they haven't been blocked for edit warring first. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

All of that is made mostly irrelevant by the IP violating 3RR, ignoring the consensus on the talkpage, accusing other editors of "vandalism", and making largely bizarre claims (i.e., these odd repetitions that the animated series isn't in the Star Trek article). Grandpallama (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

IP 203.177.93.98 engage block evasion

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

In Timeline of the 21st century, this user evidently is a WP:BLOCKEVASION of IP User talk:58.71.120.251 that was blocked before by adding vandalized content. So it needs to be blocked or at least warned. I believe it should be reported at ANI as well, given after the page is unprotected, this IP actually same user, engaging similar behavior. 110.137.190.154 (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This relates to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Yaysmay15. FDW777 (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Fram abusive behaviour

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:Fram is engaged in personal vendetta to delete articles I have created. I had no interaction with said user before he started a mass deletion request on 15 September for all military organization articles related to the end of the Cold War: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle. After I informed the editors of the WikiProject Military History of Fram's attempt to mass delete a whole series of articles he withdraw his request to avoid getting his deletion request closed as "keep". Since then he keeps nominating single articles from his earlier mass deletion request and harasses every editor, who votes to "keep" these articles by belittling and dismissing their arguments. Fram has repeatedly stated that he plans to nominate all 20 articles of his initial mass deletion request individually for deletion. We are currently at the fifth deletion discussion now and every editor, not voting in line with his views, is harassed into either leaving the discussion or endlessly justifying their vote to Fram. However no matter what argument one brings Fram is dismissive of them all and doesn't stop demanding editors justify their vote to him until they leave a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989. When I started this notice I left a "keep" comment at the Danish Armed Forces deletion discussion and it took Fram 25 minutes to dismiss and belittle my comment.

Not content with trying to delete Cold War era articles in which I participated, he has gone through the articles I created and listed a further two unrelated articles for deletion in an attempt to take revenge: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974. The 1974 article (176 references) and 1977 article (252 references) are companion articles to the Italian Army 1975 reform article (403 references), which was the key reform of the Italian Army in the post-WWII era. Neither article duplicates the 1975 information, one provides an in depth look at the organization from which the reform started and one a look at the organization after the reform and the additional tweaks and changes were concluded by 1977.

This nomination is a bad faith and spurious revenge for not intercepting Fram's initial mass deletion of Cold War era military organization articles. Fram is acting out of spite and his abuse is not just extending to me but also other editors, who do not fall in line with his demands (including cursing at them i.e.). His tone to editors not voting as he demands is rude, patronising and abusive. His inability of letting an opposing view stand without a comment points to an uncooperative and intolerant attitude towards other editors. Even attempts to improve the articles were ignored (i.e. this additional material I added to the deleted Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 article, but luckily also copied to the Austrian Armed Forces article). The user in question has a history of abusive behaviour. I believe the user's attitude, actions and behaviour are unacceptable and run counter to the good faith work we editors undertake on wikipedia. noclador (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a vendetta against Noclador (or anyone else for that matter). I noticed a group of articles which I thought were lacking notability. A group nomination was withdrawn as people objected, and then individual nominations were started:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination) closed as delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 closed as delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987 closed as delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989 is ongoing
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 has just started (nom for 2 articles)

I also participated in some AfDs for similar articles started by other editors recently. I don't think I have interacted with Noclador outside these AfDs and outside this group of articles (at least not recently, as far as I recall).

I can't check who created the deleted articles; the three ongoing AfDs are articles created by Noclador. But I also voted in e.g. the AfD for List of Territorial Army units (2012), not created or ever edited by Noclador. This ANI section is thus baseless. Fram (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Basically, my involvement, my edits, are about the topic, not about Noclador. Fram (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Unless the 2 editors in question have some history or grudge, I'm not seeing a personal vendetta. Maybe a topic vendetta. In your comment labeled "dismiss and belittle my comment", I see them attacking the article's sourcing, not the article's author (you). In your diff labeled with them cursing you, I see them using curse words, but not cursing you out. What does bringing up the FRAMBAN have anything to do with this dispute? I don't see anything other than a very aggressive nominator who is getting push back from others, so they are turning it up a notch. It seems the AfDs are playing out otherwise routinely. Maybe Fram can back off some, but then again, maybe the sourcing can be improved. I look at this posting as letting off some steam, which has hopefully quelled the tension a bit? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The only connection between the articles Fram nominated earlier and the two he nominated last are that I contributed to the earlier ones and created the latter two. Searching through the list of articles I created to find article to nominate for deletion is a revenge act. As for User:Bison X's comment that "sourcing can be improved" - tell that to Fram, who rejects every single source unless it would specifically state an extremely narrow viewpoint he demands. Besides the latter two articles have 176 references respectively 252 references - how to improve that? To sum it up: Fram nominates referenced articles for deletion out of revenge. A unacceptable behaviour for a project, which is based on cooperation. noclador (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

the only connection between the articles Fram nominated earlier and the two he nominated last... You mean aside from their being military history structure articles. But that's naturally irrelevant to being able to accuse an editor of a vendetta. What's that whistling sound? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No comment on current issue here, but what the fuck is your comment? Arkon (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• I am by no means unbiased, having just (hopefully) gotten out of a discussion here with Fram about copyright and having a long-standing belief that they are a net negative at Wikipedia. That said, yes, this is exactly the type of thing that happens. Fram doesn't do any one that that's all that troubling. Some responses are too aggressive, but very rarely over some sanctionable bound. It's the massive number and general tone of them that is troubling. While Fram isn't responding to *every* keep !vote in those discussions, it appears to be they are responding to more than half of them. And they just keep going. No idea what to do here--this type of thing is what caused WP:FRAMBAN and all the fall out. The community just isn't good at dealing with someone who A) makes good points more often than not, B) never does any one thing that crosses a line, C) just overwhelms people by constantly harping on things. Some would call them detail-oriented and a net positive to the community. I think they drive away good editors, create a very negative environment, create lots of feelings of ill-will, and are generally a bully. Looked at in isolation, this is just a somewhat overly exuberant editor trying to fix a problem. I think it is more than that. It is another manifestation of a long-standing set of behavioral issues that have been going on for years and years. Hobit (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not unbiased either, given that I was the nom for another of those articles and have argued strongly for deletion at others, but I fail to see how it's problematic for Fram (or anyone else for that matter) to respond to comments at AfD. If AfD is a discussion, not a vote, participants should be prepared to discuss their arguments or at least to know that others may respond critically to those arguments. It's not as though Fram is arguing in a vacuum - someone has to be arguing back at them for them to "just keep going," as you say. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yep. And you were on the relevant arbcom case. I feel this is just "more of the same" behavior from before. You looked more closely at the prior case than I did and are aware of whatever issues were raised in a way I can't be. But to me this is the type of hounding that was at the heart of that case (as I saw it). Just a tenacity and meanness that never quite crosses a line but drives away good editors rather than teaches them how to be better editors. I saw it starting with the other Fram case currently at ANI too. Maybe I've just lost perspective wrt Fram, I don't know. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• I was, yeah. I've interacted with them a few times since (minor Russian localities being one, and I feel like there have been some AfDs but I can't recall offhand), and I honestly do see a significant difference in Fram's tone these days. Their replies on those AfDs have been tenacious, but then again so are some of mine. Throughout those discussions, Fram has kept their cool, stated their points and criticized the other person's reasoning in a reasonable manner. They didn't get personal, sarcastic, or biting in any of the ones I commented at. Their only "sin" here is doggedly requesting sources, which, if we're gonna pop them on a cross for, better haul me up too. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• There is something tiresome about people being relentlessly persistent online, and we probably shouldn't encourage it, but the flip side of discouraging people from being Right, but at tiresome length, is that it teaches people who are just slightly Wrong that the best way to get away with it is to be obstinate. Choess (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• My comments: Fram has the right as with other users to make AfDs. But if you look at [181] and it's history, Fram doesn't just make or vote in specific AfDs but launch comments vehemently agreeing or disagreeing with AfDs and votes not just by Noclador or by other users. They sometimes reply to Fram's comments - which they have the right to - but it then spirals into a Fram vs the user's reply. Fram keeps replying and replying to any specific AfD and vote making it not just a a discussion but a stalkerish behaviour against users - Fram does this almost immediately an AfD or vote appears. This indirectly influences the AfDs outcome - often as 'delete' to Fram's delight, then Fram starts another like-minded AfD or sees a vote and launches a 'thesis/dissertation' -like reply against the user, in this case Noclador. But not just Noclador as stated, but others, including me. (Side note: I guess Fram will launch his/her gigantic reply against me and continue such in military AfDs.) BlueD954 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• User:Noclador has created a number of military structure/list articles that Fram, I and many others believe lack notability and are often poorly sourced or completely unsourced. When Fram made the original mass deletion nomination Fram was advised to withdraw it and make individual nominations so that each could be reviewed on its merits: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle and Fram duly did this, making individual nominations, most of which have resulted in a delete. I can understand Noclador being defensive of pages they created or contributed to, but deletion discussions have taken place and people have presented their views. Fram has responded (as have I) to participants who have not made policy-based arguments and to those who have made flawed and/or misleading arguments based on some policy, essay or other criteria. As PMC notes above, Fram isn't arguing in a vacuum, its up to each participant to decide whether or not they wish to respond. This whole complaint seems to be Noclador trying to stop more of "their" articles from being deleted rather than defending them at AFD. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it make sense for some of the participants to talk this to WT:MILHIST? I can understand why the creators of this content are frustrated at seeing a lot of labor going up in smoke, but the point that "X Year" order of battle is fairly arbitrary seems to be prevailing in many of these AfDs. Rather than assailing Fram, I think the logical thing to do would be to back up, do some research to establish when and why significant changes to each country's order of battle occurred. That would allow the delineation of a proper scope for these lists: rather than a single arbitrary year, discuss the order of battle, and how it changed, after one significant reorganization and up to the next. Once a meaningful framework like that exists, a WP:REFUND of the deleted material to help write the new articles would be reasonable. Choess (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Choess, the reason seemingly why 1989 has been chosen is that it is meaningful in the terms you're just describing: it represented the 'high-water mark' of many armed forces just before the end of the Cold War and the onset of numerous significant reorganisations. Your point is well made, and these lists represent orders of battle indeed up to the start of the next (series of ) reorganisations. But this seems to hold no water for those who want this labour deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• User:Buckshot06 Interesting how your position has evolved from 30 June when you posted this: [182] on Noclador's Talk Page, quote: "Keep your false unsourced obsession with 1989 orders of battle OFF the National Guard divisional pages!!... Keep your half-sourced guesses on how NATO armies were organised in 1989 on your own listings pages!!" Mztourist (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• I do not appreciate distorted comments like this Mztourist. The issue with National Guard divisions was that Noclador was trying to use as a reference sources which simply did not back up what the WP page claimed. I have made a variety of arguments to support retention of these valuable lists, but none have involved saying a source said something it didn't. I would rather direct your attention to your argument that "all Vietnam material" from the Talk:37th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron be retained, when clearly, to follow your arguments at these 1989 AfDs, the additional things like aircraft serial numbers are not based on "multiple, independent, and reliable" sources - actually, only, on a single, perhaps SPS website. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• And that has exactly what to do with Noclador, Orbats and 1989? Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not obvious? You are saying one thing, where the subject, 1989 orders of battle, does not interest you (delete everything unless scrupulously sourced) but when it comes to Vietnam, you advocate the opposite (keep even aircraft serial numbers based on one possibly SPS website). This example shows that you, rather than I, are being two-faced. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Its obvious who is being two-faced here Buckshot06 Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Both of you, knock it off. The very next time I see either of you engaging in a personal attack instead of discussing the issue at hand I am going to recommend a short block. If you do it again after the short block I am going to recommend a lengthy block. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Buckshot06: Oh, I understand why, if you're going to snapshot a single year, 1989 has much more salience than, say, 1986. On the other hand, it seems to me that the effects might not be as strong on, say, the Spanish or Portuguese armed forces (versus the Germans); and it's possible that in some of these cases, the 1974 and 1989 articles should be combined, if the bulk of the formations remained similar, noting changes during that period inline (rather than just having a long bulleted list of units). But I've been through a case like this, where individual articles on a topic of interest were being knocked down as non-notable at AfD and those of us interested in them had to sit down and work out how to combine them into lists were notable so that the information was preserved in a form that met with the community's approval.
• I understand why this is upsetting—the loss both of information and of labor—but that can all be salvaged by a REFUND. However, given the results of a number of AfDs, it seems to me that the onus is on the editors interested in this information to develop a policy-compliant structure in which to present it. Conducting an ad hominem campaign against Fram for launching a bunch of successful AfDs is a waste of energy and is probably going to be ineffective at keeping the information in the encyclopedia. Going back to the drawing board and outlining as described will require more thought and energy than spooning facts into a list, but if done right, the articles it proposes should not be subject to deletion for the same reasons as these, and even if that process takes a while, that doesn't affect our ability to REFUND the current articles to draft space for incorporation into the new articles. Choess (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Acknowledged Choess; understand what you're saying. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• I should also note that Noclador was never sanctioned in October for their obvious case of REVENGE against Fram here: [183]. Mztourist (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, I remembered that previous ANI and went back to look for it; I would certainly have issued a warning to Noclador there. In the end though I don't see a reason for this to be at ANI; like many reports about Fram, the biggest issue that he seems to cause is that he's usually right and people don't like him pointing it out. It this case though (especially on the AfD), he wasn't the only one pointing it out. I'd close this. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• I can understand why responding to every Keep at an AfD can feel like bludgeoning, and especially when back-and-forth develops. I looked at the ongoing Danish AfD and saw Fram responding to each keep, but nothing that felt like bludgeoning to me. I looked at the completed Austrian one, and while Fram responded multiple times at Keeps, so did multiple other editors at Deletes. Things got mildly uncivil, again not just from Fram, and also not anything more than is commonly seen at other content disputes. I don't see a behavior issue here. —valereee (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• I do not see any vendetta going on here. It is very common for editors to review multiple articles in the same category, particularly where they have similar names, and nominate those for deletion that they think don't meet the appropriate standard. The author could have saved us all a bit of trouble and made sure the sourcing was up to scratch - two or three reliable sources referenced in each article and this probably wouldn't have happened. I say this as someone who has opposed Fram in a number of recent Orbat AFDs.

On the accusation of WP:Bludgeon, this is an essay, and explicitly states that it is typified not only by a large number of responses (which is necessary when you are in the minority in a discussion) but by repetition in multiple responses. Discussions on Wikipedia are not a vote, it should be quite possible for one person to discuss the points made by ten people in turn so long as they aren't making the same cut/paste argument against all of them. Fram appears to have been doing that. WP:BLUD is far too often simply used as a bludgeon against people in the minority on these pages and I wish that would stop - being in the minority is not a crime. FOARP (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2020 (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.

Apparent trolling at Talk:Michael Greger

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.

---

An IP hopping user has apparently been trolling this Talk page adding repeated unsourced rumours about Greger (and from the tone, this is an ex-editor trying to get a raise). I've been removing the rumours per WP:BLP but the frequency has become high. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't recognize who that is, but whoever it is has been up to this for a long time. Range blocked for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2020 (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.

194.56.199.163

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.

---

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

Could someone revoke talk page access for this IP please, since they are now posting diatribes about other editors. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:08, 27 November 2020 (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.

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

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

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

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

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

Looks like Toltol15 engaged in edit warring after receiving a warning from Drmies, but hasn't edited since this ANI report was filed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: That is true, but they have ignored two ANI reports now. Is that sanctionable (in addition to their disruptive editing, edit warring and repeatedly ignoring edit notes)? Skllagyook (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Looking at the last ANI ~ Nov 12, I can see that yeah, Toltol15 didn't respond to that, but they removed messages from their talk page and otherwise edited afterwards. I also see you mentioned in the last ANI your concern that they would ignore the ANI thread and return to problematic editing, and that seems to be exactly what's happened. That ANI thread auto-archived while {{awaiting}} a response from Toltol15. So, here we are in the same situation again.

To answer your question, I don't think ignoring an ANI report is sanctionable in and of itself. Edit warring and other disruptive editing certainly is. The classic chicken-and-the-egg problem is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to block an account that is not editing anyway (blocks being preventative, not punitive), but on the other hand, someone can engage in disruptive editing, stop editing during the ANI report, then return to the disruptive editing, and this circumvents our efforts to prevent that disruption.

Two options I see are: block now, or issue a "final warning" that any further disruption will result in a block. I'm not an admin though so I can't make the "block, warning, or ignore" decision. For my part I'd support the first two but not the third. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: May need another warning to justify a future report to WP:ANI. Firestar464 (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, the final warning is not necessary; as WP:BEFOREBLOCKING states: “warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking.” Still, I left another note on their talk page, partly because if/when the user continues their behavior, I wanted to recommend either a long-term block or a topic ban. I am hoping that my message will show the user that their intermittent strategy will not work. With that, this report is ready to be closed now. ◅ Sebastian 11:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Temir Oguz

Temir Oguz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit wars and POW in number of articles. Already permanently blocked in Ruwiki, please similarly block here. Каракорум (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Каракорум, please notify them on this report of their talk page, as policy dictates at the top of this page and when you were creating this report. You may use {{subst:ANI notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Done. Каракорум (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There is currently no urgent need for action, since the user has not edited since Каракорум notified them. ◅ Sebastian 10:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Sebastian, I cannot agree, it is enough to see the first edits of the user to understand that you should not expect a positive contribution from him. Mass deletion of information he does not like and wars of edits + aggressive comments to them. Каракорум (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

User removing CSD tags

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.

---

Meghan Lohan has removed the CSD tag on Janix Marie Mendez three times, ignoring all TP warnings. Note, the article is a recreation of Janix Mendez for which the editor did the same thing. MB 22:01, 28 November 2020 (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.

Rangeblock calculation needed

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.

---

• 2605:E000:1F00:D3F1:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
  • 172.58.19.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 172.58.22.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Been dealing with this vandal for the last couple months...the IPv6 has taken to adding false channel positions to cable channel articles, including adding non-existent channel positions for the United States to articles dealing with networks which aren't based in the US...and even when they have an international US feed, the channel positions are either fake or apply only to one city (usually the Spectrum systems in metro LA; the IPs are in the Riverside, CA area), along with non-existent foreign language feeds. The IPv6 was a Spectrum cable IP and was blocked for 6m and I thought that was the end of it...but then they just moved onto their TMobile cell phone, hotspotted it, and renewed their vandalism. The TMobile IP on .149 got a 6m block, thus they jumped to .243, and here I am, asking for a rangeblock calculation on the IPv4s. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) the smallest range that encompasses both these IPs appears to be 172.58.16.0/21, which is also the size of the ASN CIDR range. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:Advice_to_T-Mobile_IPv6_users#Dealing_with_malicious_T-Mobile_IPv6_users has some advice for admins and it should be noted that T mobile is harder to deal with then with Verizon or AT&T for vandalism as the users can come from a very large IP range. Blocking this IP range, even to try and stop an LTA such as this one, may cause collateral damage. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The IPv6 is a Spectrum address that's already been blocked for 6m; I'm more concerned for the TMobile IPv4s, which won't have the issues with a block the 6 would. Nate • (chatter) 01:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It might be an option to block the whole /21 range, but for now the vandalism comes only from two /24 ranges. So I've blocked 172.58.19.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 172.58.22.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for three months each, anon only. Other admins may adjust these blocks as needed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections to the range or the timing, that's perfect. Thank you so much for the help here. Nate • (chatter) 03:57, 25 November 2020 (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.

Redux

• 2600:1700:3B00:ED50:9914:2145:AFCA:6E4B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:3B00:ED50:A825:8EFD:152E:85D2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Cannot tell if this is an AT&T wireless or home connection, but they've returned anew again. Nate • (chatter) 02:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked 2600:1700:3B00:ED50:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Gcmackay and COVID-19 denial

• Gcmackay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sucharit Bhakdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Article also discussed at #Edits by User:Alexbrn above.

Despite being notified of the general sanctions (COVID-19) on this article this editor continues a pattern of disruptive editing. It began with this edit falsly claiming an article had been vandalised, which restored a version described as an absolute mess of undue weight by @Iridescent: and described as a completely whitewashed and perfectly free-of-bias overview of Bhakdi's career by @Ivanvector:. To see the horrific problems with the restored version you only have to look at the first paragraph of the COVID-19 section where it says in Wikipedia's voice The very negative sounding reports in the news media about the severity of the virus often result from bad statistics which are a product of poor quality of data collected, and of severely manipulated interpretations of the statistics. The editor has continued with their attempts to whitewash the article, for example claiming properly referenced information was "opinion/vandalism", removing properly referenced criticism of his views claiming "Removed reference and link to opinionated article" (the net result of which left a sentence reading During the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic, Bhakdi started a Youtube channel proposing that deaths from the virus has been overstated, effectively promoting his fringe misinformation without any rebuttal), adding weasel wording, further removal of the misinformation sentence, claiming it was an "unsourced assertion", and continuing to edit war to remove the sentence. Their conduct at Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi shows they have no idea about policy, so perhaps some sanctions could be applied to this editor please? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, I am new to sanctions, but the editor in question seems to be inexperienced, could the 500/30 rule apply? (Non-administrator comment) Mr. Heart ^(talk) 15:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Parblocked indefinitely from editing Sucharit Bhakdi; the relentless revert warring on the article after several warnings is unacceptable. I did not block them from the talk page because they have a point about describing a noted and award-winning scientist's entire career as "known for spreading COVID-19 misinformation" in Wikipedia's voice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector and FDW777, Gcmackay has appealed this block. (Non-administrator comment) Mr. Heart ^(talk) 16:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• A slight tangent, but the latest edit[184] further shows things are going a bit crazy at this article. I think some kind of protection would be warranted. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The article was already protected to only allow edits by Autoconfirmed and confirmed users on 20 Nov. Raising the protection to the next level, WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, would not have prevented the edit you reverted 2020-11-24T18:26:13. ◅ Sebastian 14:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

31.5.133.157

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

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

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

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

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

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

...and subtracted 1 mill square kilometers from the area of Angola ([185]]), blocked on Wikidata, reverted on Commons... - 4ing (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Please block the IP (even if temporarily to get their attention) as they just keep on making incorrect edits even after being reverted multiple times. DexDor ^(talk) 13:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree DexDor, this IP user is still engaging in disruptive edits. Just yesterday, the user made 16 edits in about 35 minutes on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia, with no edit summaries or explanation. Based on their edit history, this is the general style of their editing- mass edits with zero explanation, zero sources, zero rationale. This user has made a mess on several articles and does not seem to be engaging in conversation here (or anywhere). Several of their edits have been reverted and the user has been re-adding content with no discussion. Furthermore, their edits are not improvements to those articles and most of them should be reverted. Archives908 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This case has not been handled well. Levivich's pertinent question “@Archives908: Have you tried talking to the IP editor about these edits?” was not answered, and still there is no real attempt to talk with the user on user talk:31.5.133.157. I think that's the least we can do to AGF, and I will do so now. ◅ Sebastian 10:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe we may be past that now. The user is making (some) pretty advanced edits for a "first-time" editor. I provided a notice on their talk page on November 18th. The user has neglected to discuss on this noticeboard. All the while, the user continues to re-add incorrect content to pages- even after their additions were reverted. I'm not sure what exactly the "goal" is, but the user keeps re-adding the same/similar content as in the case of G20 and Federation of Euro-Asian Stock Exchanges, among several other articles. In most cases, editors have had to revert their mass edits as the edits are generally not constructive or are factually incorrect. The user also continues to provide zero sources, zero rationale, and zero edit summaries since they began mass-editing on Nov 17th. Granted no discussion was started on their talk page until now, but the user has had several other opportunities to explain themselves/provide rational and at the very least, acknowledge their actions here. Archives908 (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The user continued with the same kind of edits, blithely ignoring the note I wrote on their talk page. So I now blocked that IP for one week. ◅ Sebastian 16:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

We might consider mass rollbacking their category and mainspace edits. All of them appear to be incorrect to me (esp. the categories). Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help Sebastian! And yes, I agree Levivich, the users edits are far from constructive and there are just too many of them to manually revert. Archives908 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

XIIIfromTOKYO (need an admin who speaks French)

I saw a question on the help desk that I could not give an answer to because I don't understand French. Could someone with knowledge of the language look into this?

• Wikipedia:Help desk#Are talk pages subject to rules about content and how to address repetitive claims in talk pages?
• Talk:University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas#Controversies over the decades.
• XIIIfromTOKYO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Delfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous ANI (and one AN) reports:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Infringement of caution against attacks and of topic-ban by XIIIfromTokyo
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive293#Appeal of TBAN
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive967#XIIIfromTokyo, again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive954#Harassment from XIIIfromTokyo
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive952#Personal attacks from XIIIfromTOKYO

• ...and here we have XIIIfromTOKYO accusing Delfield of being a sockpuppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee/Archive (See 28 August 2020 section). Alas, it was closed as stale instead of with an admin opining on the accusation. Worth looking into further? I have no idea.

Please note that some of the above use the wrong username: XIIIfromTokyo instead of XIIIfromTOKYO. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: if you need any help in French, may I advice you to go to the French Village-pump. Many admins overthere can speak English ; some might even have time to have a look at the issue.

There is a strong case against Launebee/Delfield for abuse of sockpuppets (initiated by @MePhisto:). Don't expect any input from me as long as the sockpuppet issue has not been tackled. I grow tired of @Delfield:'s campaigning methods. That kind of insults-based harrassement has to stop.

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I speak French, will have a look in a moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not see anything special in the diffs. Narky Blert's analysis is correct, the sources are reliable but describe the situation in the past. I would just let it go by the usual dispute resolution avenue.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Persistent self-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.

---

Tanaka Roman (RTM) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Persistent promotion of his instagram account.[186] including deceptive edit summary "fixed typo" [187] [188] [189]. He claimed on his user talk page that he understands, but he resumed immedately therafter. WP:NOTHERE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked by Widr while I was composing this report. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2020 (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 hopping POV warrior violating BLP

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.

---

Not sure if anything can be done about it, but a dynamic IP keeps on making comments like this [[190]] at Talk:2020 Delhi riots. Its clear the wp:nothere is strong in this one. But dynamic IP's are hard to deal with.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

THe reason why chose the IP hopping approach is because Slatersteven and a bunch of editors are trying to present a one-sided narrative of the 2020 Delhi Riots. They refuse to name anything to do with any perpetrator who is of Islamic affiliation and liberally use Hinduphobic language on the page. When i questioned them from my own account and IP, they blocked me for frivulous reasons. Now, I got their double standards, hook,line and sinker, they are claiming i am [wp:nothere]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.83.101 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And PA's [[191]], and an admission of block evasion. Also as I am not an admin I blocked no one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

223: if you've under an active block you should successfully appeal said block before coming here. Coming here and telling us you're evading a block destroys any case you may have. Nil Einne (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This editor's IP space appears to be 223.186.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Purely coincidentally this range is also being used by one of the beauty pageant promofarms, so I wouldn't feel bad about it being blocked if this editor pops up again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne Ivanvector Thank you so much. This is all the evidence I required for my article.:) This combined with Larry Sanger's interview should reveal the inner workings of Wikipedia and multiple organizations in India that currently fund wiki will also be enlightened. :) Thanks for all the help. I have screenshots and archives of how a simple edit request that the editors did not like, was sent into a maze of wp abbreviations which are applied selectively. And, when an editor gets exasperated, the editors then gang up on him/her to get a block which admins are all to eager to commit to. I also have your above edits of how you are not even opposed to blocking an entire range of IP addresses to keep uncomfortable edits from being raised. (which happen to be from a chain of coffee shops.). Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.9.3 (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Really? So is the range block in place? I mean this is about a clear an indication of wp:nothere as you can get.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2020 (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.

Can this hoaxer be blocked please?

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:Huengaud created House of Heyngarten, which was already deleted in 2009(!) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Huenergardt. It is now again up for deletion because I didn't know of the older one then, and because I don't know whether it is a G4 speedy or a rewrite. Looking at their other contributions, they added that unknown "house" to Royal family right behind the Hohenzollerns and the Romanovs[192]. They then created Velten Hunergart, unsourced, unverifiable, and with an "image" of the two 17th century brothers from Hessen[193], which turns out to be a 19th c generic depiction of folk clothing in Tyrol[194]. Their other images are equally dubious.

Looking at their earlier edits, I see things like this, completely unverifiable as well. This was reinserted by an IP last month as well[195].

The "house" articles might have been a misunderstanding of our notability and sourcing rules, but the fake images, fake royalty, fake nobility claims, give me no confidence that this editor is here for anything productive. Fram (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

House of Heyngarten was a blatant cut-and-paste move from Draft:House of Huenergardt right after it was rejected by AFC (see House of Huenergardt). I've deleted the copy. This new version is not the same as the article deleted in 2009, but as Þjarkur pointed out, the issues from the 2009 deletion discussion remain. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I said at your talk page, that is one thing the editor didn't do wrong, and the deletion for that reason was incorrect; they were the only content creator of that text, and they are free to create a rejected draft in the mainspace anyway (it is not a smart thing to do, but it is not disallowed, and not a reason for deletion). Fram (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

There are contribs from a few others in the draft history, and I would call Þjarkur's review comment significant enough to warrant CWW treatment, even though Huengaud removed it before copying the article. The usual fix for a cut-and-paste move is to recombine the two pages through a history merge, which in this case would leave the article revisions under the draft title, but there was no difference between the two so I didn't bother. What would you like me to do here? I could restore the article, merge the draft into it, and restore the deletion discussion? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The review comment wasn't copied over (or immediately removed? I think the creation was only the original text, nothing from the draft review, but I can't check). I would undelete the article, and reopen the AfD; depending on the AfD outcome and the outcome of this section, we can then either redirect the draft to the article, delete the article but let the draft remain (if there are judged to be possibilities with it), or delete both (and more, though that may be Commons work as well) and indef block the creator. Fram (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The comment I mean was removed from the draft before the draft was copied. The copy was bit-for-bit identical to the latest revision of the draft. I've merged everything into the now-undeleted article and I'm working on undoing the AfD close. If AfD ends in a "draftify" result it can be moved back. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

And you're both right: the draft wasn't rejected, it was an article that was draftified by an AFC reviewer, which I took to mean the same thing but I recognize I may be mistaken in that. In the second case maybe Huengaud was simply trying to revert draftification, but they did it wrong, and the fact they removed the comments and created the article under a different title lead me to believe they were trying to do an end-run around the new article review process. I'm happy to revert my deletion and let the AfD play out, but I would rather not have two copies of the article floating around. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the path the article's taken it's blatantly a hoax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 26 November 2020 (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.

NOTHERE block for Edgy01

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 account has shown intermittent activity going back at least as far as 2013, but this Pizzagate BLP violation [196] combined with the long list of talk page warnings should be enough for NOTHERE. Geogene (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Indeffed. We can see if (s)he appeals. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:07, 28 November 2020 (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.

181.161.160.0/19 reported by LightandDark2000

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.

---

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• 181.161.160.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) – Obvious block evasion by the LTA, UAK, who is currently blocked on two other ranges. This appears to be his most recent range, and all of the edits since mid-November are from this LTA. Please block for at least 1-6 months; shorter rangeblocks are ineffective against this LTA.

@Oshwah, Drmies, Zzuuzz, Berean Hunter, Widr, and Favonian: Can someone please block this LTA? And if a CU reviews this request, a quick CU on the range would be helpful in uncovering potential sleepers. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2020 (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.

Vandalism only account User:JGStokess

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.

---

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

Vandalism only SPA account inserting material which violates WP:BLP into LDS related articles. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, the user must be properly warned before they can be blocked. Also, I think AIV is the more appropriate venue for vandalism-only accounts. Also, when making a report on ANI, you must notify the subject! Thanks and an admin will be with you shortly! (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 00:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A warning is not required when a new editor is committing severe violations of BLP policy. I have indefinitely blocked this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The account is also impersonating Jgstokes, an editor in good standing who is an LDS church member. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 29 November 2020 (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:Fowler&fowler

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.

---

• Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please could people view the actions of user:Fowler&fowler at East India Company. He has been insulting, disruptive and is refusing to obey the rules surrounding RFCs by ignoring WP:STATUSQUO and edit warring. 2A01:4C8:416:6187:4933:9BCE:4121:FCB1 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Appears to be a sock situation, over at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Dunno about socks, but this is a run of the mill content dispute, with run of the mill discussion of a matter on which Fowler&fowler is widely considered a subject matter expert, though of course we are all fallible. Regardless, not seeing an behavioral issues here, outside of logging this maybe frivolous complaint; though it doesn't look like a boomerang issue either. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Some sample WP:DIFFs would be nice to get more information about this situation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• I have partial blocked both the reporting IP (2A01:4C8:416:6187::/64) and 109.249.185.105 from editing the article for a short time, as they have reverted six times and are the same editor. I have not blocked them from the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (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.

AloPeyk

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.

---

It's about 3 months that I was working on the draft and trying to fix the issues which were mentioned by reviewers (here and here). I provided lots of reliable sources in English, Persian, and even french to confirm the notability of the subject (AloPeyk). In comparison with Snapp!, the subject has been mentioned by more English sources such as financial tribune,bloomberglaw and daily star, meanwhile snapp! is available in Wikipedia but AloPeyk does not get the permission to published. If the submission would be accepted, other users such as copyeditors could develop the body of the article based on policies.Hispring (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hispring, this is more appropriate for WP:Teahouse, which is a place newer editors can go for help in understanding Wikipedia policy; I suggest you open a discussion there. —valereee (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2020 (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.

Persistent Clever Vandalism by Gaming the System with possible COI, sockpuppetry and metapuppetry

Some editors are collectively removing highly referenced information from the page Akinwunmi Ambode repeatedly. There may be COI involved in this case and the editors are not responding to my comments in talk pages either in the page or in their user talk pages. There may be suckpuppetry or metapuppetry involved as well. The ex Governor of Laos was subject of controversy as can be found in a b c d e f g h i j. These are related to the well known allegation of fraud of N9.9bn linked to the ex-Governor and a highly controversial deal of Visionscape at Lagos. While reverting, the editors are using deceptive edit summary to disguise their edits against the spirit of Wikipedia. Why someone will try to remove some highly cites information from a Web Page with so desperation if they do not have COI? I have decided to post it here for seeking admins to look into this and stop these editors from suppressing the truth. While I am not sure, seeing the behavioral pattern it seems the accounts are operated by a single person. 103.234.38.162 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• While it would not exactly surprise me if two of the editors there were the same person, you appear to have a tendency to write about scandals in a way that is clearly un-due and not a summary of events. Most uninvolved editors would have reverted at least parts of your additions. Their edit summaries are correct (and not deceptive) as your additions don't follow WP:BLP and WP:DUE. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if this was intentional, but the section header sounds borderline sarcastic. Darkknight2149 03:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Really. What would "metapuppetry" be like, exactly? Sockpuppets achieving self-awareness and creating their own socks? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

When there's no more room in Hell, the metapuppets will walk the net. KenForee2149 19:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• An obvious step that could be taken is to subject all edits by unconfirmed users to review. How do people feel about that? Deb (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thjarkur 1. I have no interest in any scandal. There is a difference between scandal and controversy. 2. I haven't added a single new word to that article (pls see history). I have been trying to restore the article in its previous state when I saw the removal repeatedly. 3. I have been perfectly fine with the edits you have made and the shape you have given to the article. (but unfortunately your edits are not there any more, diff). 4. I do not have any stake in the article. I did not have any wish to continue reverting at that page any further. Feeling that way I posted here to let veterans and admins conclude what's right and what's not. 5. To iterate, some editors are trying to eliminate some relevant highly cited facts altogether from the article which will make the article violate WP:DUE. And I see they are now successful in doing so. If the present shape of article seems fine to veterans and admins like you, I also have nothing else to say. 103.234.38.162 (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack and legal threat from 100.14.100.86

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

Personal attack a month ago. Legal threat, today. Looks like the same has been behind this IP since at least September 10. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz has blocked for 31 hours, she beat my one-year block by a few seconds. I doubt that this user's IP is static but it's obviously them on it since the last warning. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ivanvector,

I was going to give them an indefinite block but Twinkle sent up a warning message that this was inappropriate for an IP address and suggested 31 hours. Feel free to block for a longer period of time. You have handled more of these situations than I have. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec) It could be a sticky dynamic IP. I think it's typical to start at a few months, for such addresses. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't handle a lot of legal threats by IPs, most armchair-lawyer editors are smart enough to make their legal threats from an account under their own real name. The length I selected was more related to the pattern of personal attacks that goes back at least a month, and based on their talk page statements that they intend to keep it up (WP:RGW). But if a short block gets the point across then we don't need to go longer, but I'll check back on Saturday and see where we're at. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Unequivocal TENDENTIOUS editing by عمرو بن كلثوم on Syrian Kurdistan

• عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A particularly blatant example of this user's chronic and incorrigible POV-pushing by misinterpretation, (namely, that the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" should not and has never been used). To illustrate:

• [197] I add a 1978 source (among many) explaining the meaning of "Syrian Kurdistan" to a discussion in which this editor is claiming there are no sources that use this term, or none before the 1980s. (In this discussion at NPOVN.)
• [198] User:عمرو بن كلثوم then reintroduces this source rather reverentially as "Martin Dr Martin [sic] van Bruinessen (Fellow of the Kurdish Institute in Paris)" while indulging in argumentum ex silentio about the book's preface! (On the Syrian Kurdistan talkpage.)
• [199] User:عمرو بن كلثوم is taken aback at my refutation of his claim that the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" does not appear in the book (it does and is explained), and suddenly changes his mind on "Martin Dr Martin" the erstwhile worthy academic in respectable Paris, whose PhD-thesis-turned book was published by the University of Utrecht Press, but who in Act 2 now appears a radically changed character, a mean scholar [he's actually a professor] whose book is now merely personal opinion and tainted by association with the Center for Kurdish Studies (sounds very neutral) [emphasis original] which, in the space of less than twenty-four hours, has now become unspeakably biased and unusable for reasons that remain unexplained. The statement concerning Kurdistan divided between four modern states in the professor's book is now neutralized as now NOT an established fact. (The question of the reliability of arguments drawn ex silentio from the book's preface is not addressed ...)

Should editors doubt that this was perhaps a one-off or perhaps a disputed subject capable of quibbling, the user then proceeds to argue against the Oxford English Dictionary, which, for the avoidance of doubt, states without ambiguity that historic Kurdistan now exists in the territories of four states, including in Syria. Ample and damning further evidence of this user's tendentiousness, stonewalling, and wilfully inaccurate representation of sources may be found throughout the article's talk page. (And doubtless throughout the user's editing career, which is long and punctuated with blocks for nationalist edit warring and similar behaviour from which it is clear from the peculiar POV adopted here that they have never learned and should be blocked indefinitely.)

A previous report I made on the same editor for the same behaviour weeks ago was archived without administrator comment or action and may be consulted here. GPinkerton (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this dispute on the article talk page, GPinkerton? This sounds like a content dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes it's been discussed to death. Actually discussion was effectively exhausted before I got there; the issue is this behaviour. GPinkerton (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz, if you're feeling brave and patient, this is related to #Syrian Kurdistan, at war again and #Proposal to take action against User:GPinkerton further up the page. A fine use of about 16,000 words so far, not including this section or any of the long discussions on article talk pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

New Jersey IP disruption joined by new user doing same – violation of MULTIPLE

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 New Jersey IP range Special:Contributions/2601:89:C700:4440:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for one week by Ohnoitsjamie starting November 18. The block expired and the IP range immediately resumed genre-warring in articles about music, especially related to bands such as Gorillaz and Blink-182. This genre warring is the same style as new user BlinkDayz, showing an identical pattern of source quotes pasted into edit summaries, the same articles of interest, and the same genre-warring.

• Example one: The song "Quarantine" had the pop punk genre added by New Jersey IPs.[200][201] When pop punk was removed, BlinkDayz restored it.[202]
• Example two: Quoting a source in the edit summary.[203][204][205]
• Example three: The album Power Up had the blues metal genre added by New Jersey IPs.[206] It was removed and restored by NJ IP.[207] It was removed again and restored by BlinkDayz.[208] It was removed again and restored by New Jersey IP.[209]

Looks very much like a violation of WP:MULTIPLE, especially since the new user was registered right after the IP rangeblock expired. Binksternet (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

New account indef'd, range blocked 6 months, nothing but genre-warring. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you muchly. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2020 (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 revert-warring by User:Iaof2017

Iaof2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) displays a continuing pattern of revert warring in a wide range of Albanian related articles. This is accompanied with the use of highly aggressive tone in his edit summaries (latest example [210][211]) and stubborn refusal of any kind of talkpage participation (as in Amantes (tribe) [[212]] and Tomorr [[213]]/while again no trace of him in tp [: organisation et évolution des territoiresa.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tomorr&action=history]). This pattern is not new and has been reported a few weeks ago [[214]] a block for the same reason was also imposed [215]. Unfortunately the best results were a couple of hostile comments in his edit summaries while reverting. Thus, despite being recently blocked and warned [216][217][218] this kind of disruption is still in full swing and even users that share some common interests with him raised serious concerns that this will led to serious restrictions or blocks [219]. A new short term block will probably provoke a much more violent behaviour. So perhaps a 1rr restriction on his field of interest might convince him to avoid continuous wp:NINJA and to participate in the correspondent discussions.Alexikoua (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

What about you? [220][221] (only the recent one). What about your counterpart @Khirug, who always intervenes when it comes to your reverts and disputes, why don't you report him for his continuous disruptive history and reverts in almost every article he's involved, including you? Just because we strongly differ in our opinion? Feel free to report me but be fair at least.--Lorik17 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand why Alexikoua asks for a 1RR restriction about someone who is not even engaging in actual disruptive editing - their most recent revert (Amantes) was two days ago. Doing one or two reverts (not even reaching 3RR) because they disagree with you on a subject is not an actionable issue - definitely no more actionable than the fact that at the same time Alexikoua reached 3RR on Amantes[222][223][224][225] despite the fact that they were reported to AN3 for 4RR within November[226]. Amantes (tribe) is an Illyria-related topic, to which has Iaof2017 has made significant contributions - 150 edits, almost entirely in past week just on List of settlements in Illyria. He's a valuable editor to the topic area - definitely not someone with "a pattern of revert-warring". To recap, none of this is actionable and all editors should be more careful in the way they approach disputes. If there are broader disputes which editors consider actionable, then they should have a wider community discussion on WP:AE and everybody's editing history will be scrutinized.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The disruptive pattern displayed by Iaof is exactly the same that got him blocked, but now a new level of battleground mentality has been reached: I'm astonished by the fact that he stubbornly refuses any kind of talkpage participation (though endless reverting). Additional examples of revert-warring without taking time to participate in talkpage: [[227]] and [[228]] but screaming (notice the caps in his edit summaries). Persistent denial to join any discussion in this fashion is not a constructive behaviour.Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

What I also find quite weird in his editsummaries (apart from attacking co-editors and extensive use of caps) is his 'talkpage' cliché word [[229]][[230]]. This perhaps means that a talkpage discussion should be followed, nevertheless Iaof never joined a discussion there. His entire participation in talkpages is limited to only 3 or 4 short comments in the last 2 months.Alexikoua (talk)  

Iaof's talkpage contribs mostly consist of personal attacks of this type [231], and little else, unfortunately. Khirurg (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

POV-pushing IP editor needs a timeout

• 216.14.157.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:7822:6190::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

From the IPv4: Using Trump's twitter as a source, Using Gateway Pundit as a source, Calling me a "paid Biden hack" (I'm actually being paid by the Illuminati; get your facts straight...), and this.

The /64 (previously CU-blocked by Ponyo), attempted to remove a warning from the IPv4's talk page, calling it "defamatory content", the same language used by the IPv4. Plus they have similar edits going back at least a year, so I'm guessing they are somehow connected. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hard blocked them both for a long while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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, I had corrected a page on Vegetarianism in religion, but the bot reverted it. I am not sure why, as its verifiable and factually correct change I made there. Can you please check what went wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:1124:785F:8BA:EB5F:942C:CBCA (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be the edit: [232] Please report cluebot errors using the "report false positive" link in the description. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A single false positive is not evidence of a malfunction. This bot is accurate the vast majority of the time. Report the error and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 30 November 2020 (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.

TBAN violation by Fæ

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.

---

Good afternoon all, I believe that Fæ has violated their topic ban (imposed here) which bans them from the topic of human sexuality, broadly construed on the ArbCom candidate pages. They asked each candidate the same question regarding UCoC and its relationship to user pronouns and sexual orientation, an example addition can be found here. I believe that question is a pretty clear TBAN violation, and since this is a community-imposed restriction I am bringing this to the community for input on how to proceed. For my part, I will offer to remove the question from any candidate's page (as an ElectCom action) if the candidate wants. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say have the clerks remove the questions from the Arbcom pages as they're a clear violation, but I wouldn't support any sanction in this case. The wording of the enacting of the topic ban is slightly ambiguous (all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues), and Fae may reasonably have assumed that because the election pages are neither "articles" nor "other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues", these particular pages weren't covered. The intent of the close as intended to apply to "trans issues everywhere" rather than "pages which already mention trans issues" seems obvious, but reading it in the more narrow way is a legitimate interpretation. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  As far as removing the questions is concerned, if the applicability of the TBAN is not clear, I think the issue must be raised whether the questions are disruptive - if they are not, then I don't see why they should be removed. And having read the sample provided, I don't see how that question (and the diff containing it) is disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see much room for misinterpretation in the TBAN - the close, as affirmed by Cullen last year, is "broadly construed," and I read the "all articles having to do with..." as a preemptive explanation rather than a narrowing of scope. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I can't agree, since: A) ARCA has clarified that the scope of this topic as an ArbCom/DS matter definitely includes gender (not limited to "pages about", which is just unfortunate ANI wording), and the ANI-reimposed sanction is not a new one, but reinstatement of one that was imposed by ArbCom. B) The nature of the post is patently disruptive regardless, so it is independently subject to the expanded scope of WP:ARBGG (including sexuality and gender, broadly), and Fæ is subject to those DS, having previously been sanctioned under them. So, there are two independent reasons a sanction cannot be evaded here. Also C) per GeneralNotability, whose gist can also be expanded as: attempting to interpret this topic ban, in special part, as only applying when an entire page is about that topic is very obviously not the intent of the T-ban, and nothing in the ANI imposing it (or earlier RFARB+ARCA for the original version) could possibly suggest such an interpretation. Cf. WP:Wikilawyering. Also D) the imposer of the sanction reminded Fæ of the full scope, in response to edits not in "a page about" gender, etc., but a random bio.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'm in absolutely no doubt that the questions should be removed (and I'd even argue that they should probably be revision deleted unless they're needed as evidence in a future case against Fae, as they're clearly made in bad faith in an effort to provoke a fight between two candidates). The only point on which I think we disagree is that I don't think the question in and of itself is worthy of restoring Fae's permanent siteban, which would be the end result if it's concluded that this was an intentional breach. ‑ Iridescent 18:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Even I'm not I wasn't originally arguing for a ban, more like a meaningful block and pushed-back appeal, clearer remedy wording for sure – and perhaps a one-way interaction-ban, given how long this "attack SMcCandlish until the end of time" behavior has been going on. The breach of the DS (personal attack, disruptive purpose) was blatantly intentional, but the breach of the T-ban per se appears appeared to be testing/gaming; the editor has attempted such "find the edge" behavior before and been reminded by multiple admins that it will not end well [233][234]. While it can't go unaddressed, this looks like a "maybe I can get away with it one more time", not a "go out in a blaze of glory". PS: I feel no personal need for revdel; my skin's thicker than that. Update: Fæ's own commentary below makes it clear this is very intentional agitprop. It should be revdel'd because it's having a poison-the-well effect. Someone else can ask a "clean" version if they want to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC); updated: 20:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Given Fae's lies (or at absolute maximum WP:AGF, deliberately misleading statements) below, switching to straight support either restoration of the site ban or a lengthy block for disruption. Fae isn't a new user who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and can't possibly expect us to consider obvious BS like "by 'I wasn't notified' I meant that I wasn't given a notification on Commons" as credible, and likewise can't possibly believe that it's acceptable to claim the participants in this thread have been canvassed without providing any evidence—if The off-wiki discussion exists. Some of the accounts here have the same names there then there should be no difficulty in telling us which names. This is just someone yanking our collective chains and not, as I initially thought, a good-faith misunderstanding of the terms of a topic ban. ‑ Iridescent 21:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think the question is germane to the WMF's goals and to ArbCom elections. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  The issue is not whether "the question is germane to the WMF's goals and to ArbCom elections". That's irrelevant. The issue is that Fæ is not allowed to ask said questions. If you are concerned about these issues, you can ask the questions. Topic bans are about the behavior of an individual, and what they are not allowed to do. They are not about anything else. --Jayron32 19:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think Fæ should be granted an exception that distinguishes ArbCom elections from other parts of Wikipedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  If we granted one editor that exception we'd have to grant it to all TBANed editors. Not a good idea IMO. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  And there is no policy basis for such an exception (WP:BANEX is specific for a reason), nor was one intended in the remedy, nor do we provide exemptions to permit attacks and other disruptive posts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any valid reason for Fae to not be blocked for violating the topic ban. This is clearly in violation, and is directly in line with the repeated drama that led to the tban. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• I was filing a different request (for ElectCom) while this was being opened. I'll just paste it here:

Simultaneous report:

ElectCom clerking request @GeneralNotability, Mz7, and SQL: I believe this question (probably also posted to other candidate pages) is inappropriate and should be removed from any candidate pages on which it appears. Reasons: It is a blatant topic-ban violation. The editor – Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – is indefinitely banned from "from human sexuality, broadly construed ... includ[ing] ... transgender topics and issues" [235][236], and has been recently reminded by Cullen328 that it will be broadly construed. This restriction is still active. It contains a many times disproved falsehood, namely that I have an "apparent viewpoint that using of gender neutral pronouns should be seen as intrinsically funny". The editor has been making these false claims for over a year, until their T-ban shut that down. (It is in connection to an essay about self-aggrandizing commercial/political/religious language being used in Wikipedia's own voice; it used a particular pronoun as a framing device, but in a way completely unrelated to transgender usage. I'm actually pretty well-known by now as one of the chief defenders among the MoS regulars of singular-they and of MOS:GENDERID, especially as regards to not mis-gendering bio subjects.) This is a repeat of character assassination by this editor that is part of a long-term pattern of abuse against me in particular (and at least one other), for which they have previously narrowly escaped sanctions at both ANI and RFARB, until other same-topic disruption resulted in reinstatement of the topic-ban above. This is part of a pattern of transgender-related disruption dating back over a decade, including a years-long site ban. That ban was lifted on the specific condition that the editor not return to that sort of behavior [237], yet it continues unabated. This smearing of me in that post is completely extraneous, and bears no connection to the question the editor finally gets around to asking. It is purely a personal attack. The question (even if it came from someone else and did not contain the falsehood) is disingenuous and does not serve a legitimate candidate-assessment purpose. Its clear primary intent is to manufacture drama between various candidates (especially CaptainEek) and me. There is no extant (or historical, that I can recall) conflict between me and these other candidates, so this is just flat-out disruptive. Even the actual question at the end is not ArbCom-related at all, but is just "lobbying" for changes to a policy this editor would like to see happen, disguised as a question. Further administrative action might be warranted, since it is both a T-ban violation and a transgression of discretionary sanctions that cover this topic (of which the editor is well aware, having been repeatedly subjected to restrictions under them, and having been informed in an ARCA request that gender issues are definitely within the DS scope, even before the extant T-ban). As a standing candidate I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to pursue AE/ARCA/RFARB at this time, though I think this party must understand by now that further tendentious hostilities of this sort would [normally] lead there. If this had occurred in any other context, I would be filing a case request right now instead of this clerking request. This user has also been warned that further WP:HARASS-style behavior would be referred to WMF T&S, since it has also involved off-site actions by this party against both me, and another editor for whom serious real-life consequences resulted. I don't think that's warranted at this time, since the T-ban breach is likely to result in a non-trivial block at least.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

On the ElectCom page, I suggested deleting unanswered copies, refactoring answered ones to the talk page, and in any refactored ones deleting the personal attack if it was not addressed in the answer, or striking it if it was. (I.e., no need to nuke candidates' honest attempts to answer.) Update: I now support revdel; someone else can ask a similar question without attacks, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC); updated: 20:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, I have asked some more neutrally worded questions on similar topics, and will be genuinely interested to see the answers. The Land (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Absent a reply from Fae explaining their thinking I would see this as a tban violation, as such I would remove the comments and reset the appeal clock (minimum 6 months from now). It could be argued that this was an important question (in which case it would likely be asked by others) but in this specific case it wasn't asked in a generalized form. Instead it specifically carried on an old feud by calling out SMcCandlish and his's SignPost article. That article and presumably it's author were highly contentious points for Fae. As such I don't see how this can be viewed as an inadvertent slip into a gray zone. Springee (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • An additional consideration is that the community blanked it for a reason. Continuing to dredge it up for unnecessary reasons does not serve the project's interests. Well all know the essay was a terrible idea, and I will catch hell for it for life, but we need not keep pointing people (many of them new editors) to Signpost in a state that the community did not want it to remain in even in an archived backissue. It was grossly inappropriate to do it again in this way, using it as a wedge to push an ArbCom-unrelated policy change agenda, a false personal attack, and an attempt to directly sow discord between editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Whether the question is germane is irrelevant. These questions (Fae's first enwiki edits for two months, I notice) are a clear topic ban violation and have clearly been placed there as a deliberate attempt to derail an ArbCom nomination. They should be removed ASAP and I wouldn't oppose a block, either, because it's just really poor and WP:POINTy behaviour. And this is coming from someone who was unimpressed with the original issue that is referred to. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• This is a clear violation of the topic ban. They questions need to be removed, and at the least a VERY strong reminder of the topic ban is needed, though a block is definitely warranted as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Seems to be a clever way of attacking SM while using the dispute as a self-aggrandizing wedge issue. Separate of any TB violation, the PA should be addressed as well through normal disciplinary actions. If the questions are not removed outright, the names should be removed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, in combination with the "if it's been answered ..." stuff above, name removal would be good, rather than just revdel'ing the lot.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is a clear an unambiguous violation of Fae's topic ban. I have no opinion on any course of action going forward regarding what should or should not be done about it, but it is a violation, nonetheless. --Jayron32 19:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I see a few candidates have answered my question, taking it in good faith the way it was intended, and based on the evidence. Candidate Guerillero's response demonstrates why this is a good question for Arbcom candidates and provides an opportunity to illuminate the issue in advance of the election completing and while the quoted WMF UCOC is being drafted - I was not around for the essay referenced getting published, but reading it now it makes me feel rather uncomfortable. The fact that the concerns of a lion's share of the commenters and discussants at the MfD found was addressed to the writers and the staff of The Signpost before publication and ignored gives me exceptional pause. I am shocked by the author's refusal to acknowledge that the essay was imprudent and his attempts to wave away the complaints as a manufactured controversy.

As raised above I think the issue must be raised whether the questions are disruptive. As per the link in the opening of this thread my question more than a year ago was "could you clarify whether this applies to the Arbcom clarification request which is about the misuse of anti-transgender language when it has literally nothing to do with article content or improvement, nor the two articles which were the only diffs raised in the thread about bullying that morphed into vote on ANI?" My understanding of the TBan created by a majority vote at ANI, was that the locus of that discussion and its scope was Wikipedia articles and their discussion pages. It never entered my head that this would extend to good faith factual questions in an Arbcom election, especially considering that our votes in the election happen on another site and my question has nothing to do with any Wikipedia article, nor any discussion about a Wikipedia article.

If folks want to make my question even more anonymised that's fine by me, though I'm unsure what key evidence you would still link to.

I am concerned about the active canvassing of this discussion in a thread off-wiki, where SMcCandlish has previously posted, and which is likely to have attracted attention, despite me not yet having been notified that this discussion exists, or being contacted by anyone directly in good faith for an explanation of my understanding of why in my understanding, my question and the Arbcom election process fell outside of the intention or the scope of the TBan. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I find your accusation that I was "canvassed" here and that somehow my opinion is invalid because of that to be baseless and I wish you to retract such an accusation. I found this discussion by reading it for the first time here at ANI, I reviewed the evidence, and I gave my opinion. Your accusation that I was influenced by some other discussion I was unaware of is unfounded. --Jayron32 19:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. If you're claiming I've somehow been canvassed you can either point out where you think I've been canvassed, or you can retract and apologise. I do note that you were notified of this thread within one minute of it being started, so I find it hard to believe your claim that we were canvassed "despite me not yet having been notified that this discussion exists". ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The off-wiki discussion exists. Some of the accounts here have the same names there. These are observations, not accusations. --Fæ (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at WO and I don't see a single user who has commented there about this thread, who has the same name as anyone who has commented here in this thread. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have ANI on my watchlist, for obvious reasons. I hadn't seen the WO thread since last night (although I have looked again now). Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And I absolutely, positively did not post about this ANI or that question on some offsite location. Fæ using their statement above to make false meatpuppetry accusations is a further DS breach in this topic, and using this space to take an advocacy and wikipolitical PoV stance about why their content matters so much, why the question, in a vacuum, has merit, and the adminstrative-social intent of it, rather than focusing on whether it was a T-ban breach and other matters related to the ANI issue, is a doubling-down additional breach of the T-ban. (Venues like this are T-ban exceptions only when the material is pertinent; and an admin directly reminded Fæ of this as well [238].) We're kind of past first law of holes territory now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• As one of the few who suggested GN throwing this to the community, I think the ElectCom decision of keeping the question and making it optional is the right way - some people view it as pertinent, some don't, but most will agree that it is quite WP:POINTy. Coming to the question of violation, I think that it can definitely be seen as one (as a lot of people have already pointed out). @Fæ: It would be helpful to provide links of where anything has been canvassed - iff it doesn't violate WP:OUTING. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  It would be easier if those that came here as a result of reading about it off-wiki were to state so. Past experience has shown that it's better to avoid driving on-wiki discussion with links to non-Wikimedia discussion sites. --Fæ (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note: There is related discussion (with additional redaction or placement suggestions) among the candidates here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Coordination#Question by Fæ  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• despite me not yet having been notified that this discussion exists What, apart from the ANI notification that the OP posted on your talkpage 2 hours ago? Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing that out. I was going by my notifications on Commons, I guess it was not showing as a ping, or maybe I dropped in on the page and didn't realise before moving on. --Fæ (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• With regard to discussions along the lines that because the Signpost essay was blanked, links to it are inappropriate, this seems irrelevant as the original essay was never blanked, it's at User:SMcCandlish/It and its continued existence there was defended by SMcCandlish rather than taking on that blanking would be appropriate. This seems a situation where you can't argue it both ways, that nobody should link to it, but the creator of it can still have the joke essay public. --Fæ (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Except no. MfD declined to delete it, and I later decided not to {{db-user}} it, because people who want to talk about it are free to examine it here, my scarlet letter, without tarring Signpost with it forever and ever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  This view of the facts seems to conflict with Well all know the essay was a terrible idea, and I will catch hell for it for life, but we need not keep pointing people (many of them new editors) to Signpost in a state that the community did not want it to remain in even in an archived backissue. However if you want me to change the links to the Signpost history, to the userspace essay which is still visible and searchable, then that would seem a minor change to the facts of the question to Arbcom candidates which I'm happy to do for you. The candidates generic question was illustrated with the notable example, not intended as a rehash of the facts of the deletion. --Fæ (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Read and think again; you're having some kind of comprehension glitch. My two statements are entirely compatible with each other. And you cannot change links in any of these posts. You seem to have forgotten why this ANI is open. Unless there's something substantive to address, I don't think I should engage directly with you any further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps the worst aspect, looking at Fæ's "defense" above, is that the propagandistic bent of Fæ's posts actually worked. The quote above, by a candidate steered to the old Signpost stuff (which is unrelated to the actual question) and with only Fæ's distorted view of about it to go on, shows the candidate to assume blindly "the author's refusal to acknowledge that the essay was imprudent", without checking. In actual reality, my own candidate questions page (among many other venues) does exactly the opposite of that assumption. Fæ seems to have genuinely succeeded in manufacturing "enemies" out of nowhere in the middle of ACE, and done so by poisoning the well with politicized, extraneous, bad-faith-assumptive, and untruthful dirt-mongering about another candidate instead of posting an honest question for the candidates. It's like the worst behavior of the 2020 US election is seeping into Wikipedia.
  I am now of a mind to support revdeling these Q&A blocks, and for the T-ban breach and DS breaches to result in re-imposition of the site ban. If someone wants to ask a more appropriate version, they can do so, and candidates who have already answered Fæ's grotesque version can just recycle their answers in the new Q&A block.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  

(edit conflict × 2) This was a very clear topic ban violation, breaking both the letter and the spirit. That Fæ was not aware that it would be a breach is not credible given the clarifications and previous discussions about it. This leads to two questions - 1) what sanction, if any, should Fæ receive for the topic ban, and 2) what should be done with the questions? The answer to 1) imho is a block is necessary. It would appear to be the first block for the violation, so 1 month would seem appropriate for a duration, with a concurrent 1 month block for the personal attacks. Regarding 2) I believe this should be decided by the election commissioners, but I have no problem with it being removed or collapsed with no prejudice against another user asking a related question in a civil manner if they see fit. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Closes go at the top not the bottom. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The clarification referenced stated "For the sake of clarity, this includes all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues." An Arbcom election question is not this based on a plain English reading, and this was my understanding based on my own request for clarification back in August 2019. --Fæ (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is a violation. It is starting a discussion (yes it is only two people, but a discussion can be two) about a topic you are TBAN'ned on. I also think that the question itself was rather pointed, though that isn't a issue, its that the TBAN violation is to comment on another user and not a accidental or good faith mention. I therefore think some level of sanction is needed. I think a block of at least a month is needed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• I also support a block (of any duration). Fae's made less than 150 edits in 15 months since being TBAN'd (last 150 contribs), including the edits related to whether Fae violated the TBAN at an RFA last year (see bottom of the contribs list): not counting TBAN-related edits, I think the number drops below 100. This includes zero edits in the last two months. Taking a wikibreak from this project is no problem; returning from a wikibreak to essentially continue the feud that led to the TBAN is a problem. It creates a lot of work for a lot of editors, as we see here and at the Arbcom pages right now, and as we saw with regard to the RFA last year. The questions should be removed/revdel'd; someone else can ask them if they want to; but that's up to the election commission. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Fae has essentially quit editing and only showed up now to cause trouble. A one-month block would be lenient. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would support a block, but I am not convinced that Fæ deserves an extraordinarily long one, necessarily. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 21:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not "quit editing". I have been editing via a ToR browser due to the Uni systems being made very unsafe after the systems were brought down with a successful trojan, the case made the national papers. This has stopped me editing here as my IP has been blocked for the last 2 months as you notice, my edits today are on a secondary system. The TBan does have the effect of making me unable to edit the biographies that I was creating for the past few years, which has resulted in editing at a tiny fraction of past levels. This is why I asked the clarification question in 2019. My edits since have been relatively minor changes, I believe mostly connected to my Wikimedia Commons projects, correcting Scientific Racism across the projects, and supporting projects for the User Group I am mostly associated with along with consulting off-wiki on the UCOC and even having discussion with the reformed T&S folks. --Fæ (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I am concerned about the active canvassing of this discussion in a thread off-wiki, where SMcCandlish has previously posted, and which is likely to have attracted attention It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest SMC has canvassed there. He posted on the off-wiki ACE thread at 07:04(UTC), in reply to a comment about non-admins running for ArbCom, and this was some 5 hours before Fae posted the questions to the ACE pages. SMC has not posted there since. Fae's name was first mentioned on the thread at 14:18. The discussion thread on ACE2020 has been running for two weeks. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, don't disagree, never intended to imply anything else. --Fæ (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Electoral Commission comment: Because this is a violation of Fæ's topic ban, we have collapsed Fæ's question on all election Q&A pages, regardless of whether the candidate has answered the question. We have also removed the part of the question that improperly speculated about SMcCandlish. If candidates wish to answer the question anyway, they are permitted to do so by editing the collapsed content. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• (ec) Fae has been around long enough to know what "human sexuality, broadly construed" means. The clarification "this includes all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues." does not mean that an ArbCom election page is somehow exempt. It is very disingenuous to suggest that because the voting takes place at Securepoll that this is somehow outside the scope of the ban. They showed out of the blue and posted these questions after two months of inactivity and specifically mentioned a user they have been in conflict with - this was not just an innocent slip that one may make in the course of regular editing. I think a block is appropriate.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What would be useful for me, would be a better clarification of the TBan that would enable me to be confident editing biographies or other articles. Currently anything I might add about people, or anything LGBT related in any way, including historic portraits, would hard to avoid all possible TBan interpretations. As stated it never occured to me that election questions about the UCOC and respecting pronouns would be off limits. --Fæ (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Update: Fæ has been blocked by Spartaz. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:10, 24 November 2020 (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?

While this particular incident has been closed, at what point do we say enough is enough? Fae has had so many sanctions over the years, has been caught lying, manipulative and acting in deliberate bad faith numerous times. They have (above) tried to intentionally sabotage and smear another editor during a community process. The idea that Fae is going to change their spots (when actually their behaviour has become worse over the years) as the result of another block is really nonsensical. Time to start talking about a perm community-sanctioned ban. Fae has had more 2nd chances than practically anyone else. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Let them have their three months off. I disagreed strongly with the original ArbCom siteban but this was a clear and intentional breach of the restriction and an attempt to disrupt the election, combined with smearing another editor. Fae knew, or should have known, that this was coming. After that, they can return with all previous restrictions in place. If they do something like this again, then it would feel appropriate to start discussing a permanent or at least long-term (ie 1 year +) siteban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Enough is enough. As Only in death outlines above, we've already given Fae too many extra chances. I would support making the indef permanent. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Not that my opinion on the matter would carry much weight here, but I do not really think a parma-indef is really appropriate for the first violation of a topic ban. I agree with how Spartaz has handled it here and want to at least try things his way. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Never understood why Fae was unblocked, there is no benefit to the project imo, even with restrictions they have only one topic area of interest, his problem area, there will only ever be trouble with his edits here. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  In my opinion Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a net negative to the encyclopedia. I had a previous run in with Fæ (see full disclosure below) but I am trying very hard to look at this impartially and not from my personal experience.

(Full disclosure: a while back Fæ aggressively attacked me for using the wrong gender identification, not accepting my explanation that I had simply forgotten about the request. At that point I made a huge error in judgment that I will be hounded for until the end of time no matter how many times I apologize: I foolishly looked up some terms that multiple websites claim are good alternatives to "he" and "she" and used those rather than the exact terms I was asked to use. That was wrong. What I should have done is to stop interacting with or referring to Fæ in any way.) --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, I reviewed what I previously wrote here. I stand by what I wrote then, especially the evidence that Fæ attempted to get people removed from their positions. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with an extended block or a permanent ban. Fae's history on the English Wikipedia is long and undignified - Fae was initially banned [in 2012] and then had the ban reviewed. A topic-ban remained in place until 2016 when Fae successfully persuaded Arbcom to remove the topic ban. Then in 2019 they were re-banned from the topic of sexuality and has just broken that reinstated topic ban. To me that looks like Fae chiselling away at the limits placed on their conduct and every time justifying the fact those limits were imposed. Fae remains highly confrontational with a strong tendency to respond aggressively and to twist peoples' words beyond recognition to give themselves something to disagree with. Time to end the drama. The Land (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at this and some of the noted history, I'm not really seeing how the project benefits by Fæ continuing to edit. Editing is a privilege, not a right. ♟♙ (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of talk page access for John H P P

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 was blocked indef a few months ago, I think in light of [239], it might be best to remove talk page access. Greyjoy ^talk 10:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2020 (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.

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

Moved from WP:AIV

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

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

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

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

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

From the guilty part: aside from the use of exceedingly fast judgment concerning my various entries which are actually all about the same issue: any natural compound with phenol function (curcumin among other) is devoid of any medical potential despite zillions of publication claiming otherwise. But who cares but the sellers/quacks who are making money on such substances by claiming various cure-all properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.99.249.59 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you're finally talking. Good. Now, slow down and learn Wikipedia's rules and take time to read the articles you're editing. While you were busy on your quest to right WP:GREATWRONGS, you missed that Curcumin already mentions this issue in the lead and body, using specific citations (to avoid what we call improper synthesis), and even links to our article on Pan-assay interference compounds (PAINS). Compare that wording to your own template wording and you'll see it is specific, better sourced, and neutrally worded (versus the emotive wording you used). You're not being reverted by fans of pseudoscience or "quacks", but by editors who understand how we need to write encyclopedia entries. Continue in this vein and I or another admin will block you. Fences&Windows 10:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Quick resolution needed for a conflict

Thepharoah17 is currently reverting serially what Konli17 has edited and questions Konli if he was a sock. He doesn't revert for content, only for the edit being an alleged edit of a sock. Diffs are

here

here

here

here

here

This socket puppet investigation filed by ThePharoah17 needs a quick resolution, the conflict is not really helpful to the project.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thepharoah17 needs to stop with those edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• What more evidence is required to show this Syrian war stuff is far bigger than meets the eye? GPinkerton (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually there are three active edit warring (3RR) cases against Konli17 that admins have been ignoring for two weeks. Somebody should look into the vandalism of Konli17. Slow edit warring (and sometimes breaking 3RR) on several fronts. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

IP racist POV pushing

I was re-directed here from the fringe theory noticeboard.

• 88.106.233.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP editor has made changes which remove references to white people as people. As per the cited diffs below, the editor also openly states that white people are not people, and that institutional racism incorrectly allows white people to 'consider themselves human'. Also see the editor's edit summaries.

Diffs I noticed include: [240] , [241] [242]

Although this does not seem to be a prolific editor in terms of the extent of the abuse I believe this is an urgent matter due to the saddening prejudice and racism involved in claiming that people from a certain ethnicity are not human. I feel unable to deal with this personally by contacting the editor, since they do not consider me human. Surely this cannot belong on Wikipedia. Thanks. JohnmgKing (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I just composed a report and found that someone had beaten me to it. Here is what I was going to post:

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

• "allowing [whites] to call themselves human while preventing them from recognising that [people of color] are the real people.[243]
• changing "whites people" to "whites" and "blacks" top "black people".[244] The edit summary specifically says that "people" was removed because whites are not people.
• More of the same, plus changing "white communities" to "white colonies"[245]
• Apparently, it isn't "sexually abusing underage white girls" if they are white. It is "sexually active with young white girls." [246]

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a bit worrying, but I wonder of this is in fact some alter-righter tying to make a point. They do seem to be a wp:spa who is wp:nothere. At this time (however) a warning would be in order, a very strong warning. But only as its their first time here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I Also note they seem to have got bored.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This week-old trolling needs an ANI report why? --JBL (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Clearly POV editing, but this dynamic IP editor hasn't edited in 5 days. Nothing we can do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That was a rather quick close. It would have been nice to have more than 13 minutes to respond. The last edit was three days ago on 22 November 2020.[247] While trimming my report to the most egregious examples, I inadvertently deleted the IP shift. Sorry about that; my mistake. I doubt that this person is going to stop and I believe that a range block limited to the pages the IP has abused the most would be appropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Re-opening; there was some confusion about the time span. No opinion on the merits. Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• /20 not helpful. /16 shows more general vandalism. Meh.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: What makes you think the second IP (79.) is the same as the first IP (88.)? I know I might be extremely naive here and the two IPs geolocate to the same place, but I note that 79 (in the 22 Nov edit) reverted 88 [248], 79 did not remove "white people" as 88 does, and changing "black" to "Black" (or vice versa) is a very common edit. I'm not sure the two are the same person. 88's edits are clearly terrible, but 79's aren't (unless I missed something). If we did a range block, what would the range be (haven't all the problems been only from 88.106.233.198?). Given that 88 is a dynamic IP and the last edit was 11/20, the lease will likely expire soon if it hasn't already, so I'm not sure what good a block will do, or a warning. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a judgement call, and of course I could be wrong. I thought that the geolocation plus the content (capitalization of "black") plus the same ISP plus the same page -- a page that gets maybe 4 edits a week -- passed the WP:DUCK test. I also concluded that it was most likely not some alt-right troll pretending to be a racist black because someone like that would typically make 100% racist edits. But I am just guessing. Anyway, it looks like there isn't an obviously good range to block, even with the advantage that page blocking gives us (unlikely to cause collateral damage; the next person who get that dynamic IP is very unlikely to edit the same page) so we might as well close this again. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Capitalisation of "Black" without more is not a WP:QUACK. I routinely capitalise names of ethnic groups and races as a mark of respect, even if I think a distinction is pseudoscience. Narky Blert (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the MOS pit. DFO

Do you routinely capitalise names of races days after a racist troll capitalised names of races on the same rarely edited page using the same ISP and living in the same city? WP:QUACK is a pattern. Just living in the same city isn't enough. Just editing the same page isn't enough. And yes, just capitalizing the same words isn't enough. but all three together? See [249].

Also, just as an aside, the capitalization question is controversial. See The Case for Capitalizing the B in Black: Black and white are both historically created racial identities—and whatever rule applies to one should apply to the other. in The Atlantic. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought that was established best practice when I restored the capitalization; you can investigate me for sockpuppetry if you want I guess. We should probably have a MOS for this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on that issue here. Schazjmd (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Responding to a couple points here before someone closes. Geolocation in the area where these two IPs land is really inaccurate: from these results I would not confidently state their location any more precisely than "somewhere in Great Britain". As for timing, these networks are huge (just over 2 million IPs in the largest case; the largest range we can block is just under 65,000) and very dynamic. An IP user who had one address three or four days ago probably doesn't have that same address now, and there's a really good chance if I block it I'm actually blocking a completely different person. That's why when I see "this dynamic IP editor hasn't edited in 5 days" I follow that up with "nothing we can do here". That's of course not entirely true (pattern tracking; checkuser black-box stuff) so it's worthwhile to report anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Of course in the longer run, there is something that can be done, but only by the WMF, which is to have them come to their senses and disallow IP editing completely. Never happen, but just saying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdistan, at war again

Initial 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.

---

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

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

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

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

• I have fully protected the article for a month, which should at least stop the edit-warring until more lasting sanctions or similar can be imposed. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

Continued Discussion

• GPinkerton I'd advise you to reform your request for intervention. The article's recent history is very active, and its talk page has multiple lengthy combative threads going on. Please consider being specific about which editors you're talking about, and provide diffs that evidence the accusations you are making. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Girth Summit, the main problem at the "Syrian Kurdistan" article are mainly two editors, Konli17 and GPinkerton, the first one is pov pushing a kurdish nationalistic agenda, falsifying history and adding fake maps he has made in MS paint:[250][251], he has edit warred to get these fake maps with unreliable sources into the article: [252], the other problematic editor is GPinkerton, shes strongly pushing a nationalistic kurdish agenda falsifying history and reality. GPinkerton claimed that Syrian "Kurdistan" existed during the French Mandate in Syria, she had added this into the article, I asked GPinkerton on the talkpage to please show me a historical source from the 1920s talking about a Syrian Kurdistan[253] and she dismissed my comment with: "What you imagine to be possible or otherwise is of decreasingly little interest to me and betrays an increasingly wide estrangement from reality on your part. It certainly has no bearing on the content of the article." she refuses to engage in a cooperative discussion, the truth doesn't matter to her. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

• It's difficult to tell whether this is a failure to understand the topic, a failure to control the scope of the article, or nationalist equivocation and sleight-of-hand. A "Climate and agriculture" section? Looks like the opposite of a POV fork, a POV amalgamation of Kurdistan, Kurds in Syria, and Kurdish nationalism. fiveby(zero) 16:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• GPinkerton jumped into this article out of nowhere, and came with a very specific, aggressive POV-pushing agenda. Nobody is saying "Kurdistan has never existed" as they claimed above, don't put words in others' mouths! You have been trying hard to show that Kurds did live in Syria. Well, no one is arguing about that, and Syria has known two Kurdish presidents. However, Kurds have lived in Syria either in big cities (such as in Aleppo, Hama and Damascus), or in small village clusters in three non-contiguous areas along the northern border as a result of intensive migrations from Turkey encouraged by French mandate authorities, as shown by this French comprehensive work (among many others) on Jazira Province (modern day al-Hasakah Governorate). This is another French report also talking about the history of that area and how towns and village were built for the new refugees. This is why serious accounts refer to those areas by the name "kurdish inhabited areas" (see this CIA map). The main kurdish presence is in northeastern Syria, and they have lived there entirely mixed with the population, and have been a minority since they first started to cross into Syria from Turkey. This report by the highly-regarded International Crisis Group reads: The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province). Azmi Bishara and colleagues counted 17 such migrations and talk thoroughly about this issue and its origins (here is an English summary). I had inserted this cropped map from Mark Sykes in 1907, specific to the area Kurds call today Syrian Kurdistan", showing the distribution of Arab and Kurdish tribes in upper Mesopotamia with the train tracks separating Turkey (to the north) from Syria (to the south). Note that there were no Kurdish tribes south of the railway (i.e. in what later became Syria). GPinkerton decided to remove this map and inserted the full map (for an "unknown reason"). GPinkerton removed reference to one of the sources talking about invention of "Syrian kurdistan" while inserting documents talking about a "Syrian kurdistan". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Our problem in this article is that we have people with no prior knowledge or competence but certainly with a strong POV-pushing agenda editing here (see comment on Saddam, etc.). GPinkerton is claiming the Istanbul-Baghdad railway "is entirely conjectural and never existed". Well, this shows the amount of knowledge this user has/does not have. Here is an excerpt from the Franco-Turkish Treaty of Ankara (1921) describing the new border between Turkey and Syria The frontier line shall start at a point to be selected on the Gulf of Alexandretta immediately to the south of the locality of Payas and will proceed generally towards Meidan-Ekbes (leaving the railway station and the locality to Syria); thence it will join the railway at the station of Choban-bey. Then it will follow the Baghdad Railway, of which the track as far as Nisibin will remain on Turkish territory; thence it will follow the old road between Nisibin and Jeziret-ibn-Omar where it... Again nobody is denying the existence of Kurds in Syria (or elsewhere), as Pinkerton falsefully claims above. Moreover, Pinkerton is falsifying facts (or has a serious map-reading problem) claiming the uncropped Sykes map described above shows "Kurdish tribes" in all caps in territory now in modern Syria". I am not sure which tribes they are referring to, probably DINAR KURDS and BARAZIEH KURDS, which are the only Kurdish tribes close to the border! Both tribes are in the Seruj (now Suruc) and Birecik area, which are now just north of the border (i.e. in Turkey). I just uploaded [Sykes demographic map of middle section of Syria-Turkey border. The town of Ras al-Ain is in Syria.jpg this section of the Sykes map] for better focus. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again, Amr's comments are implausible and betray POV pushing. In the real world, the border between Syria and Turkey actually runs through the words themselves approximating the position of "KIKIEH KURDS". In any case, the map has no relevance to the subject at hand, and was laughably mislabelled as having something to do with showing distribution of Kurdish tribes and as showing a railway line one the border's present location, a proposition false on both counts: the railway line existed only on this map, and it does not follow the border decided more than a decade after the map was drawn. In effect, Amr has produced a map showing a proposal to alter the route of an as yet unbuilt railway which was never built in the location the map describes becuase the propsoal was never enacted. It cannot be used to claim Kurds did not inhabit Syrian Kurdistan, and has no relevance to the article in question except to refute the claims Amr has made about it. GPinkerton (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Supreme Deliciousness and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on Syrian Kurdistan

• Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), having been sanctioned by ArbCom for infractions relating to nationality and ethnicity a decade ago, arrived at Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as soon as it appeared in 2015, adding an OR tag to the article [254]. But this (northern hemisphere) summer, the saga appears to begin for Supreme Deliciousness with removing [255] as "unreliable" the source of the entirely incontrovertible statement in the lead that Syrian Kurdistan consists of three non-contiguous areas of Kurdish inhabited territory on the Syria–Turkey border, presumably on the grounds that it was The Kurdish Project, a Kurdish-interest NGO of some kind.
• Next, they remove [256] a source to an academic publication by the London School of Economics' Middle East Centre with the misleading edit summary "unreliable source".
• Next they remove [257] a citation to Reuters on the grounds that "Reuters sources does not confirm that part of Syria is Kurdistan" even though the Reuters article states plainly: "Locals no longer call this region northeastern Syria, but “Rojava” - Western Kurdistan." They also add [258] a {POV} tag to the article. Not content, they then add [259] an Ottoman era map of the notional boundaries of late 18th century top-level administrative districts in the empire with the oh-so-decisive caption "1803 Cedid Atlas showing "Kurdistan" in blue on parts of modern day Iraq, Iran and Turkey. The atlas shows no part of Syria being part of a "Kurdistan"" and adds [260] an {according to whom} tag to the lead sentence. After this, they later remove this very Reuters [261] statement from the article on the clearly POV grounds that "This quote deserves no inclusion in an encyclopedia". Still unsatisfied, they added [262] {who} and {according to whom} on some weasel wording established by another to distance Wikivoice from the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" and added [263] scare quotes to all instances of the term in the article with a "so-called" prefix to make the POV extra clear, even more explicit in the succeeding edit, [264], which without explantaion or edit summary replaced the words "While many of the Kurds in Syria have been there for centuries, waves of Kurds fled their homes in Turkey and settled in Syrian Al-Jazira Province, where they were granted citizenship by the French Mandate authorities" with the rather more partisan "Waves of Kurds fled their homes in Turkey and settled in Syrian [[Al-Jazira Province]] ..." and thereby removing any reference to the centuries of pre-WWI habitation of Kurds in the areas subsequently known as the Syrian Kurdistan. They also removed [265] the remnants of the Reuters source, which they had mutilated in haste, showing the removal of the whole quote and its source were repeated and deliberate attempts to exclude the information.
• They then added the first expansion of their own [266], a history section which acknowledges despite later claims to contrary, Kurds did indeed live in what is now Syrian Kurdistan before the partition of the Ottoman Empire, but which rather emphasizes the post-WWI ethnic changes, all the while referring to entire modern Syrian Al-Jazira province to stress that Kurds were a minority there, nicely leaving out the smaller administrative subdivisions where Kurds were in the majority (i.e. the three districts directly bordering the Turkish and Iraqi Kurdistans). There are good reasons to doubt that the all sources cited fully back the picture presented here, and the potential for deliberate omission seems high. They summarize these changes with the heartfelt "It is extremely important for the reader to see where the people that are advocating for so called "Syrian Kurdistan" to see where they come from, so please do not remove this very important information" and added [267] some further scare quotes and "so-called" prefixing, declaring "you can not present as a fact that an entity called "kurdistan" exists in Syria, you have to put in in quotes because it is imaginary and not real or factual. Please stop your pov pushing." This last was swiftly reverted [268] by Applodion who identified the POV pushing of Supreme Deliciousness in the edit summary.
• Nevertheless, more POV editing [269] ensued, again minimizing the validity of the term, and next a whole sourced statement to a well-recognized academic expert was removed [270] as "POV statement, can not be presented as fact".
• Later, Supreme Deliciousness re-added [271] some most irrelevant stuff apparently motivated to suggest 1.) Kurdish responsibility for the Turks' Armenian Genocide, and 2.) Kurdish non-nativeness in Syria. This was explained as "Very disrespectful of you to remove this important information about the history of northeastern Syria. This is important information directly related to the history of the region." They re-remove the phrasing [272] "Kurdish-inhabited areas were usually only regarded as "Kurdish regions of Syria" before the 1980s", with the rebuke that "I asked you on the talkpage to show me what states and international organizations recognize this pov and you failed to do so." They also added [273] scare quotes to "unification" and "Kurdistan", claiming that "quotes are needed to not present the claims as facts".
• After an edit war, Supreme Deliciousness re-added [274] remotely related information about the Assyrian Genocide with the policy-free edit summary that there was "No consensus to remove" it. A bit more editorializing followed, changing the wording of sourced information [275]to remove mention of the Ba'ath Party, its policy of Arabization and of the Kurdish inhabitants the autocratic Party's forced migrations displaced.
• Supreme Deliciousness re-added [276] their editorializing caption on the irrelevant map, despite it having been removed by Escape Orbit on the very reasonable grounds that it "What a map *doesn't* show, is original research and the opinion of the contributing editor. Therefore relevance it has to this article is equally POV". Supreme Deliciousness retorts that "Its not original research because it is an accurate description of the map."

  

  Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western KurdistanSubject of an edit war

  

  Kurdistan as suggested by the Treaty of Sèvres was located north of the Syrian border

  — captioned by Supreme Deliciousness

  The borders on this map are being given undue weight. The Kurdish areas shown are only the areas of cultural Kurdistan that Britain and France didn't themselves want and didn't think should be Armenian or wasn't already Iranian. The Treaty of Sèvres was never enacted in reality, and was motivated by imperial interests and considerations nothing to do with where Kurds might be located or entitled to inhabit. The map has place in the article but it appears to be being used as a sacred text to deny that there could ever be such a thing a Syrian Kurdistan (not shown but scattered immediately south of the anachronistic modern border of Syria and Turkey)

• The next edit is a minor one, months later, when they add [277] {Request quotation} to a sourced statement stating Kurds have lived in the area since the Middle Ages. After that, Supreme Deliciousness removed [278] the words "Around 80% of Syrian Kurds live in Kurdish-majority regions along the Syria-Turkey border." on the grounds that this source was "unreliable". They then remove what they describe as a "fake map" [279] used on French Wikipedia and Kurdish Wikipedia and uploaded in 2013, followed by some POV changes [280] to the lead. They also restore the erstwhile removed map of the partition of the empire by the Treaty of Sèvres, along with its anachronistic caption, on the grounds that the map itself was "important historical map". Separately and in another context these actions might be commended, but together they evidence a cherry-picking of information and the desire to present one very particular side of this story to the exclusion of al others. With this edit [281], Supreme Deliciousness seeks to give greater prominence to the antique Cedid Atlas map, together with its misrepresentational caption of "Kurdistan in blue" (in fact neither blue area on the map is labelled as such, and for good reason; the 1803 Turkish copy of an earlier British atlas naturally does not show the short-lived Kurdistan Eyalet set up later that century and swiftly reabsorbed into the parent Diyarbakır Eyalet, and the blue is in fact the Mosul Eyalet and is marked as such.
• The next edit was to restore the weasel wording [282] after it was again rightly removed, changing for example "Various areas have been claimed to be part of the Syrian part of Kurdistan" to "Various areas have been claimed to be part of an alleged "Syrian Kurdistan" entity" together with more scare quotes added [283], [284].
• Next came a big reversion [285] of changes wholesale following others' edits with the confusing and ill-grounded summary "Restore version before disruptive forced edit warring without consensus". Supreme Deliciousness again removed [286] the source ''The Kurdish Project'', and though objections were raised to the edit summary of "See talkpage, "The Kurdish Project" is not a reliable source and is non-notable", Supreme Deliciousness failed to establish any rationale beyond the fact the organization does not claim to be a news agency and the fact it did not and still does not have a Wikipedia page of its own. This looks like Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of Supreme Deliciousness. They next removed [287] the same source they previously removed, again without explanation beyond the claim that "sahipkiran.org is not a reliable source". Again, this is nowhere explained or justified. The same story occurs next, with the removal [288] of attributed territorial claims. They then forced the lead back into their preferred version with the summary "restore lead changed without consensus". More deletions [289], this time without even a hint of exculpatory edit summary, followed.
• Next, Supreme Deliciousness [290] again removes well-sourced material and less POV text in favour of their own textus receptus. After this I find some sources and expand the article.
• Supreme Deliciousness, seeing this, decides to revert the entire thing, citing [291] "false terminology" in their edit summary: "See talkpage, this kind of false terminology can not be used in an encyclopedia," a really extraordinary response to sourced material to which I supplied citations and quotations, all of them, to a page, using the precise terminology "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Western Kurdistan". Still, Supreme Deliciousness appears to hold dear the unfounded belief that such terminology must not be used without scare quotes and without carefully minimizing the extent of usage (as if sources like the academia of the English-speaking world, the BBC, The Guardian, and Reuters didn't use it often and without qualification). Following the restoration of my material by others, Supreme Deliciousness [292] added an excessive number of labels to show their personal dissatisfaction that such terminology exists and is used in reliable sources, proclaiming that they were a "large amount of falsehoods and historical falsifications added into article".

Overall, I do not think this user's user's contributions to this article space have been an improvement, bar maybe one or two. Surely a net negative to the project? GPinkerton (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Complete ridiculous wall of text and misrepresentation of the diffs and my editing history. I'm not even gonna bother with a reply. If any admin is wondering about any specific edit I have made, then bring that diff forward and i will reply to that admin only. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I can only support GPinkerton on this. They must have invested quite some time in this edit, and an admin should take a look. I have invested quite some time, too by only finding out Supreme Deliciousness sees the territories liberated from ISIL by the Kurds as occupied by the Kurds, and maintains this view from January 2015 until November 2020. GPinkerton here has invested way more time.

P.S:With ISIL I mean the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the by far best known terror organization in the world.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• If someone would like to look at this and take the appropriate action that'd be a great help. GPinkerton (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

IP keeps POV pushing despite being rangeblocked from certain articles.

See User talk:2409:4051:4E93:5F27:B8CC:F7EA:C92B:E47, and Special:Contributions/2409:4051:4E93:5F27:B8CC:F7EA:C92B:E47. The IP, despite being blocked from certain articles, keeps on POV pushing. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a broader temporary block has been put in place. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing and Vandalism

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.

---

• This user Gibby McDonald repeatedly adds Model on Khloé Kardashian page without add any sources and it's not notable as her occupation and she does not respond on the talk page to the issues. She wanted to talk on the Khloé Kardashian's talk page but when I replied there she deleted the conversation.(Bistymings (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

(Non-administrator comment) The user in question is Gibby MacDonald. @Bistymings: Please notify Gibby on their talk page about this report per policy at the top of this page and when you were in the editing screen to write this. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

At this point, neither Gibby MacDonald (talk · contribs) nor Bistymings (talk · contribs) has edited Talk:Khloé Kardashian (history) despite the claim made in the complaint. Cabayi (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since both editors have been edit-warring over this for weeks, and neither of them seems able to use the talkpage, I have partial-blocked them both from the article for a month, which hopefully will make them use the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  You beat me to it. I can't see that they've ever interacted on a talk page other than Bistymings'. Bistymings, I'd suggest you open a section at Talk:Khloe Kardashian and ping the other editor to it. —valereee (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2020 (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.

• Black Kite, Valereee, Cabayi I will tell you something. I have tried to talk to Gibby MacDonald on her talk page, I did use Talk:Khloé Kardashian and I did ping another editor to it but Gibby MacDonald deleted the conversation on the talkpage. (Bistymings (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

  Bistymings, I see no edits by you at Talk:Khloe Kardashian. Here are all your talk page edits: [293]. Perhaps you just thought you posted there, and when you didn't see it when you went back, assumed the other editor had removed it? —valereee (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Valereee No I really posted there after Gibby MacDonald asked me to talk here. I even asked another editor to join the conversation since Gibby MacDonald never replied my messages on her talk page. But when I went back the conversation on the talk page was already gone. (Bistymings (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

  Bistymings, show us the diff. You should be able to find it in the article talk edit history or your own contributions. —valereee (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Valereee I don't know why I can't find it anywhere but after Gibby MacDonald wrote "discuss on the talk page if you have any issue with the occupations" I did go to this talk page and replied her there. But I have no idea why it's all gone now. (Bistymings (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

  Bistymings, the possibility you posted there, they removed it, and both edits have simply disappeared is a nonstarter. You made a mistake. Which is fine, we all do. But next time, look for the diffs first. —valereee (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry Valereee I just feel like I don't need to be blocked from editing since I have tried so hard to talk to Gibby MacDonald to stop reverting things on this page. (Bistymings (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

Bistymings, but you haven't. You may sincerely have believed you did, and that they refused to discuss, but you didn't actually post to the talk page. I suggest you go do that now. You can appeal your block; there are instructions on your talk. I'm closing this now, please continue at your talk. —valereee (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Even if you didn't see we did communicate on the talk page you still can see I tried to talk to Gibby MacDonald on her talk page and yes she refused to discuss and keep did edit-warring instead of try to reply any of my messages.(Bistymings (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

Bistymings, you have now refused to stop discussing at a closed discussion twice. Please stop. You cannot appeal this block here. You must appeal it on your user talk. —valereee (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2020 (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.

Bludgeoning and personal attacks by Swan1111

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.

---

Swan1111 is evidently an SPA created to defend the Victor Carlström page from deletion at AfD. In the course of this crusade, they have repeatedly attacked and threatened users and suggested that they are serving some hidden agenda, e.g.:

• Special:Diff/991648635 – I have reported your account to Wikipedia and your suppression attack and demand they delete your account as a result
• Special:Diff/991078702 – Stop supress Victor Carlström, you destroy credibilty for Wikipedia by doing this. Shame in you by try to delete his page with false accuations
• Special:Diff/991652634 – Action is taken against these usernames to have them deleted
• or the rant I collapsed here – That is a false claim by Praxidicae in his paid suppression attack against Victor Carlström

All of their contributions are either similar attacks or bludgeoning any possible venue by adding as many links about Carlström as they can (usually, at least half of them go to black hat SEO sites). This suggests to me that they may not be here for the right reasons. Blablubbs|talk 15:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I just have one question, where do I pick up my check as a paid-deletion-operative? Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Take a left, go down to MU Inc. financial office, request your $0.00 paycheck from Mr. Denkbeeldig. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Evidently they reported you to Citation bot. {{cn}} indeed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

So is Citation bot gonna pay me now or what, I got Christmas gifts to buy...Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please direct any inquiries about payment directly to the relevant OTRS queue at deepstate-enwikimedia.org. Blablubbs|talk 15:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Completely unacceptable. There are many ways to constructively argue against deletion of an article, even one you are very passionate about. None of them include accusing every person you come across of being part of a grand conspiracy, nor blasting users' talk pages with identical WP:TLDR rants about Wikipedia's credibility. Indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I am part of a grand conspiracy, but they didn't know that, so it doesn't count. ;) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2020 (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.

Can someone remove TPA from User:Allmaterial?

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 seems to still be vandalizing their talk page. Heavily. Invalid^OS_talk 17:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2020 (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:TheEpicCuber

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 somebody care to block User:TheEpicCuber? They're clearly WP:NOTHERE diff diff. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Done, though this could been at WP:AIV as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2020 (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.

Question about Creative Commons Licensing

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!!

I am a Bureaucrat and Administrator on the Hell's Kitchen Wiki over on Fandom and I've come across an issue with the Hell's Kitchen (American season 19) article. I have noticed that several parts of the article appear to have been copied from the wiki, and when I tried to add a reference so that way we'd all be in compliance with the CC-BY-SA licensing, which requires attribution, it keeps getting undone with the justification that Fandom is not a credible source. How can I add the required attribution without it being an invalid source? Zacatero (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zacatero: What text was copied from Fandom? Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Zacatero, Give us the exact article that's been copypasted, it'd be very appreciated. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Was there prose copied from Fandom, or is it just the table data? As I understand it, information doesn't rise to the level of being copyrightable, but prose does. The table format looks consistent with other en.wiki articles, so I don't see anything there that would need attribution. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Moonythedwarf: It looks like https://hellskitchen.fandom.com/wiki/Season_19 is the article in question, and it's the contestant progress table that's the matter in question. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Diff where table was expanded 28 Nov; Fandom page as of 27 Nov. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The attribution should be noted using Template:Wikia content, not cited as a ref. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added the template. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2020 (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: StevenMarch61998$

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.

---

Blanks out content after final warning, though he has made positive contributions and this is rather complex, so posting it here for community input. They recieved numerous Level 4 warnings, and this disruptive editing needs to stop. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

How many final warnings can someone get before they get blocked? 4 in this case. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (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:InedibleHulk reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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.

---

WP:NOTHERE; constant ranting on talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, topic ban me from American politics (post-1932), post-haste! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree I'm a ranting lunatic, I mean, I am still here to build an encyclopedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, do you have any diffs that provide evidence that InedibleHulk, a user who has been here since 2006 and has racked up over 80,000 edits, is not here to build an encyclopaedia, aside from a vague assertion that he is ranting on (presumably his own) talk page? Blablubbs|talk 01:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs, Just look at his contributions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Only 80,000 edits? After that amount of time, he should have twenty times as many. BD2412 T 01:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You know it's sad but true! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, it's not my obligation to dig up diffs. You're here – presumably – to get an established user blocked or sanctioned in some other way. I have no opinions on this case as it stands, but I think that you should be the one making it. Blablubbs|talk 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)While I agree that InedibleHulk (sometimes UnintelligibleHulk) is known for ranting, and is clearly wrong about everything; methinks some diffs outside of their own TP or indication of non-contribution would be needed for a NOTHERE determination. Elsewise, close this as no action. O3000 (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My ranting on most Talk Pages is harmless, but my type of thinking could be dangerous to the American political forum. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It’s not so much ranting as interior monologue. And, there are far more dangerous folk on AP2. O3000 (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you only knew what I've stopped myself from saying... InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

At 22:47 on November 29, I openly admitted I was only in this subversive poetry business (unsolicited and unpaid for by anyone, mind you) to slightly tip things against Clinton and for Harris, if that helps. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support TBAN as the saying goes, "What he wants, he gets". Apparently talking to Jimbo wasn't enough. Somebody TBAN him (per consent) through at least January 20th and let's move on. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't know enough about background yet to weigh on the TBAN proposal, but, IMO, InedibleHulk's participation in User talk:Bus stop#November 2020 has been disruptive and essentially amounted to trolling. Bus stop had been blocked for 30 days for violating their TBAN and didn't take the news too well. In that thread Bus stop is rage venting and soapboxing about unfairness of Wikipedia, and InedibleHulk is basically egging them on. I think Bus stop came pretty close there to having their talk page access revoked. Worse yet, InedibleHulk in that very thread insulted AND pinged, in this edit [294] a user, namely User:Swarm, who was completely uninvolved in any of these discussions. InedibleHulk had absolutely no reason to drag User:Swarm into that discussion and certainly no reason to ping them. It was just pure trolling and a disruptive provocation, worthy of a block. Nsk92 (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As poorly presented as is this filing, I can’t argue with that. I made a brief attempt at calming that TP discussion, to no avail. BS will likely lose TP access or have their sanction extended as their “friends” “help” them maintain their attitude. Not cool. There will be some upset in the AP2 area for a time (as if there hasn’t been before), and some ranting can be expected. Alas, this will not stop on Jan. 20. O3000 (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Me and Bus stop are talking music, horror, insects and other forms of "bullshit", irreverent but irrelevant. Started by telling him he was wrong to have said what he did how he did, where and when it was. Egging on, nothing! I also didn't insult Swarm. His character is objectively beelike. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You invoke an editor not involved in that discussion, insult that editor and in the same edit ping that editor to make sure that they know that they are being insulted. That kind of behavior is inexcusable. Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the character of Swarm comment. I see that you are just begging for a WP:NPA block. Hopefully some admin reviewing this thread will oblige. Nsk92 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Point one. The filing complaint is silly. Point Two. There was a great deal of venting going on. Venting, as in volcanism, can be very loud and smelly, but it can prevent an eruption. Point three, our colleague User:Swarm does not appear to be overly distressed, or they would be here. No WP:DRAMA please, lets just close this now. Just my thoughts Simon Adler (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks must not be tolerated just because the victim does not complain. Just my thoughts. Nsk92 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you that IP I didn't recognize? You seem vengeful. And accuse "egging on". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not that IP. You are more than welcome to file an SPI report on me and I'll support a checkuser request if you make it. I did see the IP use the phrase "egg on" in that thread and I thought the IP was correct. But I don't believe you and I had any substantive interactions before thins thread, at least not that I recall. Nsk92 (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Your name seems familiar, but not sure why. Anyway, neither of you are correct, no egging on. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• (←) On the contrary, I do absolutely find it distressing that IH, a user I never have any interactions or problems with, is apparently still harboring a grudge against me for issuing a minor, last resort block, almost a year ago, over a petty issue that was enforcing a unanimous community consensus and which I apologized for having to do, and thanked them and welcomed them back after the issue was resolved. In fact I find it a bit strange that you'd go so far as to speak for me based on the fact that I didn't reply to this thread within the first two hours after it was opened. I don't take the trolling personally, IH is probably not in the best place right now as he is grieving multiple recent deaths, and he has my sympathy. However as an admin I find it immensely regrettable that he still has such a toxic opinion of me after all this time, that he feels the need to go out of his way to troll and insult me and ping me while he's doing it. InedibleHulk, I'm sorry that you feel so negatively about me, however you know that I made it as clear as possible that the block was nothing personal, it was merely part of my job as an admin to enforce a community consensus which you were only blocked for after violating said consensus eight times and wrote a "farewell" message that made it appear that you were intentionally provoking a block, just as you now claim you're intentionally provoking a TBAN. I don't get the self-destructive strategy, but there's really no rational reason for you to have a problem with me for actioning a block you seemed to be intentionally provoking, simply because I just so happened to be the admin who was around to action it. Part of WP:CIR is functioning in a collaborative environment without holding grudges over past dust-ups. You have no legitimate reason to be uncivil towards me for doing my job. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No grudge, just wordplay. The context called for it. Pinged so I wasn't talking about you behind your back. Sorry. You seem beelike, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing beelike about a user named "Swarm" who has yellow and black lettering on their user page and "sting" in their signature. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it has something to do with you writing He is the enwiki equivalent of a snake oil salesman, and this should continue to be considered for the record, as I do not doubt that there will be future problems with this editor. in your closing statement. Did you ever apologize for that? Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"Snake oil" is an idiom in the English language for a fraudulently-marketed product, and a "snake oil salesman" is one who is selling such a fraudulent product. Given the context, it was an apt invocation of the idiom. The user attempted to avoid sanctions by promising a voluntary resolution that they did not actually follow through with. Such a thing is a reasonable incident to note for the record, if true, which it was. Are you suggesting it wasn't? Are you using my lighthearted, tongue-in-cheek plays on my own username as a justification for egregious personal attacks that claim that I'm a brainless human who mindlessly follows some sort of hivemind to irrationally sanction someone, simply because I'm enforcing a clear community consensus as an administrator? Because that seems to be what you're suggesting, Levivich. I'm not sure why I have to explain this, Levi, but despite my username and the self-aware optics relating to it, I'm not actually a group of mindless insects driven by swarm behavior. I'm a thinking, feeling, human being who exists in the real world. My username is not actually a free pass to denigrate me in bad faith. A strange concept to behold, no doubt. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you're legit bees, brainless or mindless. It was a simpler, superficial observation. No denigration intended. I won't mention it again if I'm ever asked to think about beehives and blocking admins, in succession, it just seemed to fit at the time, sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

In the real world where you exist as a thinking, feeling human being, do you go around calling other thinking, feeling human beings "snake oil salesmen", and then when they get mad at you for it, respond like "Whaaaat? It's an apt invocation of an English language idiom for a person selling a fraudulently-marketed product." And you expect them to be like, "Oh, I see, thank you for explaining this to me, sorry to trouble you, sir." Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not mad at Swarm. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Dang it Hulk, what are we going to do with you. You rapscallion rascal. PackMecEng (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• My favorite part of this report is how the ANI notice was placed at the bottom of the thread where Hulk mentioned he lost two pets and a friend last week. Not even the courtesy of a separate header, LOL. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

When it rains in December, it pours, but they'll all be back later, I have faith, it's alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

And as for you, young man, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times: stop putting eggs on bees! They're vegan! Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I am so sorry that you are going through tough times. Pretty much all of us are. A little over a year ago, our beloved Boston Terrier died suddenly when my wife and I were preparing to attend the funeral of a friend of 38 years. Then came the pandemic. I understand your grief.

InedibleHulk is a quirky and unusual editor who displays their personality in unconventional ways. But I never detect malice or intent to damage the encyclopedia. We are all under enormous stress in December of the worst year in modern history. Their participation at Bus stop's talk page appeared to me mostly as an attempt to lower the temperature. Let's be forgiving of a little venting, and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Echoing Cullen328's comment about InedibleHulk being unconventional but never malicious.VR _talk 04:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I would ask you to let it go colleagues, everyone. User:Cullen as usual is spot on regarding the bigger picture. We may all have to face real Drama, not the insignificant WP:Drama in the coming months. Nowadays I dread the day to come when i wake. Just true. We all all quite empathetic souls on here, I like to believe, and we are all vulnerable, though many like to act tough, but its often a pose. Let us just hope we all have a better year. Lets not fight when we all have existential problems to face. It's a community I read when I first signed up to this WP in 2012. So lets be communal in the face of an external threat, whatever it may be. Simon. Simon Adler (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This was settled in seven minutes, no contest. Then the "drama" started. If this gets hatted with "No consensus", I will resort to vandalism. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here because I support this report which didn't even take any time to provide diffs, I'm here purely because I was dragged into it, apparently because I blocked you a year ago for a completely unrelated incident. I have nothing against you and no real reason to even be involved here. However I don't think threatening the project and the community with intentional harm if the closer doesn't close this thread the way you demand it to be closed is a particularly wise move. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The art of WP:Apology appears to be a dying one on this site. Actually it is flatlined. Simon Adler (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You were dragged here because two editors pinged you here, one twice. I have nothing to do with that. I pinged you once yesterday, as a courtesy, and don't think it even worked because I signed wrong. I don't want to resort to vandalism, I just can't think of what else might work to get a confessed two-time disruptive foreign election meddler topic banned beyond presenting myself as an honest net detriment to that area of interest. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

IH's talk page rants might be bizarre, but they aren't causing any disruption. OP, if you don't like what someone says on their talk page, don't read it. Unless they are actually violating some sort of policy, there's no benefit to making an issue out of some silly talk page ramblings. Unless the community wants to shift the focus to whatever IH is doing on Bus Stop's page, we can shut down this thread now. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My talk page isn't disruptive, but I could find you a dozen editors I've disrupted at mass murder, Joe Biden and George Floyd articles this year. I could probably find six who asked me to stop editing politicized articles because they think me incompetent and biased. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it was like this in the back rooms of the Library of Alexandria? Did one of the scholars ever stand up, point his finger, and declare, "Inediblus Hulkus has been speaking in tongues with Busus Stopus!" And the other scholar gasped and replied, "Et tu, MvcgLXVIbIIIr?" Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, please do not engage in improper humor on ANI, as you have done before. Also, I agree this can be closed without action per EPRICAVARK. Firestar464 (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

And just who are you to be instructing others? Mr rnddude (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• I see that this thread was hastily closed while I was asleep, IMO inapproperiately so. I have reopened it because the issue of IH's actions re Swarm still needs to be addressed. Simon Adler originally posted that "our colleague User:Swarm does not appear to be overly distressed." That manifestly is not the case now and obviously User:Swarm did take IH's actions as trolling, exactly as I thought those actions were intended. The issue should not be waved away as a harmless attempt at "good humor". It was not harmless and it was not good humored. Nsk92 (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone otta close this. DFO

::Thank you for validating the reality of my case, I was this close to complaining about being gaslit by a leprechaun. But you need to stop pinging Swarm, there's no need, you said so yourself. Whatever you're trying to stir up already came and went. He's a real person, and doesn't want us presuming his thoughts. What's obvious to you isn't always what's real. To me, you're missing the plaintiff's point entirely, my winding rants are my psychological weapons of choice, not my offhand puns. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I dont "keep" pinging Swarm. The post above was the first time I pinged him, by linking his username. In this case it was necessary, to let him know that the thread has been re-opened, in case he decides to continue participating in it. Nsk92 (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, user:Lepricavark for stating what I thought last night. I don't think I opined here otterwise. Anyone mind if I close this as a time sink? Thanks to user:Levivich for adding levity. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I do mind, as a matter of fact. I'd like for at least a couple more users who had not participated in this thread yet to chime in, for a more clear consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

And I thought User:EEng‎ was the only one with questionable humor --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I otta punch you in the schonozola. EEng 17:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support T-ban. --JBL (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to close

• I think we have a clear consensus that there is nothing here requiring admin action. I think it's clear that if anyone is disturbed by a user's talk page, the consensus is they should not read it. ANd I get the sense of an overall sentiment that we are all under inordinate stress due to off-wiki concerns and should be a little more tolerant of one another's faults. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  Addendum per Objective3000-- Please stay off Bus Stop’s page. Leave them alone. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, per my comments above. The NPA and trolling issue in IH's behavior still needs to be addressed. Waving it off as "good humor" is unacceptable as it only serves to encourage and enable similar abusive behavior, including possibly by other users, in the future. Quirky humor is fine, but it should not be excercised at the expense of trolling, pinging and insulting other users, especially users who were completely uninvolved in the talk page discussion in question. Nsk92 (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support no action close unless Swarm objects. Also suggest people stay off Bus Stop’s page as it enables the continued venting of an editor who has a history of difficulty letting any discussion end. And, levity, within bounds, is useful tonic in difficult times. O3000 (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Requiring Swarm to formally press charges futher here is an extremely unfair suggestion. Swarm did not ask to be trolled by IH, and Swarm already indicated quite clearly[295] that he took IH's actions as a personal attack. It is up to the rest of us now to take appropriate action, instead of trying to pile up more burden on the victim here. Nsk92 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Nsk92 - the thing about humour is that it is subjective, but you keep insisting that it is trolling. Clearly, several of us feel that no formal action is needed. starship.paint (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Nsk92, Can't seem to remember suggesting such. I think you're pressing too hard. O3000 (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support IH made one ill-advised comment about Swarm. He has been duly chastised and now we can all move on. This should not have been re-opened. I stand by my original close and humbly submit that we should stop creating mountains out of molehills, especially in threads that have already been closed. Enough of this nonsense. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support This should not have been re-opened. Let's move on. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Lepricavark: Hear. hear! @Nsk92: Err, "press charges?" This not a court of law or criminal justice proceeding. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2020 (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.

Closure at this AfD

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.

---

Missivain closed this AfD discussion as an expired PROD. I left her a message on the talk page that her closure was wrong. I'm copying the same text here. I noticed you closed this AfD discussion as an expired PROD which I feel is incorrect. Since you linked WP:NOQUORUM while closing the AfD which says "If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion" - which I think means to say that an AfD may be closed as soft deleted "if there is no comment opposing deletion" - but there is explicitly one such comment available where an editor has voted for Keep, and one vote for Weak Keep, and thus I would regard this closure as inappropriate. NOQUORUM doesn't apply here. Please reconsider your action or let me know if I understood the NQUORUM thing wrong? I've not received any reply and would thus request either an explanation or that the AfD be re-opened & reviewed either by her or any other volunteer uninvolved admin, because there are Keep votes as well, and Soft Deletion doesn't apply according to me. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 13:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The forum for contesting a closure at AFD is Wikipedia:Deletion review. You also didn't give the admin much of a chance to respond before bringing it here. I suggest you wait 24 hours for a response, then file a request in the proper venue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks NinjaRobotPirate. We learn a lot through our mistakes and errors. I'll be waiting for a response for next 24 hours. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 14:59, 2 December 2020 (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.

Report concerning user Sam tum

Sam tum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User is constantly using all-caps in edit summaries (as in WP:SHOUT), and its user-page seems to be mistaken for their sandbox. I think the user should be warned to not use all-caps. Thanks in advance, --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

CrystallineLeMonde, please discuss this with them. Admin action is only needed if discussion fails to resolve the issue. Fences&Windows 14:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, it looks like that the user is promoting a service. Edits need to be investigated. Based on the Talk page, the user seems to be doing disruptive edits and seems like it did not stopped doing it after numerous warnings.--CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has tried talking to them, including you, CrystallineLeMonde. That's expected before bringing an issue here, so please do that now. What evidence do you have for promotion versus this being a fan? You need to provide diffs and analysis if you're going to allege a COI. Fences&Windows 00:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging the user who knows the topic related to the current report: @Emperork: I'm not familiar with Philippine broadcast / channels' programme blocks, so this user may help us out. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! The issues I have encountered so far with this user has been about adding unsourced information especially on local broadcast of international tv programs. I did notice that he contributes on both rival local TV network programming here in the Philippines which is ABS-CBN and GMA but his contributions are more skewed towards toward the former. This edit says "ANO BA, KAPUSO. HALATANG ATAT KAYO. GIVE NAMAN SOURCE, OKAY? *shocked*" which translates to "Hey, Kapuso. You're obviously in a hurry. Please give a source, okay?". Kapuso is a collective term for GMA viewers/fans. The all-caps in his edit summaries are new to me. — Emperork (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Article ShareChat is written by undisclosed paid editors.

Splaybeats007 and Rahulnag07 are paid by ShareChat. I have links to prove the accusation. I am not linking to avoid doxing them here publicly but I'm open to email any/all admins. -- Eatcha 14:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Also see https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/ShareChat/ -- Eatcha 14:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I doubt if there is anything to do here given that neither editor has edited for three months. ShareChat does appear to be notable but the edit-war involving Rahulnag07 was a good amount of time ago and the article has been edited by many others since then. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits need to be reverted and user perm banned

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.

---

• Amirkhosroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – every single edit made by this user has been nothing more than vandalism and they've been completely disruptive. All this users edits need to be reverted ASAP as they've made quite a lot of them. Note: User is currently blocked for 2 days, I strongly recommend a lifetime block as it's clear they will continue to make disruptive edits when they return. Inexpiable (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  New account with 100% mainspace edits, not responding to multiple messages on their talk page about their edits. It looks like all their edits have been reverted. If they return to this behavior after the current 48hr block expires, I think an indef would be appropriate, as communication is required. A cban seems unnecessarily extreme for this case, where a regular admin indef would do. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:48, 2 December 2020 (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.

More trolling at Talk:Michael Greger

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.

---

Further to this[296] the troll has persisted, this time with IPv4 addresses. Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thing is that it is highly problematic to include contrarian views by Harriet Hall and Denise Minger published on blogs when there is plenty of evidence from rigorous peer reviewed studies that point to Greger being correct. Harriet Halls views has been present on Greger's page for many years now, nothing has changed even when relevant studies appeared in the Lancet. See e.g. here: "Heart attacks and strokes are almost unknown amongst the Tsimané thanks to a high carbohydrate, low protein diet and active lifestyle, say researchers" The Lancet article says: "the Tsimane, a forager-horticulturalist population of the Bolivian Amazon with few coronary artery disease risk factors, have the lowest reported levels of coronary artery disease of any population recorded to date."

Now, it is true that in the medical community one values rigorous double blind tests more than observational studies. The problem with that is that you cannot possible test this diet in that way, because the sheer volume of food you need to eat on this diet is huge compared to a diet that contains the amounts of fat that most people in the civilized world are used to eating.

The Wiki article on the Pritikin diet also has similar problems. The article says: "The diet is based around low-fat, high-fibre food and limiting red meat, alcohol, and processed food.[3] When it was launched, the diet was considered radical, but its precepts are now considered largely in alignment with mainstream nutritional advice.[3] The Pritikin Diet has been categorized as a fad diet with possible disadvantages including a boring food choice, flatulence, and the risk of feeling too hungry.[4]

Gastroenterologist David Hershel Alpers and colleagues described the Pritikin diet as "nutritionally adequate, but the low fat content makes it unpalatable, and the likelihood of compliance is low."[5]"

Why on earth do we need to hear David Hershel Alpers' opinion that the low fat content makes the diet unpalatable? There are many ways to make food taste great without adding fat. The issue with feeling hungry is just a matter of your intestines needing time to get used to having to eat much larger volumes of food, because fat contains a massive amount of calories per unit volume. Count Iblis (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The digression above into discussion of content notwithstanding, I've blocked the latest IPs for block evasion and semi-protected the talkpage for a week. Acroterion (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Count Iblis - The media mispresented what was claimed in that Lancet paper you cite. In the abstract it does not mention their diet. The average man from Tsimane has a very short life expectancy, he lives about 53 years. There are many different factors at play when it comes to health I hope you realise that. The average man from Tsimane does a lot more exercise than the average American or European and their smoking rates are very low. This would explain their low CVD risk.

Now the study from the Lancet you cite was questioned by other researchers "About 29% of the 349 adolescents we questioned reported consuming sugary drinks daily (88% weekly); they listed pasta, jam, sugary sweets, and other highly processed foods as part of their regular diet. These findings align with recent research on the Tsimane population, which shows that sweets are the most common food purchased (by 51% of households) and lead to obesity." [297]. Most modern Tsimane are not eating a healthy diet of unprocessed carbs, they eat meat and processed sugar. They do not eat a whole food based high-carb or vegan diet so Greger and Pritikin are both wrong. The claim that the Tsimane population eat a low-protein high-carb diet is inaccurate.

The co-director Ben Trumble of Lancet study you cite was interviewed about his findings for the Tsimane, he says that they eat a lot of hunted meat [298], They eat about the same amount of meat that Americans do, but it’s much leaner, coming from wild animals. The average hunt for a Tsimane man takes five to six hours and ranges up to 10 miles. As you can see they do not eat a "high carbohydrate, low protein diet", they eat about the same amount of meat as Americans. The media and vegans like to distort facts sometimes when it comes to health. That they eat a whole food high-carb diet with a minimum of protein that appears to be misinformation that has come about online in the last ten years. It's also questionable if the Tsimane population have the lowest reported levels of coronary artery disease in the world. From other data, Hong Kong and Japan do. In conclusion nothing you have cited is accurate. This is not the place to discuss this obviously, but Greger is not correct about these studies. Always fact check sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2020 (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.

2 RMs at once

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.

---

Hope this is the right place for this, Talk:West Bank bantustans#Requested move 24 November 2020 and Talk:West Bank bantustans#Requested move 30 November 2020, the opening of the later one while the earlier one is still running is causing confusion. Would someone be kind enough close the new one pending closure of the old one? Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Are there any rules against running several rm at the same time? If no than admin intervention would be inappropriate, since admins are supposed to work by the book, not by a whim. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to have two RMs happening simultaneously (what if they come to incompatible conclusions?), and I don't see why an administrator should be needed to point that out. I have closed the second one; if it is still needed after the first one is closed, anyone can re-open it. --JBL (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Separately, Selfstudier, I have fixed the links in your post so that they now point to the talk page, not the article; I hope that's ok. --JBL (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, right. And thank you for the very speedy resolution.Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2020 (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.

Edit warring using different IP addresses

168.205.128.14 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 31 hours on 11 November 2020 for edits to a set of electricity-related articles. 181.30.28.199 (talk · contribs) has just repeated the same edits to the same articles. These are the only edits '199 has ever made. Jc3s5h (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP, but this seems to be a larger issue. See Malebosun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has the same edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This user also has some of the same edits Exposduets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Constant314 (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior/stalking by user TowlieRocks

The following is my third, at the minimum, report of disruptive behavior and stalking by the, as his page will attest, frequently disruptive user TowlieRocks, who sees fit to follow me across Wikipedia and revert valid edits with neither a reason nor an explanation for having done so (see, most recently, The Jesus Lizard (EP)). My humble recommendation would be a well-deserved IP ban, which would serve both as a preventative measure against further instances of vandalism and disturbing/unhealthy behavior and a consequence of sufficient gravity that the user in question may finally be compelled to rethink his or her deleterious life choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdoinsomeedtits (talk • contribs) 05:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• I see no action required here, given that many of your edits have been reverted by multiple editors for understandable if not good reason, and this seems at worst a content dispute. While I'll withhold comment as to whether it's warranted here, in the future make sure your own edits and conduct is reasonably beyond reproach before making a discussion here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• • Justdoinsomeedtits. You need to provide some links to the behaviour in question. A general link to a page isn't useful. I see you reverted this and called it vandalism. Of course it really just removing unsourced material. And it's not the readers job to click through and see if it is true. Find a source and preferably one that explains why they did that. "Enquiring minds want to know" You reverted on his talk page here which is something you shouldn't do. If they want to remove things from their talk page they can. You want an IP ban but you haven't bothered to tell us which IP. Nobody here will know the IP they are using. Except a checkuser, who wouldn't know unless they checked and in this case they have no reason to look. Even if they did they are not going to be broadcasting it here (or anywhere). I could ban some random IP if you like, maybe mine? You should be careful about how you type here as in a lot of cases people who announce they are humble are lying. Not that I think you are. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

101.100.139.52

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

101.100.139.52 hasn't been very civil recently with their edit summaries. I can't remove their problematic edit summaries, so an administrator may need to. Also, something is a little bit fishy with their behavior in general. I don't honestly know if they're here to build an encyclopedia with others. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the one problematic edit summary from view. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

False accusations & disruptive behaviour

Hello - hope this will be considered, even if from an unregistered user.

User talk:Slykos is being disruptive by:

• Forcing puffery (and inappropriate date format) into articles (and the content is inadequately supported, and from a highly suspect source)
• Making false allegations of vandalism.
• Posting inappropriate warnings.

For further details please see section headed 'Zinash Tayachew' on [299] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.138.5 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: the user has deleted the discussion. So for details please see [300] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.138.5 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, it took me a moment to retrieve that from the talk page, but you have a point. (This concerns Zinash Tayachew.) I suppose what started all of it was this unwarranted and unexplained revert by User:Slykos; everything after that was just Slykos covering up, in a way, including with this completely spurious request for article protection. Their suggestion that the IP place a POV tag on the article rather than remove the obviously promotional and non-neutral information is unjust. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.138.5 (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Then I apologize for any lack of clarification. Slykos (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't apologize to me; I'm not the one who was unjustly reverted and threatened with administrative action. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(Directed to the IP address) What do you hope to accomplish in this? There was no talk page notification informing me of this discussion (there should be, as protocol demands), there was one revert, because it was written from NPOV, and there should have been consensus on this topic. Slykos (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I didn't threaten anyone with admin action, it was the default template for vandalism, and blocks aren't used until warning4, and I only got to warning2. Again, I am sorry. Slykos (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@86.173.138.5: Will you accept the apology? Slykos (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

LTA by Moroccan IP

The following Maroc Telecom IP addresses have been used to vandalize video-game-related pages in an almost identical manner since at least September of this year. This editor adds non-existent categories, adds alternate names that are simply misspellings, and seems to firmly believe that almost every game was released for the original Playstation and that "arcade" and "arcadia" are synonyms.

196.74.91.28, 196.74.71.14, 160.177.182.59, 41.250.122.79, 105.157.247.66, 160.178.179.99, 196.217.142.214, 41.141.89.224, 196.217.183.172, 41.250.242.4 (previously blocked), 41.250.242.4, 196.64.203.193 (previously blocked), 41.248.156.228, 41.251.148.27 (previously blocked), 41.251.165.91, 41.141.37.26, 105.159.206.38 (previously blocked), 196.217.135.207 and 196.64.94.134 (previously blocked)

Compare this edit: [301] to this one: [302], this one: [303] this one: [304] and this one: [305]

- Sumanuil (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Andrewlumbo21 / community interaction

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.

---

Andrewlumbo21 (talk · contribs)

Editor has received about ten Talk behavioral warnings or Talk questions in 2020[306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315] and similar in 2019.[316]

Editor's practice is to remove Talk feedback without offering comment, as editor does not participate in either article Talk[317] or user Talk.[318]

Editor also does not generally use Edit summaries[319] and has been repeatedly asked to do so.[320], [321], [322]

The community presumably would be happier and more efficient if the editor began to offer edit summaries where appropriate and responded to questions on their Talk, rather than continuing to blank their Talk without reply such as seen here [323], [324] and here.[325], [326] UW Dawgs (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Required ANI notice received the same treatment.[327] UW Dawgs (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

31-hour block for disruptive editing. They seem to be editing daily so with luck that'll get them to engage. —valereee (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

UW Dawgs, if that doesn't work let me know and I'll partial block from article space for a month. —valereee (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

update: blocked from article space. —valereee (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2020 (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:Kavkas and the Ingushetia article

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 repeatedly adds references to youtube ([328],[329], ,[330], [331]) and does not respond on the talk page to the issues I've raised (Talk:Ingushetia#Discovery_of_agriculture, Talk:Ingushetia#Gelia_on_the_map). I believe that this user should be warned about using unreliable sources and engaging in OR, and urged to participate in discussions. Alaexis_¿question? 07:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I really do not like this and this. If the user can not understand that we do not take these accusations lightly they should not be editing Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I don't like that, either. Alaexis, I don't see that when you opened discussions, you ever pinged the other editor? They may not be refusing to discuss but simply don't realize you're trying. Youtube can be used sometimes -- for instance, an upload of a recording of a tv news show that is considered an RS and uploaded by the official account. I can't assess the youtubes this person is using as sources, maybe you can and they aren't that? —valereee (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't tag them directly (I should've) but I mentioned the discussions in my edit summaries (for example [332]). Given that most of this user's edits are to this very article and this is not a new user, I find it unlikely they weren't aware of what was happening on the talk.

The video is definitely not a reliable source. It was uploaded by an unknown youtube user and there is no attribution. The recording it contains sounds like the voice of Yevgeny Satanovsky (ru:Сатановский, Евгений Янович), but I see no reason to use it when there exist books and scholarly articles about this topic. Alaexis_¿question? 13:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The user returned to editing, and their response was [333]. Before I start acting, I would like to hear any arguments why this user should be allowed to continue editing Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 60h for personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2020 (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.

legal threats

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.

---

[334] 2600:1004:b011:789f:9d93:d9b8:f5f4:a164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) threatening legal action. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

N.B. I just reverted a distruptive comment by the IP, who is rapidly reverting the edits of @NinjaRobotPirate:. Pahunkat (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for the threat, and the VERY likely chance this is a sock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock of TheImortalKitten, based on this edit [[335]]

Blocked 31 hour by RickinBaltimore --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2020 (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.

COI and WP:OWN at Windy City Pro Wrestling

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.

---

• WCPWowner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Windy City Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WCPWowner (talk · contribs) was blocked the other day by Bishonen as having a conflict of interest at the Windy City Pro Wrestling article. Today, they have confirmed they are the owner of the subject company and posted legal threats at the article talk page [336] and on his own talk page [337], [338]. Despite warnings and standard messages about COI, they don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. ♟♙ (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for making legal threats at the article talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 4 December 2020 (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.

Defamatory content at Neil Druckmann

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 rev/delete the recent dreck. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2020 (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.

Edwinacuna / Edwinacuna69

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.

---

These two accounts (Edwinacuna (talk · contribs) and Edwinacuna69 (talk · contribs)), believed to be operated by the same editor given the names, have been engaging in what appears to be paid editing on behalf of Brent International School. I have placed uw-paid warnings on the talk pages of both accounts two days ago. The Edwinacuna account has not edited since then. The Edwinacuna69 has resumed editing and has re-started Draft:Brent International School Manila, which had been created by the Edwinacuna account [339] and subsequently deleted as a copyright violation [340]. This new creation is also a copyright violation in fact copying (in part) from the same source that the previous iteration of the draft was copied from (https://brent.edu.ph/about/history/). I have tagged this latest iteration for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12.

There has been no response from either account regarding the paid editing warnings. The copyright violations are continuing. I am asking for a block of both accounts until such time as the paid editing warnings are properly responded to, as well as a recognition on the part of the accounts that their copyright violations are not acceptable. I have informed both accounts of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Interaction Timeline shows 8 years between the edits.--CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• That doesn't show recently deleted edits of Edwinacuna (talk · contribs), who created Draft:Brent International School Manila using largely similar content to the same draft created by Edwinacuna69 (talk · contribs) a couple of days later. Both drafts have been deleted as copyright violations. Further, the account names are virtually identical (the 69 at the end of the one being the only difference). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It might be worth requesting an SPI for the account. I have a hunch that this user is a part of a sock farm, but the suspicious ones are very likely to be stales here as most of them didn't edited since 2007 / 2009 / 2013. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@CrystallineLeMonde: I made an SPI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Edwinacuna --4thfile4thrank (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2020 (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.

False birthplaces for rappers

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 a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2601:C9:201:190:0:0:0:0/64? The vandal has been changing birthplaces of rappers for four months now. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:51, 3 December 2020 (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.

Karabagh war 2020

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.

---

Your content not right about this war , you write not confirmed info about support of turkey to Azerbajan, Azerbaijan confirmed 1000 time that there are no military support to Azerbaijan , They dont need support to fight against Armenia with 3 million poulation, \\\\\\why you dont mention support of russia and france to Armenia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.127.45.152 (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Concerns about an article's content should be directed to its article talk page. This board is not for discussing article content issues. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2020 (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.

Continued incivility and personal attacks after administrator's final warning

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.

---

Isento is regularly incivil towards me, including making abusive and derogatory personal attacks, despite previously being given a final warning from an administrator regarding this issue. Currently, on Talk:Beyonce, he is calling me a "liar" 1 and writing to me sarcastically saying, and I quote: "I am overcome with immense guilt and profusely apologize for my abhorrent behavior. I should be punished. Perhaps a spanking is in order?" 2. He also modified other people's comments 3. I warned him about his incivility 4 after the "spanking" comment, but he continued with his incivility. QEDK and BD2412 warned him about the editing of others' comments also 5. Isento has previously harrassed me over discussions on Beyonce-related articles. This includes writing on my talk page: "Don't ping me with your pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl. Do you know of any -ism I can throw at you for smattering your hypocritical, self-righteous condescension with fake manners and exclamation points?" 6. This comment was preceded by him following me to a different discussion than the one we were involved in on another Beyonce-related article in order to further irritate me, through disrupting my edits and writing uncivil comments both on the talk page and in edit summaries 7, 8, 9 and 10. I warned him about his incivility many times (such as here: 11 12 13) but he typically deletes them quickly and has left an incivil comment on my talk page in response. I discussed this with Ad Orientem on my talk page, who issued Isento a final warning for a block regarding his actions towards me 14. Now that Isento is suggesting that he is not willing to engage civilly with me or contribute to discussions without disrupting them with personal attacks, I hope something can be done about it. Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Total hypocrite. This user baselessly accused me, repeatedly, of being misogynistic and racist -- all because of a completely valid content change I made -- before I ever was rude to them ([341], [342], [343]), and Ad Orientem barely lifted a finger to defend me from that. At the recent Beyonce talk page discussion, they started making rude and bad-faith suggestions again: I can no longer tell whether you are doing this on purpose or you still don't see it ... just because they support the "Beyonce can't write and is a thief" claim you so desperately want to include? Then, after I gave a thoughtful, respectful response to their concerns, they responded by suggesting it's a joke: Is this meant to be a joke? You never elucidated your concerns thoughtfully. I even asked you to clarify what your concerns were in the previous discussion yet you never answered nor actually responded to my points, and instead continued with your typical personal attacks and insults on my intelligence. Then they misrepresented me as agreeing with another editor's remark because, according to them, You agreed with that comment not because you said "thank you" but because you listened to it? Along with another jarring remark: I'm not going to stoop to your level with your typical insults to my intelligence because I guess it makes a change from the obscene rants filled with personal attacks, profanity, sexism and ableism? isento (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Your conduct has unquestionably been problematic, and for an extended time now. You have modified and/or struck comments by another editor in a discussion, which is uncalled for. My sense is that an interaction ban or a topic ban is called for here. BD2412 T 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor's comments expressed concern for how the RfC was titled and phrased. I modified those aspects of the RfC to appease their concerns and struck their comment so it would not distract from the discussion being able to develop in the RfC. My intentions were good. isento (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Tbh, @BD2412:, I don't think you're doing too great a job, levying your judgements solely at me when Bgkc4444 has had a toxic, accusatory attitude all throughout our interactions, explicitly making baseless offensive accusations about being racist or against the article's topic/subject... and hyperbolizing whatever offense I allegedly cause them. I can't imagine how I'd be judged if I engaged in these histrionics. I made one nasty remark out of frustration with them, months ago, and they still havent' been able to get over it. I'm only human, but how much tolerance do you expect anyone to have if they keep talking the way I've highlighted? isento (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Your explanation for striking the comments of another editor provides insufficient grounds for such an action. You also removed a sentence from their post, which is impermissible. You are welcome to respond to comments made by others, including to state that they are no longer applicable. You are not entitled to strike them or otherwise modify their text. BD2412 T 18:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Uhhh, check your facts buddy. See that diff you cited? I was removing my own sentence so the RfC would be phrased to their liking. Gosh, I really hope more careful investigation goes into this, @BD2412:, before you guys just blindly believe them. isento (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for clarifying that. However, that is still no basis for striking the comment of another editor. BD2412 T 18:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you explain to me the basis for being accused of racism, misogyny, ableism, wanting to libel Beyonce as a thief, having your attempts at thoughtful discussion be painted as a "joke", etc.? isento (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444 was lying. There was a consensus at that earlier RfC, which they deny. They are also misrepresenting Ad Orientem's message to their talk page, which said: Where is the history of hounding? This looks like a content dispute to me and an RfC is a perfectly legitimate way of handling that. Not only did I started an RfC all those months ago, but I also started the most recent one. I haven't attacked them since Ad Orientam reprimanded both of us, however long ago that was. But this person hasn't been able to control their tone and bad-faith suggestions from marring whatever valid content concerns they've actually had. isento (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Know what, BD2412? When you're right, you're right, and I can't deny it: I can't stand that person anymore. This ridiculous post has is the final nail in the coffin for my patience with them. Ban us from interacting with each other. It's not worth it. isento (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding. I was busy and started writing but didn't realise that an action had been reached. I'll add the response I would have given just to have it here.

@Isento: I think you're forgetting that I was replying to your false claims about how Wikipedia works but you refused to listen, continued with your condescending comments, insults to my intelligence and other personal attacks, before I made any of those comments. Again, you misunderstood what I meant; by "listening" I meant doing what that other person said. You did what the person suggested (using Beyonce's collaborators as a source for her songwriting) but then recently told me that using Beyonce's collaborators as a source for her songwriting is not acceptable when I wanted to do so to write positive things about her songwriting. "I made one nasty remark out of frustration with them, months ago, and they still havent' been able to get over it." - It was many, not one. And yes, your continuous incivility towards me made editing on Wikipedia a horrible experience for me and took a toll on my mental health. Again, there was no consensus. Polling is not consensus and you were the only one who espoused your view who engaged in the discussion section. And I haven't said you were hounding since that conversation. "I haven't attacked them since Ad Orientam reprimanded both of us" - I think from the material above you certainly have.

@Ivanvector: Thank you very much for your assistance. @BD2412: Thank you also and apologies for getting you involved. Bgkc4444 (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours for personal attacks after warnings from several administrators. For everyone else: if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts, the correct response is to report the incident to administrators. There are many incorrect responses; posting a diff that shows you repeating behaviour you were previously warned about and then mouthing off to the administrator challenging you is definitely among them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  And to respond to the counter-complaint: @Bgkc4444: there are editors on this project with vastly different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds and situations, and widely varying viewpoints. All editors are expected to assume good faith, which generally means that we expect you to assume that everyone is here to build an encyclopedia above all else, unless there is very good evidence to the contrary. I read isento's comment from August (this one) criticizing a source as "just some neurotic vapid lecture about Swift "oversharing"", which in the next edit you described as "[isento] dismissing this article by saying "it just isn't a serious piece of commentary" because the work of a black female writer "is just some neurotic vapid lecture" and said it "sounds extremely misogynistic and racist". I may have missed it but I don't see where isento referred to the author of the piece at all, let alone mentioning her gender or ethnicity; it seems you "assumed bad faith" here. Isento's hand-wave dismissal, sarcasm, and blatant harassment spanning the next few months are of course not acceptable and they've now been blocked for it, but please bear in mind two things: 1) our policy on civility is a requirement for everyone; and 2) if you do encounter an editor making misogynistic and/or racist comments anywhere on this website, or you are experiencing harassment, please do report it here or email an administrator privately. We do not tolerate hateful viewpoints here (WP:NONAZIS) nor will we tolerate harassment. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Also, isento has asked that you please stop pinging them. Pings are generated whenever you link to a userpage, or when you use one of the {{user}} or {{replyto}} templates. You can mention a user without pinging them using {{noping}}, or just type their name without markup. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the pinging! Regarding the comment from August, the editor did not try to engage with the points I was making in the discussion, and instead said: "Her conclusion is just some neurotic vapid lecture about Swift "oversharing", and how she's not as cool or "mysterious" as Beyonce. However you spin paraphrasing this, including it in this article would undermine the encyclopedic tone expected from Wikipedia. It just isn't a serious piece of commentary." Maybe this is the "pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl" in me, but discounting the source because the editor believes it to just be a "neurotic vapid lecture" seems to me to be a racist and sexist dogwhistle. It is a dogwhistle in that he didn't explicitly refer to her race or gender in the comment, but he did say "her", meaning he knew the author was female, and he also called me a "girl" when he wanted to speak down to me. However, I do apologise for assuming bad faith, and I will try keep a check on that. Thank you! Bgkc4444 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the admins QEDK, BD2412 and Ivanvector for taking action and Bgkc4444 for taking this issue to the admins noticeboard. That said, as suggested by isento's latest comments [344], it doesn't look they're truly repentant of their actions. I'm especially referring to this comment: "Thanks. I saw the recent activity at the kangaroo court... isento (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)" From Wikipedia: "A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion." Israell (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It is so insulting to be lumped in with other editors and called a kangaroo court. Some of us are wannabies. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich:-- Heh! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2020 (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:J4lambert, unsourced and disruptive editing

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.

---

J4lambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated addition of unsourced content. Talk page has warnings for similar behavior occurring for years. Subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction and indefinitely banned from edits relating to elections in the United States, broadly construed on 4 November 2020.[345]

User has created almost 100 redirects that were later removed at Redirects for Discussion, and several other templates and articles created and files uploaded by the user have been speedily deleted.

Based on the user's edit history this user may not meet WP:COMPETENT. Despite years of warnings the user will continue to make unsourced edits unless action is taken to stop the long-term evidenced pattern of disruptive editing.

Recent additions of unsourced content:

• Line 1 (Sound Transit) Revision as of 11:33, 2 December 2020
• R211 (New York City Subway car) Revision as of 09:21, 29 November 2020
• New York City Subway rolling stock Revision as of 09:19, 29 November 2020
• Medium-capacity rail system Revision as of 19:04, 26 November 2020

AldezD (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@AldezD: Thank you for this report. I have looked at J4lambert's editing history, and it is astonishing that the account has lasted this long without being blocked for a significant time. There is an endless history of doing exactly the same kinds of unacceptable editing, year after year, despite numerous messages and warnings. I shall now consider for how long to block, and exactly what to put in my block notice. JBW (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2020 (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.

Jeffrey Zients

• Jeffrey Zients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So, the above article is the subject of this evening's lead article in Politico. It looks like Cactus78910 was the nom de plume of Saguaro Strategies … Is a block in order? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, I would say definitely. There is undisclosed paid editing here. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That's an absolutely clear violation of the WP:TOU around paid editing. The other articles from Cactus78910 are questionable as well. At a minimum, they should be blocked until they make required disclosures. I would REALLY like to see Wikipedia get involved on this given how clear and deceptive this looks. Ravensfire (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Noting that I renamed Cactus78910 from Saguarostrat per meta:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/70459 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Nominated Jeff Anderson and Associates for deletion, the company is likely not notable. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• If an uninvolved admin could consider a partial block of Cactus78910 from article space until this is resolved, I'd appreciate it. Cactus78910, you need to take some calming breaths and respond here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Deepfriedokra: Cactus78910 (talk · contribs) has not edited since 17 September 2020. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think he'll return to editing under this account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked Cactus78910 indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing. [346] -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Incivility, harassment, and disruption by user Marvinmarsupial

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.

---

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

This user created their account two days ago, and has since exclusively focused on occupying talk pages related to the 2020 United States Presidential Election, attacking well-established consensus in regards to the establishment of certain conspiracy theories as definitively false as opposed to "unproven" or removing "false" outright. (diffs: [347][348]) When told by several editors,[349][350] including an admin[351], that they were incorrect in regards to their claims that the Q/A policy violated NPOV, the editor proceeded to become hostile, mass reverting legitimate talk page edits, often with the edit summary "revert censorship."[352][353][354][355][356]

I closed the original discussion since it was becoming repetitive and served no further purpose to keep open;[357] this was then undone by the user in question, despite no clear purpose for re-opening the discussion.[358] The user then opened a new section accusing me and others of censorship[359]. The discussion was hatted and closed again[360], and eventually settled on being closed without being hatted.[361] Despite this, the user in question again opened the discussion,[362] and further accused several users, including an admin, of censorship. At this point, a warning was placed on the user's talk page, in relation to the erasing of others' comments and the repeated re-opening of closed discussions;[363] This was responded to with hostility by the user, who accused the admin of stalking.[364]

At this point, the user took it upon themselves to begin harassing other editors who had been involved in the discussion; on the talk page of the user Eyer, they left a message which involved accusations of being a paid editor, accusations of being a foreign government actor, accusations of threatening the user, and a list of invasive and unwelcome questions pertaining to these accusations.[365] The user was warned on their talk page for harassment, but has yet to respond to this warning. [366]

This user clearly does not seem interested in acting in good faith, and has a tendency of disruption of conversation and harassment against users attempting to help them. Builder018 (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• I second these concerns. The editor seems to be more interested in WP:RGW, assuming bad faith, and attacking other editors than improving the encyclopedia. -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• No real discussion need take place. First admin that looks at his edit history should see the editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Censorship rants and belief that editors are CCP plants. Slywriter (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• With apologies to Nicholas Cage, this user has Gone from 0 to Timesink in 60 Seconds. ValarianB (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where the user made any apologies to Nicolas Cage. EEng 18:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I've made them go away. Nothing more to be said here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 4 December 2020 (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.

Use of 'sock drawer alt' to evade warnings on main account

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.

---

• Shane Frederick (talk · contribs)
• SFrederick85 (talk · contribs)

Shane Frederick has been leaving television-related articles in a shambles of bad piping and WP:NOTBROKEN edits that break things for the last two months (some of their edits were to source web addresses that immediately broke when they inexplicably changed the title cases of URLs for 'asthetics'), along with adding large unsourced edits to several articles. They had a 60h block on November 9, but just have resumed anew over the last month. Multiple editors have told them to add sources and utilize talk pages to build consensus, but their entire User talk/Article talk section is a ghost town.

I have been reverting their additions on List of television theme music composers (a questionable article in itself) as unsourced and warned them to source changes through the week. This morning, they obviously tagged in SFrederick85 to continue their work (an account created at the same time as their main), so I'm asking for some kind of action, because it's obvious even after their previous block, they don't intend to improve or discuss. Nate • (chatter) 22:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I've indeffed the alternate account and blocked the main account for two weeks. If there is no improvement after the block expires, the next block is likely to be indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2020 (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:Najgorszakomediaromantyczna

This editor made a proposal at Talk:Frédéric Chopin following an adjustment he had made in the article text, which was reverted. The consensus was against this editor; in the course of the discussion he restored his text on more than one occasion, and was issued by another editor with a vandalism warning. He has since posted a repetition of pointless and irrelevant vandalism warnings on my user talk page, which I have removed; these are sometimes accompanied by apparent threats. (see here). At the time of writing I have removed six of these in the space of not much more thn an hour. Can something be done to restrain this fellow? Thanks --Smerus (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

From my side, I can only state that this user is being reverting my edits with no reason (or the reason that is his POV); according to Chopin he ignored both-sided discussion, just removing my edition (though, my edition was accepted few days back and I was given the "thanks" notification by some user). Then, I agreed my opponents view, as u can see at the Smerus's talk link given, and left info with my complaints at the Smerus's page. He just ignores it, call it rubbish (trash) and deletes it; though it it not okay, because he should leave all messages left on his talk page and reply (or ignore it) on my user's page. I think it is not okay, the seniority between me and Smerus does not matter, cause we work on the same rules. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

And he has done it again, even though he has been advised not to by a third party editor to whom he made a complaint about me.--Smerus (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It was her opinion, not a binding judgment! I fight for justice - according to the rules, the talk page is owned by Wikipedia and you cannot remove content as you like; can I delete my entire talk page? No! Don't cry, just take the criticism on your chest! Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:BLANKING. Smerus may remove your messages as he sees fit. Favonian (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok, sorry I get it. Thanks for the info, I will not be reverting it anymore. It was a substantive answer. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible vandalism by blanking page of Robbert Rietbroek

Editorwikifact is already notified to not blank the page. Seems like a single purposed account and possibly sock too. Sliekid (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC).

Response: after Administrator User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao flagged Robbert Rietbroek as an orphan article, consistent with Wikpedia:Merging policies I tried to Merge and Redirect this short article about the Quaker SVP into the Quaker Oats Company article to improve Wikipedia and avoid unnecessary orphan articles and left a comment on Administrator User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao user talk page to notify the Administrator of the edits. It appears that user Sliekid uses a sockpuppet user:SwashWafer, as both have made the exact identical edit on source page and made the same comment on source article discussion page. User Sliekid has twice removed my contributions to Quaker Oats Company article. Editorwikifact (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Sliekid, Please remember WP:NOTVAND, vandalism is intentionally defacing a page. Since you are by now edit warring, and neither of you was at any of the affected talkpages, here's my question: Do you manage to come to an agreement alone or do we need to protect the page in order to force you?. No comment from my side on the actual dispute here (though I have an opinion). Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Victor Schmidt for the clarification and reminder on what constitutes WP:NOTVAND. The intent here was to follow WP:Merging guidelines, avoid duplication and improve Wikipedia via a Merge and Redirect of the small source article which was flagged as an orphan by the administrator whilst protecting all of its content into the destination article. The Quaker Oats Company article already had a prior mention of the subject under key people. The content Quaker Oats Company#Leadership deleted by Sliekid has been restored and I will invite Sliekid on the talk:Quaker Oats Company page to discuss how to further improve Wikipedia content on the Quaker Oats Company and its executives without duplication. Editorwikifact (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Despite you citing WP:MERGE guidelines multiple times, you've also seemed to have not read it whatsoever yourself. Which says No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below. You're now continuing to edit war despite it being contested by another editor. Also re your edit summary; Victor Schmidt is not an administrator. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 20:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Dylsss as per admin Victor Schmidt approved WP:Merging, I have merged Robbert's page to Quaker Oats Company. As the previous AFD decision was not fair by editors and admins. Seems, like they lack proper wiki understanding. So, As per now its best decision to keep it merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.102.167.145 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello whoever you are, again: (1) I am no administrator here (2) Individual administrators do not have the ability to decide what happens with a content (3) I do NOT share my opinion on this with you, since I dont consider me part of the dispute. Hope that helps. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As said, Victor Schmidt is not an admin, neither do admins have the power to decide what happens in a content dispute, they too have to abide by consensus. As per now its best decision to keep it merged is subjective, that's why merging should be discussed if someone has reverted the move. If you want to contest the outcome of an AFD, then that would be WP:DRV, but it has a specific purpose so please read the page. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

AFD decision was to keep the page. Not to merge the page. If you have problems with the AFD decision please follow WP:DRV. Don't just make disruptive edits by blanking the page. Sliekid (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Its quite clear that user @Dylsss:, :@Sliekid:, and :@Victor Schmidt: are socks as they are opposing my decision. Admins should take quick action and block them for indefinite to teach them a lesson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.102.167.145 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Lol, I guess Materialscientist is a sock as well for reverting your edits. Accusations of sockpuppetry with no evidence is not assuming good faith, if you have any actual evidence, you can present it at WP:SPI. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 11:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I haven't actually said whether I think the content should be merged, nor have I reverted your edits on that page, and Victor Schmidt has said they don't consider themselves part of this dispute. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 11:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Dylsss, Sliekid, Victor Schmidt, Materialscientist, @191.102.167.145:. As per Nosebagbear on talk:Robbert Rietbroek#Merging, blanking, re-instating etc etc the Merge and Redirect isn't vandalism Sliekid. Replacing a page with a redirect whilst migrating all the content to the new page Quaker Oats Company#Leadership is not the same as intentionally blanking and WP:NOTVAND. Completing a Merge and Redirect as per Wikipedia:Merging policy always involves the source page be replaced with a Redirect. Rather than engaging in an edit war, there is a now a new proposal to merge the article Robbert Rietbroek into the Quaker Oats Company article and a discussion on talk:Robbert Rietbroek#Merger Proposal to avoid duplication of content and multiple articles on the same subject. I would invite others to contribute to this dialogue. Editorwikifact (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I should note that if you're going to start citing statements by other editors, EWF, you should do so in a balanced fashion. Taking the parts that support your actions and ignoring where issues have been identified (such as the bypassing of standard merging rules when it clearly would be controversial) is extremely poor form and makes me concerned about your GF in the remainder of the process. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment from passing admin - I discovered this article and this ANI thread via a request for page protection. The page has been semi-protected for a week, the IP 191.102.167.145 has been blocked for 72 hours, and Editorwikifact came extremely close to being blocked. Please use the time that the page is protected to have a discussion about the proposed merge on the article's talk page. ‑Scottywong| [confer] || 04:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive user- edit warring and disruptive edits

• Band1301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user in question has been doing plenty of disruptive edits and edit warring, the edit warring mostly seemingly at Template:Nicktoon creators. Most of their disruptive edits have to do with if a show is actually classified as a 'Nicktoon' or not, to which they've been told multiple times that it is not, yet they continue to add the show into Nicktoon articles despite what they've been told and the countless warnings they've received on their talk page. They've also recently claimed that I've been, "overly pushy".

I also don't seem to think they full understand how there are image guidelines to follow, given the countless warnings on their talk page regarding unspecified/unlicensed images over the past months. Not quite sure how this should be handled, especially given all their replies regarding the warnings of vandalism or disruptive edits claim that they have not done any disruptive edits or vandalism. On a side note, many of their responses don't seem to make sense at all, such as, "But I never vandalized my editing! This part of my choice needed to come." or, "That image isn't my plan of a creation." in regards to an image they uploaded to Wikipedia.

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Another thing I just wanted to point in regards to a lot of their things not making sense... some of their edits also have an edit summary regarding a found or added "fact", even while adding an image (such as here) or just changing information with no source or actual explanation (such as here). Magitroopa (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Band1301 (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)But Nick helped in canada production for Ollie! That last ending logo for it was caught.

Yet we have a source clearly stating, "Produced by Nelvana, the 26-episode, 2D-animated series combines the struggles of tween life with the responsibility of controlling an entire dimension of monsters."- nothing regarding Nickelodeon or Nickelodeon Canada. Yet, you still continue adding in the info. And what does, "That last ending logo for it was caught" even mean? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. Magitroopa (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeated changes of style contrary to WP rules

User Chesipiero appears to be on a mission to change dates into boldface letters in aviation articles. I stumbled upon that after reverting such an edit, namely Northern Air Cargo. As a reaction, he wrote to me on my User talk:Uli Elch#Northern Air Cargo: "Hi, if you take a look at the other airlines you'll see that the date are in bold. What will you do? Will you remove the bold from all the others?" (18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

Following that, I checked some of his previous edits and found out that all airlines he referred to with "all the others" have recently been changed to bold face exclusively by himself, not by any other editor. Diff links, examples:

• Aeromarine West Indies Airways
• Aero Virgin Islands
• Air Florida
• National Airlines (N8)
• Western Global Airlines
• USA Jet Airlines

This is contrary to WP rules, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#When not to use boldface: "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text."

Imho this is a "chronic behavioral problem". Please be so kind and inform the user about the necessity to adhere to commonly agreed rules and standards. Thank you. Sincerely --Uli Elch (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

So, fix the articles and, if necessary, warn the editor. You can use {{uw-mos}} for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

And, once you determined that issue, did you continue to discuss with the editor in question, perhaps after WP:BOLDly having fixed the problem? ANI is the last resort and this is nowhere near an issue that needed to be brought here at this time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Presumably you meant to say WP:UNBOLDly having fixed the problem? EEng 21:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

98.186.219.252 changing company name in The Jim Henson Hour

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.

---

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

In The Jim Henson Hour, this user vandalizing the page with changing corporate name of the production company. I have reported it to AIV but has no response from administrators. Please block that IPs. 36.68.232.33 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandal has been blocked for one week by ReaderofthePack. — Maile (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2020 (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.

Occupational burnout edit war between Iss246 and coastalalerts.

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.

---

On the occupational burnout page two editors Iss246 and Coastalalerts are engaged in a brutal week long edit war with an eye watering number of reverts between them. Please resolve this. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Patriciamoorehead: This would probably be better placed at WP:AN3R. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then. It has been reported at AN3R Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Coastalalerts reported by User:M.Bitton (Result:. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2020 (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.

Racist vandalism at The Squad (United States Congress)

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.

---

Six times in the last few hours IP editor 2600:1702:2060:4c70:80b6:1458:676c:7fd has inserted racist vandalism in the article The Squad (United States Congress). The user has been blocked, but could someone RevDel the 12 edits (including 6 reverts)? Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

On my way --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability done the job. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2020 (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.

Compromised account?

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.

---

Mr. Port (talk · contribs) claims that the person who originally registered this account has died, and that the account is now operated by a friend (see User talk:Mr. Port#Proposed deletion of Uniformes Iraq / 2018–2019). I don't actually believe them, but since I'm involved and can't act on this one way or the other, and since another administrator recently expressed concerns over there potentially being multiple people using this account (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. Port/Archive), I'd be remiss not to report it. Could an uninvolved admin please look into this and take appropriate action? Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm the "other administrator". I had noticed that Mr. Port's timecard showed they had edited at all hours of the day. It's certainly possible a single person could keep this kind of schedule, but my initial thought was that multiple people sharing the account was a more likely explanation. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2020 (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.

Persistent BLP violations at Nikole Hannah-Jones

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.

---

Original research by multiple accounts (WP:SPA, looking like a meat or sock farm), alleging racism. Asking for page protection, rev/deletion, and whatever individual sanctions are appropriate. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2020 (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.

Coronervirus

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.

---

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

Please revoke TPA and Email access for this sock. Also please do the required revdels. JavaHurricane 04:46, 6 December 2020 (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.

Restoration of redirects on Sleeping Beauty (1959 film)

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. A user by the name of Geraldo Perez has been reverting my edits due to claims of WP:NOTBROKEN when in fact he was restoring the redirects. What should I do? Call me when you get the chance 04:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

First thing is read the article linked to, WP:NOTBROKEN, and try for comprehension. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I already read it, and it looks like I understand it. Here goes: Colour television has been the norm in the United States since the 1960s. There, I said it. Call me when you get the chance 05:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's my understanding. Linking to a redirect is not broken necessarily. Techie3 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an editorial matter, really. Linking to a redirect can be a valid choice. Removing that redirect may be desirable for other reasons (as Geraldo Perez when he self-reverted on the Julian Morris link). If this is localized on the Sleeping Beauty article it's best settled at Talk:Sleeping Beauty (1959 film), not here. Mackensen (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Closed without action - content dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 6 December 2020 (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:Graysonrpollard

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.

---

Graysonrpollard (talk · contribs) has been trying to edit the article on the Rhodesian Front for some time now. Their pattern of editing is largely disruptive including persistent removal of reliable cited material and possible WP:LOUTSOCK editing. See the following diffs, dates and time are in IST.

• 09:14, 27 November 2020, Removal of the descriptor "white nationalist" from the article, which is cited to three reliable scholarly sources. Warned on 09:16, 27 November 2020
• 09:21, 27 November 2020, Removal of the same for a second time. Warned on 09:23, 27 November 2020. This prompts them to send a message on my talk page to which I reply that they at least need to achieve a consensus for such changes and how to do so. (see User talk:Tayi Arajakate § Attempting to remove political bias from the article "Rhodesian Front").
• 02:23, 28 November 2020, IP removal of the same within 24 hours. They do provide a reasoning on the talk page of the article on 05:27, 29 November 2020, although one that is grossly inadequate. I notice this on 10:13, 5 December 2020 and revert it back.
• 10:49, 5 December 2020, Removal of the same. They claim that the IP address is not theirs, along with accusations of censorship and political bias. (see User talk:Tayi Arajakate § Please keep your political bias off Wikipedia.)

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I have partially blocked Graysonrpollard from Rhodesian Front for a week, in the hope they can discuss this at the talk page. Graysonrpollard, please don't cherrypick sources or other discussions; the Ian Smith talk page discussion is not a valid reason to remove "White supremacy" from the Rhodesian Front infobox since, for starters, the third opinion only talks about categorization. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I've restored "white supremacy" in the infobox on seeing that there is a concluded RfC on this already (Talk:Rhodesian Front § RfC about "Ideology" list in Infobox). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Update: Graysonrpollard appears to have retired. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:58, 5 December 2020 (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.

Series of Mobile edits from IP 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.

---

On the pages for Luis Arce and Jeanine Áñez, there has been an edit war over removing the word (interim) from the sidebar. It's now been removed and reverted five times. No reason give, no response to calls for talk or on the user page of he editor. There has been similar behavior on other pages not related to Bolivia. The mobile edits create multiple usernames but it seems likely to be the same person. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

2601:143:8002:300::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for one month. This disruption spans numerous articles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 5 December 2020 (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.

Aspersions by Beyond My Ken

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.

---

Editor: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)

Summary of issue: Violation of WP:NPA (specifically WP:ASPERSIONS) against Skjoldbro (talk · contribs), relating to Skjoldbro's reasons for amending the size of images on the Nazi Party article.

• Reversion 1, [367] with the summary Too large. The editor is only here to advertise Nazism by having logos and photos as large as possibel/
• Reversion 2, [368] with the summary WP:UNDUE glorification of Nazi organization)

I have approached Beyond My Ken on their talk page, where the relevant reply extract is The editor is obsessed with making the logos of Nazi and Fascist organization as large as possible, the same with infobox photos of Nazi generals. It amounts glorification, and is WP:UNDUE. Beyond My Ken has not provided any evidence or further reasoning as to why this is. Alleging that an editor is 'obsessed' with promoting Nazism is clearly an extremely serious claim, and I would clearly support sanctions on the grounds of WP:POVPUSHING if evidence is presented that shows that is indeed the case, but without that evidence there is no option but to assume the accusations are unfounded.

NB: I was torn as to whether ANI was the more appropriate venue or whether WP:EWN would have been appropriate given the game of ping pong that is going on over the edits, but it's ultimately the aspersions that have led me here. Best, Darren-M talk 19:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of displaying logos in the infobox is not to advertise the organizations involved, but to provide our readers with some pertinent visual information about them. To this end, I have consistently reduced the size of logos in the infoboxes of companies, colleges, political parties and other organizations to make sure that they're large enough to be seen, yet not so large as to act as advertising in violation of WP:PROMO.

(The argument is made that the default size should be kept, but how large the logo renders visually varies wildly depending on its native aspect ratio, so frequently the default has to be overwritten -- and the "default" is just that, not a preferred size, but a default size. There's a reason we have the capability of overwriting it.)

Throughout this activity, the ONLY pushback I have ever received - with the exception of a college article or two -- is from Skjoldbro, and then only in infoboxes of Nazi and Fascist organization, and photographs of Nazi generals. Given that, I suggest that WP:NONAZIS is pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

BMK, by setting the size to "125px" you are making the image larger for some mobile users. The exact opposite of what you intend, for some of our readers. There's a reason MOS:IMGSIZE says don't set image sizes to px. Additionally, for MOS:ACCESS reasons, some readers will need the image to be larger because they can't see as well. What looks good to you, on your screen, at 125px, doesn't work for every reader around the world. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, I don't see that on my iPhone, where images, no matter what size they are marked as, are displayed full-screen.

In Template:Political party, for instance, if no size is specified, the image is displayed at "upright=0.8". If your comment is to the effect that I should use upright settings instead of px settings, I have no problem with that, and can firmly commit to doing so in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be for the best. I learned that (upright) from The Master. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to mention me in this context, as I'm always willing to share my rectitude with others, though of course I wouldn't want to thrust it upon anyone against their will. EEng 21:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Following BMK's firm commitment to upright and EEng sharing his rectitude, I see a rectifying retraction below resulting in a relaxing resolution. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see the participants are no longer refractory. EEng 00:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, looking at Skjoldbro's contribs, it is far more likely that these are simply the only articles you overlap on - Skjoldbro clearly has an interest in military articles. I'm not seeing anything here so far that justifies the comments you've made. Unless you can provide something more concrete (edit summaries, insertion of POV text into articles, or so on), I think you would be better off retracting the claims and apologising. Best, Darren-M talk 21:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wow. The discussion drifted away from that, but a retraction and an apology would be in order. Those comments were poorly chosen. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since I trust Deepfriedokra's judgment, I will follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• [369], [370], and I have requested oversight, revdel or strikethrough of this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, Thank you for your good grace here; I am glad this did not need a formal administrative intervention. Best, Darren-M talk 22:39, 5 December 2020 (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.

I accidentally moved the AfC sandbox to User:JJPMaster/Another very useless test page

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.

---

Essentially, I decided to test to see if the AfC reviewer script would allow me to accept the sandbox, because I saw so many "submission declined" things, well, I didn't realize that it actually could, and I listed the title as "User:JJPMaster/Another very useless test page" in order to test to see if it would move it there, and... it worked. Please revert it. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Should be all set. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:34, 6 December 2020 (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.

please review my 3hr block of 86.3.71.69‎

I reverted an edit by 86.3.71.69‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The IP in question then started going through my edits on a reversion spree. I blocked 3 hrs as prevention of ongoing disruption, but since I'm involved I'm bringing it here for review. (Normally I'd give something like this a few days if I werent involved, but 3 hrs was a minimal preventative measure.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Good block. obviously. Keep an eye on 86.3.68.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

yeah, it's a Virgin cable modem, they tend to rotate IPs every few days I think? - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hoaxing: Chester Thompson on drums. Range of IPs from Texas

Somebody using IPs from Texas has been hoaxing music articles for a while, recently adding Chester Thompson as drummer, and previously inserting Phil X falsely into personnel sections. This person was blocked by JBW for two years as Special:Contributions/99.116.10.239, and blocked by Widr for two years as Special:Contributions/50.78.35.86. Alexf blocked the IP Special:Contributions/2600:387:0:9A2:0:0:0:59 last February. The recent IPs don't fall into a convenient range for a rangeblock, so I'm asking for someone with more experience to figure out how we stop this vandal without too much collateral damage. Recent IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Dec 2020 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:2A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Dec 2020 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:C1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Nov 2020 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:3B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Oct 2020 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:A5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Oct 2020 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Oct 2020 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Oct 2020 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:A3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Oct 2020 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:8A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Oct 2020 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Update: Widr rangeblocked the /64 for three months. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• At least one other IP address has been used recently: 107.77.217.25, used for somewhat over 7 hours yesterday. I would be surprised if there aren't others.
• Binksternet, you say that Widr rangeblocked the /64, but in fact the IP addresses you listed above fall into three separate /64 ranges, and Widr has blocked only one of them.
• It can be very difficult to deal with this situation, as even if a range is blocked the editor is likely to come back on another range. However, a point which remarkably many administrators seem to overlook is that if almost all the editing from a range is disruptive, then it really doesn't matter whether it's all from one person or not: a block may be reasonable. ("We can't block the range because many constructive editors edit there" is reasonable, but so often we get "but we can't block the range, because many editors other than the one I am investigating edit there", irrespective of whether those others are constructive or not.) Looking at the two /64 ranges that Widr hasn't blocked, not only did I see that most editing was somewhere on the spectrum from downright vandalism to not particularly constructive, but I also found that both ranges had been blocked earlier this year because of the disruptive editing. I have blocked them again. That is unlikely to completely stop the vandal, but it may reduce the attacks somewhat, and even if it doesn't the amount of benefit from stopping other disruptive editors will be greater than any collateral damage to potentially useful editing.
• Sometimes a hoaxer who repeatedly adds nonsense about one person can be discouraged by an edit filter, but that doesn't seem to be a viable possibility here, as there may well be editors adding legitimate mentions of Chester Thompson on drums to articles. That is unless someone can come up with specific aspects of the edits about Chester Thompson that single out this editor, but that looks unlikely to me.
• An IP range that covers all of the addresses that Binksternet has listed is 2600:387:A:0:0:0:0:0/55, but looking at the editing history I decided that blocking that range really would run the risk of causing an unacceptable amount of collateral damage, so that's out of the question, I think.
• Much as I would like to have an answer to this problem, I'm afraid I don't think there is one. The best we can do, it seems to me, is to play whackamole by reverting and blocking each new IP address as it comes up. The sooner a newly recruited IP address is blocked the better, so please do report to administrators as soon as you see a new one. Obviously there is a potential advantage in contacting an administrator who already knows about the situation, so please feel welcome to contact me, though obviously I won't always be able to get onto it right away, so don't necessarily regard telling me as the only thing to do.
• The short version of all that I have written above is that there is no really satisfactory way of dealing with this kind of situation, but blocking and reverting can help. JBW (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

After I wrote the above message, it occurred to me that my comments about edit filters were based on the assumption that we wanted one to block the edits, but it may be worth considering one which merely records the edits, so that legitimate edits about Chester Thompson will not be stopped, but we will get alerts as to which IP addresses to check for possible recent use by the vandal. Can anyone who knows more about edit filters than I do comment on that idea? JBW (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking more of the disruptive IP ranges. I don't know more about edit filters so I will refrain from commenting on that. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A new IP is active today, Special:Contributions/2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:95, doing the same stuff. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)