Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1032

Repeated IP incivility to editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abuse by blocked users

Please redact Special:Diff/944968112 and all edits related to talk page violation by 93.137.0.201 (talk · contribs) in User talk:Thepenguin9 and my talk page. For Poskaer (talk · contribs) please give him a harsher ban (e-mail address, talk page block). Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Flix11, Poskaer hasn't edited their talkpage ever. I don't think revoking TPA would be appropriate here (tho I did momentarily do so when I misread the diff you linked. SQL^{Query me!} 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

SQL What I want primarily is the redaction, for the block the e-mail one might suitable. Flix11 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Flix11, Have they been emailing you since the block? SQL^{Query me!} 22:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

SQL No. Oh I see. If there is not, then no email block? OK, I am fine just with the redaction. Regards, Flix11 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

'201 (currently under a 3-day block) may as yet lack the objectivity for which we strive: edit summaries 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Narky Blert (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The situation could have been more clear, and was initially declined at WP:AIV before I made the block (Special:PermanentLink/945106591; courtesy ping Maile66). The reporter is not without blame, now having been warned for personal attacks twice this month on their talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe admins have the power to block anyone's email account/address. The individual editor can control whether or not they can be emailed, by changing their settings at: Preferences/User Profile. Un-click "Allow other users to email me" and Save. Both sides in this spat are culpable in personal attacks. — Maile (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

That is confusingly explained. Yes editors can choose to disable receiving all emails. However editors shouldn't need to use this to stop abuse except in exceptional circumstances. It indicates we've failed if editors need to do it. Very rarely it may come to that, because of the limitations in our sock hunting tools given privacy considerations etc, although personally I'd also like the WMF to at least try via legal or other means to stop it when it comes to that. There is also the option to disallow "emails from brand-new users". Again because of socking, this option may sometimes be needed to stop abuse, and in cases like these it's fairly limited what we can do.

But to be clear, such options should only be needed when socking is being used for abuse via multiple account. For I think about 2 years now, there has also the option to specify certain editors who aren't allowed to email you. While it's a useful tool, it also shouldn't really be needed. If an editor does not want to receive emails from another editor, they can simply tell the emailer, on wikipedia, to stop. Such a request needs to be observed, even more so than a request to stay off someone's talk page. Failure to observe it should be met with blocks. And yes, admins can disable email access with blocks. SUL complicates things as editors may have accounts in other projects which we on en cannot handle, so the tool may be useful for such cases.

What this means is that despite the tool, it's not acceptable for use to require someone to use it if they complain an editor keeps emailing them when they've asked the person to stop. We can perhaps suggest it as a quick and easy fix, but we should also simply block for WP:harassment especially when it's brought to ANI. However we do require some evidence of sufficient abuse via email before blocking it, and often this needs to happen privately. I believe most admins will disable email for socks if the master is known to abuse email even if there's no specific abuse from that sock.

Note that this only refers to emails sent via the Wikimedia email system. If an editor has replied to someone before, or otherwise their email is public, emails may be sent directly. In such cases, there's nothing we can do about the emails. Editors could use filters which most email services and clients provide to block emails. However again, most good providers have policies which would likely mean someone needs to stop emailing a person if they've been asked to, and so it's likely also an option to complain to the person's provider if they keep email from the same address. If they are going through the effort of making new email addresses, that's a difficult situation, and sort of getting very off-topic so I'll leave it. That said, as with other forms of off-wiki harassment related to actions here, I would support a block of the editor here if it's clear that they are the same person although this would likely need to go through arbcom.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I submit my conduct to the community for review, advice, and correction

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Spectrum NACs

 – –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Promotional account, attacking another editor

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.

---

• DavidBal1972 (talk · contribs)
• Illy Art Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At what point do we get a user block and deletion of promotional content? My AIV report has sat for four hours, and I'll take this to as many noticeboards as necessary, because spamming, calling me a Nazi and suggesting I fuck off is not grounds for a block at AIV. See also [1], [2], [3], [4]. And no, this user hasn't earned a notice from me re: this post. Feel free to let them know. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why Materialscientist didn't action your report when he last cleared the page? It doesn't seem that difficult a case. ——SN54129 19:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, admins are the glue here, but sometimes the response is woefully inadequate. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

True dat, '99. Now for the difficult bit. Since the crap been deleted, d'you mind if I recreate it? I didn't like to say anything in fron of the spammer, but—  ;) ——SN54129 19:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, do as you like. I wouldn't give the subject the time of day; my take is that the now blocked account was a seller or collector looking to drum up publicity for the product. But since you're asking, there must be something better to write about. Cheers, and thank you JJMC89. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, there's no endpoint to the audacity of some [5]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 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.

Many new accounts replacing articles with redirects

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

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

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

List of accounts with similar redirects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have started a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigbulletfeels. All of the accounts listed above are now populated into the report. I was not aware of the extent of the issue when I filed the report. — Newslinger talk 11:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Prior to filing the SPI, I had blocked Frenchgirlswantmypesos for being a vandalism-only account. In Special:Diff/945169160, Frenchgirlswantmypesos redirected Granit Xhaka to Sexual harrasment [sic], a blatant violation of the policy on biographies of living persons, when the Granit Xhaka article had 84 citations. — Newslinger talk 11:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

DeltaQuad has completed the investigation, and blocked a total of 99 accounts. — Newslinger talk 13:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

GDX420, take 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have at least two comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The user hasn't edited in three days. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Unethical behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the original topic here; Devlet Geray, directing edit summaries like the one linked at the top of this discussion towards other editors is not OK. If you think someone is following you around, bring it to an administrator's attention. I seriously considered just blocking you anyway, but there seems to be enough objection that I'm content to give a strong warning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

One note. Devlet very aggressively accuses me of persecution, but if we look at the history of edits, we will see that it was he who began to pursue me in articles Insurgency in the North Caucasus, and List of wars involving Russia. He’s just deleting my edits without comment, although he’s never visited these pages before. And this happened due to the fact that after a permanent lock in Ruwiki for war edits and Pov pushing, he tried to get round the blocking through ip, after which I wrote to the administrator of Ruwiki and he was completely blocked. As a result, he began to pursue my contribution in other language sections, in particular here. Каракорум (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to note that Каракорум's behavior in this matter is quite inexcusable. He has been wiki-stalking Devlat Geray for a long time. On Russian Wikipedia, he nominated almost every single article created by him for deletion, and after not getting his way, re-nominated kept ones. He is an active editor on Russian Wikipedia articles about fringe topics, and maintains a heavy, obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. (when asked about the language of edit summaries he said quote "Of course you right. I used russian, because my opponent knows it".--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Devlet Giray himself began to pursue me in English Wiki, after his was blocked in ruwiki. I didn’t blocked him there, it was done by the administrators according to numerous facts of violations. And the participant PlanespotterA320 in the same way she is engaged in pushing into ruwiki as well as Devlet, for which she received a topic ban to some articles. Moreover, she wrote a comment on my discussion page, despite the fact that she was not pinged there, which indicates a persecution on her part. Do you have a complaint about my edits? Are they vandal? If not then don't chase me.Каракорум (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I told you before, your edits appeared on my watchlist. I am not chasing you. I merely saw that you had arrived in enwiki (engaging in unaccaptable edits) and decided to confront you on your talkpage, and I was horrified by what was already there. On English Wikipedia, there is no rule that people have to be pinged or "invited" to other users talkpages. Каракорум is a notorious Tatarophobe on Russian Wikipedia, who has written things on ruwiki that would result in a ban if they were done on enwiki. He literally went on a tirade nominating Crimean Tatar articles that clearly met notability requirements for deletion, and repeatedly re-submitted deletion nominations when unsatisfied by the 'keep' result. Such POV pusher/propagandist that behaves like a wrecking ball should not be tolerated on english wikipedia. At the very least, their complaints should be taken with a grain of salt.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• • • • I,m sorry but. First, which of my edits here are unacceptable? Specific examples? Secondly, I did not submit Devlet's article for repeated deletion; if they were left, this is a lie. What exactly are they blaming me for? This specifically refers to the unacceptable behavior of Devlet. Каракорум (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Do. Not. Import. Conflict. From. Another. Wiki. Or. You. Will. All. Be. Blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, Promoting to policy with immediate effect. Guy (help!) 14:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  +1. I'm also not pleased about the personal attack inherent in the title of this section, but have passed it off as a loss in translation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector What do you have in mind? It’s not a war of revisions, but an abusive comment on the revision. Каракорум (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  We call that comment an "edit summary". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Lepintin being disruptive with redirects

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.

---

Lepintin (talk · contribs) (a new account, but very likely not a new editor) is being disruptive with redirects. A lot of the changes Lepintin is making are not improvements and are to long-standing redirects, which have likely been subject to discussion and are where they are at via consensus. A few of Lepintin's changes might be improvements. After all, while reverting all of their changes, I reverted myself on this. But that doesn't outweigh the disruption. Clearly. I warned the editor, and the editor blanked their user talk page and continued on with their redirect editing. Someone came to my talk page to alert me to the fact that the editor is still being disruptive. Johnuniq warned the editor, and the editor blanked their user talk page.

Need some intervention here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: - I have reverted all of the user's redirects. I checked the talk pages on each article and there was no mention of adding redirects. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 23:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This is Alarjar (talk · contribs). I already cautioned Alarjar earlier today. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Added a sockpuppet investigation for these two accounts, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alarjar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Xaero (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Mr Xaero: Don't edit my comments. Also, I've blocked both accounts as socks of Dinkton (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @NinjaRobotPirate: I apologize. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 01:32, 14 March 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 request

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

---

Hi. Please can someone help with a rangeblock? The two most recent IP addresses are:

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

This is just the tip of the iceberg and has been going on for some time. The 39.57.2xxx seems the most common starting range. Hopefully there's no collateral damage and this can be done. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Range blocked for a month. It looks like the IP range recently got off another month-long block, but I don't want to do crazy long blocks on such a wide IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks NRP! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:29, 13 March 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.

Personal attacks in edit summaries by Velvet-twenties

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

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

Note that Velvet-twenties [26] to revert to their preferred version, without any discussion on the article talk page, although at least without the uncivil edit summaries.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As soon as this editor came off this block the reverting started again. It also seems that she magically changed from being a native German speaker to a native Portuguese speaker a few minutes ago. Why on Earth was an editor who made those edit summaries blocked for only 31 hours rather than indefinitely? I'm not going to involve myself in this any more because it is clear that our admins are not taking the worst form of incivility seriously. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You're all in the wrong. You have no idea who Cléo de Mérode is and are just editing her page for brownie points (even said, "I have no idea who her father was), meanwhile I've researched Cléo for nearly two years and was able to determine who her real father was. The editors have also accused me of not ever reading Theodor Christomannos' biography - indeed I haven't, I can't afford it, and there are sadly no scans of it online. But there's a substantial amount of proof that he's her father.

These people were also previously convinced that Cléo's mother was not Vincentia de Mérode, I proved them wrong. Vincentia's brother is documented as being the landscape artist Karl von Mérode, and, despite the fact that I've published a document from 1874 displaying the fact that they are siblings, these editors still don't believe me. They're obviously not interested in Cléo, the Belle Epoque, and Victorian/Edwardian era, all of which I am skilled in. I'll continue to edit Cléo's page as I please, as it was neglected until I stepped in and fixed it.

P.S. No, I'm not of African ancestry, I'm half Portuguese and half Czech. I'm not German at all, and don't live in Portugal or Germany. I don't feel the need to give out personal info about me on wikipedia, especially since you all are stalking me immediately after I get off postblock. I won't involve myself in this anymore either, since none of you even know what you're talking about. Phil Bridger wishes.

P.P.S. - If you hate geni websites so much since they're "inaccurate" despite being crafted by family members who know way more than anyone else would, please edit these pages too:

Mabel Normand Cecile Arnold Wilhelmina Cooper Lien Deyers Gabrielle Réjane Valerie Boothby

• Methinks a WP:NOTHERE block is in order here. They've reverted to their preferred version again today, with no attempt to engage on the talk page. They're here defending the use of clearly non-WP:RS sources in a manner which suggests they don't understand what a reliable source is or don't care, they've already been blocked for racist comments in edit summaries, and today they also went to the talk page of an IP editor blocked for serious personal attacks to say their targets "deserved it". I have reverted their edit and full-protected the page, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"Methinks" you don't know anything about Cléo nor understand how much time and effort I put into researching this woman. Men always wanna discredit a woman's research. Have fun having an inaccurate wikipedia page!

There are simple solutions that will allow you to productively edit the website without getting blocked or continually reverted - 1) Cut out the racist comments and personal attacks - if you make comments like the one's you made in the edit summaries then you won't be allowed to edit. 2) Discuss what you want to say on the article talk page - if you want to persuade other editors then you need to talk to them. Note that the article talk page already contains several requests for you to do this. 3) Read and understand Wikipedia's policys on reliable sourcing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal, family website, so sourcing should be limited to Reliable Sources - if things aren't reported in reliable sources then they shouldn't go in the article. If you have carried out extensive research then this should enable you to identify sourcing that meets Wikipedia's requirements and convince people on the talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, your point (3) is probably not going to be fruitful. This kind of research is typically based on primary sources, and we can't base an article on those either. EEng 05:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I do not like the flippant remarks, inflammatory edit summaries and reverts. The editor is being a disruption and WP:IDHT. I think Ivanvector understands the situation - but the Velvet-twenties needs a stronger wake up call. Thanks for reporting Montreal IP. i will endorse stronger sanctions for any editor who disrupts the project. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Lightburst - Velvet is refusing to hear what the problem is here. Their use of unreliable sources is an issue, but the real problem is the repeated use of insulting language (and the statements to the effect that some editors deserve to be personally attacked). I'm not sure this is a NOTHERE case, since they appear to want to improve our content, but escalating blocks for any furthur lapses in AGF and CIVILITY would seem to be a minimum starting point. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• I'd also endorse escalating blocks. The user does not understand that their block was about civility. The seem to think it is about content.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411

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

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

So for the four pages he edits most often, despite having a remarkably low total edit count, he dominates discussion. In as much as a POV can be discerned in the absence of a direct statement, his edits clearly show a personal rejection of the established facts of Russian interference in the 2016 US election (e.g. [27], which changes a statement of the Mueller conclusions to frame it as Mueller having "asserted" Russian interference or this in which he quibbles with the fact that Mueller "demonstrated" Assange's knowledge that Seth Rich was not the source of leaked emails by continuing to correspond with GRU operatives after his death, and, based on that asserted quibble with the wording, removes the entire paragraph noting the established fact that Assange did indeed continue to contact Russia after Rich's death). This is a fringe POV, and in my view his continued advancement of this POV through talk page statements that assume its factual correctness is unacceptable.

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

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

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

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

I'm actually quite proud of some of the contributions Guy complains about. At Useful idiot, I worked to reorient the article around what reliable sources on etymology, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, actually say about the term. Before I began editing the page (November 2017 version), it prominently reported what is apparently an incorrect etymology of the term (attributing it to Lenin). Compare that with the page now: [28]. I think it's clear that the page is much better organized, has better sourcing (including the OED, which I added to the article), and that it gives a clear explanation of the status of the popular attribution to Lenin (i.e., that the attribution is often made, though there's no evidence for it). In other words, I left the page better off than when I arrived. This took a lot of discussion on the talk page (something Guy is faulting me for). Sources had to be evaluated and discussed. References had to be tracked down (for example, I tracked down the origin of a reference that another editor claimed was from the Soviet Union, showing that the book was actually written in France - the question was whether the reference demonstrated usage of the term "useful idiot" in the Soviet Union, which would contradict what the OED claims about the term: see [29]). In any case, this is all to say that Guy is faulting me for using talk pages to discuss sourcing, edits, etc., which is precisely what talk pages are for.

The background to this complaint is a content dispute at Julian Assange, about whether to mention an appeal by 130 of the most prominent figures in German politics, journalism and media calling for Assange's release. I criticized Guy for referring to "Assange cultists" ([30]) and "an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more" ([31]). It's still unclear whom Guy meant to describe with these epithets, but I felt they were out of place and said so. The current ANI complaint appears to be the result. I think Guy's complaint is vague (I'm not actually accused of any violations of Wikipedia policy or of any concrete forms of disruption), and should either be speedily closed or boomeranged. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@BullRangifer: Your description of what happened at WP:BLPN#Unsourced claims about a living person being involved in a criminal conspiracy is inaccurate. I raised concerns about editors using talk pages to imply that Julian Assange is involved in some sort of criminal conspiracy, by referring to GRU agents as his "accomplices". You then posted at length, explicitly stating that Assange committed crimes in 2016, for which he supposedly deserves to be indicted. You stated, "It is not just an 'implication', but a legal fact, that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime. Why Assange hasn't been formally charged, unlike the GRU agents, is a question you'll have to ask Trump and Rohrabacher, who actually made a quid pro quo offer of a pardon, rather than a justified criminal indictment, to Assange, in exchange for a cover-up and denial that it was the Russians who hacked and leaked the emails" ([32]). I responded, "You should not be making these sorts of statements on Wikipedia. They don't serve any purpose related to editing the encyclopedia, and they violate our WP:BLP policy" ([33]). Your response has been to repeatedly ping me and post to my talk page, demanding that I answer your theories about Assange. As I told you at my talk page, I'm not interested in getting into political debates on Wikipedia.

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

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

• Funnily enough, I was just writing up a topic ban warning for Thucydides. They have been trying to interest admins in what they call SPECIFICO's "very serious BLP violation" in using the word "accomplices" for GRU agents [34] at Talk:Julian Assange, then User talk:Drmies, then WP:BLPN. They don't seem able to find one that agrees with them. It's time you dropped the stick, Thucydides. Furthermore, while I know Drmies suggested you try WP:BLPN since you wouldn't accept the opinions of three admins (including Newyorkbrad of all people) on his page, it's time you stopped ascribing terms like "criminal conspiracies" to Bull Rangifer and SPECIFICO. You yourself are the only, single, solitary person who has mentioned conspiring/conspiracies in the context. Are you trying to exhaust your opponents by repeating it over and over and consistently ignoring both denials and questions about it? Your discussion style is disruptive, and you are coming close to a topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 US election. Bishonen | tålk 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find Bishonen's and Drmies' commentary here to be highly partisan, if not dishonest. As admins you might expect them to intervene in defense of this biography of a living person, per our very clear policies at Wikipedia and protections for the subjects of those biographies. BullRangifer has stated plainly that Assange has committed a crime [35]:

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

SPECIFICO has stated that the GRU were Assange's "accomplices" [36][37]:

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

In this context Thucydides411 is of course wholly correct to complain about Assange being described as a criminal, since he was accused in a court of law, and the accusation was dismissed with prejudice [38]:

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

Without getting into details about Assange, Drmies has implied that SPECIFICO and Bullrangifer's opinions about Assange are correct [39][40]:

Sorry, but how is that controversial?

They're controversial because the Judge ruled that Assange did not commit a crime. Drmies can be forgiven for not reading the news. However as wallyfromdilbert and PackMecEng point out, it's hypocritical for Bullrangifer and Guy [41] to ask to sanction Thucydides411 for raising the issue at WP:BLPN right after Drmies told Thucydides411 to go there [42]:

you should consider BLPN.

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

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

This kind of incoherent and unsourced language would be considered inappropriate from any editor on a BLP, but JzG is the most active admin on the page, having placed DS sanctions there. The sources editors were discussing in that case (including famous German investigative journalists and politicians, Die Welt, the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) would be surprised to learn that their activities and reporting were being promoted, according to a Wikipedia administrator active at Julian Assange, by "an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more." Moreover, numerous American and international human rights groups have described Assange's treatment as extraordinary, directly contradicting JzG's assertion. For example here is the United Nations special rapporteur's recent description of Assange's treatment in the UK [43]:

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

As for Bishonen, they were quick to block Jtbobwaysf [44] for their 1RR violation at Julian Assange just days ago, and are quick to appear here threatening a topic ban against Thucydides411. However they said they would not block Calton for a similar, DS violation at Julian Assange introducing a long opinion piece quote against him without in-text attribution [45], and apparently believe that calling Assange a criminal or criminal accomplice is not a BLP problem, even if a US federal judge has ruled that Assange's actions and similar actions by news organizations are protected by the first amendment. -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

BullRangifer, you write I have not called Assange a "criminal" or a "criminal accomplice". What you said is [46]:

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

I understand you don't want to talk about the fact that the DNC accusations against Assange — which you are asking us here to accept as truth, or be topic banned — were thrown out of court in the United States and declared to be false [47]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you're barking up the wrong tree.

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

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

SPECIFICO, you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS: I've long been active at Julian Assange, am proud of my work there, and will continue to improve the article. Anyone can similarly pull up editor interaction reports for you and plenty of other editors, e.g. a longer list of your interactions with me (100 articles) [48], or BullRangifer (319 articles) [49], or Bishonen (214 articles) [50].

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

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

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

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

I don't personally think you should be sanctioned for your statement — and again User:Newyorkbrad is a better expert here than am I — however I do think that your false opinion has an impact on Assange's page. For instance, many editors at Talk:Julian Assange have been arguing that an entire lead paragraph in our biography of Assange, dedicated to the DNC and mentioning the GRU, is undue. If you don't acknowledge the ruling that Assange's publication is protected by the first amendment [51], that will contribute to your desire to give undue and misleading attention to this issue in the lead of his article. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@BullRangifer: on the 29th of February you directly stated that the GRU helped Assange commit a crime [52]:

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

Do you acknowledge that you made this statement at BLPN?

United States federal judge John G. Koeltl clearly ruled that Assange and Wikileaks, per clear precedent established in many cases including those surrounding the Pentagon Papers, did not commit a crime [53][54]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. removal of sourced info by T.,
2. removal by D.,
3. removal by another user (who is a Russian SPI [55], possibly a sockpuppet account, and again), then
4. removal by D.,
5. removal by IP (who was blocked), and
6. removal by well known user Altenmann.

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

MVBW, When you tried to add a massive timeline to the Assange article, four editors commented on talk [56]: JFG and Jack Upland and myself all opposed your addition. Your comment here suggests I was POV-pushing, when consensus roundly rejected your addition.

Similarly, at Useful idiot, dozens of editors have commented there over time, per the NYT [57] and Oxford U press [58] supporting the view that attribution to Lenin is false.

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

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

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

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

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

Formal proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. But it matters what view, exactly. He cries "BLP violation" on pages like Assange and Maria Butina [59], and makes misleading comments in the process. For example, no one removed the fact that Butina founded "Right to Bear Arms.", etc. Same misleading claims about editing of "Useful idiot" where he just removed content of the subject sourced to highest quality sources like books by Yale University Press, etc. [60]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the book published by Yale University Press was that it didn't mention the phrase "Useful idiot". The paragraph you added to Useful idiot that cited this source was synthesis: [61]. You used two unrelated quotes that the book discusses to make your own argument about the phrase "useful idiot", which the book does not mention.

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

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

No, this and all other sources you removed were very clearly on the subject of the page [62]. But it is meaningless to discuss anything here because any such disagreement will be regarded as a "content dispute". The only thing I can do is to stop editing any pages frequented by contributors like you (there are also a couple of others), and that is what I generally do. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest you read these articles and their sources:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, in my experience, SPECIFICO is close to a SPA account focussed on the USA-Russia nexus and is very aggressive to other editors.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Proposal throws around a lot of accusations/labels without any specifics, thread indicates content disputes. A proposal for one of the harshest available sanctions shouldn't pass muster without convincing evidence, which is lacking here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Marker - Holding a spot for an "I told you so" when T. is eventually sanctioned, as they so richly deserve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  Oooo, marker for me too for when this gets forumshopped elsewhere to get a perceived 'enemy' removed. Arkon (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Possibly this is a good place to put down a few markers.

It looks to me as though there has been some fairly non-detached, 'fundamentalist' editing going on over a series of articles relating broadly to American politics, including the last presidential election, the war in Syria, Wikileaks and Julian Assange. All the references to truth and reality here, as well as indicators in the articles under discussion, such as the text in Lead of the "Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal" one reading "(as supported by all reliable sources)", should be causing eyebrows to rise. I haven't looked very far into the history of T's editing, but it doesn't look to me as though he is the main problem. Perhaps he is serving a very beneficial purpose, pushing a stick into the spokes of the wheel of a juggernaut of fairly heavy point-of-view pushing.

There is a tendency to treat reliability as an on-off switch, with 'reliable' sources being reliable in all circumstances and no real differentiation between them. As far as the mainstream media goes, there are many books dealing with how and why, in certain circumstances, their reporting fails in various ways, including accuracy, advocacy, neutrality and censorship (what they will report). Off the top of my head, books such as, for instance, "Flat Earth News, An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media"[63] (2008) by Nick Davies and "The Mighty Wurlitzer, How the CIA Played America"[64] (2008) by Hugh Wilford address the problem. Mark Curtis recently wrote online about the manipulation of the British press by the UK military and intelligence establishment.

The raiser of the current incident asserts that, "Thucydides411 is essentially a single-purpose account dedicated to obscuring the fact of Russian interference in the 2016 US election." It appears that, in the 2016 election, various mendacious acts were perpetrated by both sides of the US political spectrum. Subsequently, an attempt was mounted to impeach President Trump. Coming out of that, there was a huge controversy about alleged Russian interference, which has played out across Wikipedia articles.

I should think that there were Russian attempts to influence the election or to gain some advantage out of it. That's what states do if they have interests in the outcome. However, in terms of laying down markers, my best guess is that, if we come back to review the current incident sometime in the future, we'll be coming back knowing that the extent of interference was massively exagerrated or its nature distorted and wondering how indications that that was the case were swept aside in Wikipedia.

When it comes to American politics, I'm a fan of the Moon of Alabama site. It's not, of course, a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense, but I think that it shares insights which are sometimes sorely lacking in the mainstream media. On the Mueller investigation, among other articles, it carries the following:

• Mueller Indictment - The "Russian Influence" Is A Commercial Marketing Scheme, 17 February 2018: The published indictment gives support to our long held believe that there was no "Russian influence" campaign during the U.S. election. What is described and denounced as such was instead a commercial marketing scheme which ran click-bait websites to generate advertisement revenue and created online crowds around virtual persona to promote whatever its commercial customers wanted to promote.
• (Aaron Maté) Mueller Report Claims Much Proves Little, 05 July 2019: But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved. (Full Report)

The first article makes the case that the Internet Research Agency was just using the election as a commercial click-bait opportunity and was not the "Kremlin-linked troll farm" of the article on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. In terms of markers, let's see which version turns out to be correct.

The second article makes, contra all the claims being made on this page, statements about inadequacies in the Mueller investigation. Again, in terms of markers, let's come back later after we've had an opportunity to see how things pan out and what emerges.

If we do come back here to review how things developed, I do hope I'm not the one having to do the wiki-walk-of-shame, but ... who knows?

    ←   ZScarpia   13:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow! You admit they are not RS, and yet you not only read them (you shouldn't), you push their views here. That is not what this talk page is for. It is for figuring out how to use RS to improve the article.

The interference by Russia is no longer an "allegation". It's proven fact, with lots of evidence. The Internet Research Agency was observed, in real time, hacking American targets as they interfered in the election. The hackers were watched as they did it, identified by name, their keystrokes recorded, stolen emails found on their servers, some of the GRU agents were indicted, and Assange coordinated with the GRU agents to distrubute the stolen emails and documents. These are no longer allegations.

Please, stop reading unreliable sources. Also, what may happen in the future is not our concern. We will continue to follow RS here, and we will amend our content according to what they say, even if we end up describing a totally opposite narrative. We follow the scientific method here. We follow the evidence and act on it, and we change our POV according to new evidence. We do not alter our behavior now based on what unreliable sources tell us is "truth". -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Renewed behavioral issues re: Julian Assange talk

Thucydides411 ongoing stalking and bludgeon - After prolonged discussion on the article talk page, where Thucydides411 now has over 120 posts and counting, the discussion is clearly going against Thucydides411' point of view. Thucydides411 starts an RfC to rehash the question yet again. After JzG posts his view, Thucydides411 goes to JzG's talk page to insistently "suggest" that JzG strike his remarks. This is not just a content dispute. This is the sort of disruption that prevents other editors from doing the work of article improvement. We routinely sanction editors who behave this way. SPECIFICO talk

@SPECIFICO: Please stop misrepresenting things. At the Julian Assange talk page, I proposed an edit, which a majority of editors agreed with. You yourself acknowledged that a majority agreed with me, arguing that we should disregard the majority opinion: "we do not count votes around here". In other words, when you state (directly above) that "the discussion is clearly going against Thucydides411' point of view", you know this to be untrue.

I launched an RfC only after three different editors in the discussion proposed that I should do so. Guy: "Try an RfC with a few options" and "I suggest that is best resolved by an RfC with a couple of different options." Slatersteven: "either an RFC or DR is needed." Jtbobwaysf: "I too support an RfC".

I posted on Guy's talk page to discreetly ask them if they would correct an important but factually incorrect statement that they had made.

SPECIFICO, you know all this context. Please stop misrepresenting it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411: It is disruptive and disrespectful to this ANI process for you to to misrepresent me by cherrypicking words out of context without diffs. That alone is grounds for a ban.

I wrote: Because we do not count votes around here, "support per XXX" is irrelevant to the discussion. I said that after a flurry of your group arrived in rapid succession to state "Remove content per Darouet" and @Snooganssnoogans: pointed out that repetition without valid argument provides no rationale for the removal. In fact, you yourself, Thucydides411, made a similar comment repeatedly last month in polls that rejected other edits of yours. "The closer should discount votes that make these sorts of uninformed and unserious comments.""To whomever closes this RfC, please discount votes that claim this is one person's opinion"

Your views and your defense here have been joined by single purpose accounts and editors who advocate a false equivalence between the consensus of world RS reporting on the 2016 U.S. election and Russian disinformation, abetted by Assange. Insistent disruption of article improvement, delivered with your style of misrepresentation and personal aspersions is exactly why editors get banned. At best, your account is WP:NOTHERE SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can judge for themselves if you were being dishonest here. I laid it out above with a link to the relevant talk section and quotes from it. In the meantime, I suggest you stop bludgeoning this section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's now posted nearly 20 times to get Thucydides411 sanctioned. They've now also denigrated those who spoke against sanctions as single purpose accounts or editors who advocate false equivalences. Normally aspersions like that earn their own sanctions. This thread has far outlived its purpose. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yet none of the editors complaining about Thucydides’ bludgeoning seems to have a problem with SPECIFICO’s bludgeoning. I wonder what the difference is. 🤔 Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed Specifico boomeranged himself on this comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Boomerang Question

Going nowhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think there are WP:BOOMERANG issues that need to be looked at here. It appears me that Guy JzG (talk · contribs) is too close to this Assange issue (or maybe AP2?). Is he using admin privileges to frame an already battleground ridden article, or simply acting as an impartial admin? He warned me on my talk page with this warning which I felt was unusual. I felt it would be normal for an uninvolved editor or admin, but for an involved admin, I felt it was a bit much. Thoughts? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC) I don’t think JzG (talk · contribs) is subject to WP:BOOMERANG? 207.38.146.86 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC) What actions has Guy taken in this issue as an admin? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC) All of them, possibly. An admin’s status affects the wikiteurs around them, with a very few honorable exceptions. The recent debacle with Kudpung underlines this. Persons in authority are often quite clueless about the power imbalance spilling over to unrelated things. Qwirkle (talk) But that's not Guy; that's other people. As long as admin—any admin—doesn't misuse their tools, it's up to other people how they react. ——SN54129 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC) We’ll have to agree to disagree on this, I think. Any case of power imbalance leaves the person on the lower side more conscious of it than the one on top, and that’s a common problem here. While i’d disagree strenuously that there is something worth a boomerang here, that has nothing to do with actual use of admin tools. Qwirkle (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC) FWIW, I heartilly agree with you about power imablance, and I'm certainly not saying it does not exist—far from it. But a lot of the time editors perceive (operative word) admins as more "powerful" than they actually are. Anyway. Happy Saturday! ——SN54129 20:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Serial Number 54129, 2 of the last 3 arb desysop cases demonstrated no misuse of tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC) We're talking about how people react to admins, not arbcom judgmenets which are (thankfully) two very different things. ——SN54129 20:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Basically, the argument appears to be that JzG is respected as an admin and therefore his editing of articles should be limited because respected editors hold too much sway. So, we should limit admin editing (and perhaps any editor that is respected) and make admin recruitment more difficult. O3000 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC) No, that argument would be your strawman. Mine differs on three points. First, this isn’t about this particular admin, but a generalization about them, or a perception of them, as a group. Next, it has nothing to do with respect, but with power. Finally, it says nothing about restricting scope of writing, but that those in power should be taking care not only to not abuse one’s powers, but to be seen as not doing so. Qwirkle (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Admins don't use their tools on articles in which they are involved. O3000 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC) No. Admins aren’t supposed to use their tools on articles in which they are involved, a substantial difference. Qwirkle (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC) I have had very few limited interaction with this admin but he makes inflammatory comments and he does that with the intention to be provocative. My first interaction with this admin was in this deletion discussion the admin made many comments saying "oranges" instead of origins just to mock Trump, here is some examples, an editor says it is POV fork, Guy response with POV fork of what, exactly? I mean, I know the "oranges" theory is a POV fork of reality, but of which Wikipedia article is this a POV fork? My second interaction with this admin was in this ANI thread here he calls other editors OK, so the RT fanclub is out for Philip Cross' blood again. Cool, cool. [65] totally provocative comment only just to provoke. My third interaction was yesterday, the editor made a totally uneutral invitation to an RfC in WP:FTN, you can see the discussion, I have explained there how it is uneutral invitation while the admin didnt respond and ignored what I am saying. Note, this is just with the limited interaction, imagine if I was an editor who has to deal with this provocation all the time. Recently many admins were reported in AE and their adminship was removed and I feel that what they did was nothing comparing to this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Ironic to see all this Wiki-identity politics chat -- what might be called "Admin privilege". As cited, one of Thucydides411's many disruptions is on the White privilege article, in which he has bludgeoned the talk page with 76 posts on the current version, including Marxist and other denials of the phenomenon. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Maybe its time for special DS for all material related to Assange. No edits with out consensus, 1 edit per day period, Zero PA's (even of the mildest kind, in fact no commenting on users period), and a zero tolerance approach, one infraction and its a TBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Slatersteven, seems like a sensible idea. Guy (help!) 23:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC) All the, ahem, productive discussion above Slater's comment should be hatted, and a new section opened to discuss instituting GS for Assange along the the lines Slater suggests. We can get that done here and now. Separately, someone should launch an RFC about whether we do or do not say in Wikivoice that Russia meddled in elections (if that RFC hasn't been run already). That way, editors not editing in compliance with the RFC could be sanctioned under GS. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Levivich, that RfC is an excellent suggestion. Whenever it happens, a notification should be placed at the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article (and the myriad related articles). BTW, do you mean DS where you write GS, or am I forgetting something? -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC) BullRangifer, I thought WP:AC/DS can only be instituted by Arbcom, but WP:GS can be instituted by the community. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 01:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the informative links. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC) A better idea would just be to move this complaint to AE, where we have a more orderly process and Admins do their best to decide based on policies and guidelines. Guy, I think you could make that move as OP. I don't think we want to have as many sets of page restrictions as there are topics. It's too complicated, and we already have plenty of policies against TE, FRINGE, PA, and other relevant behaviors. 1 edit a day? I've never seen that. Sounds like it would lead to thousand word posts on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC) The problem is enforcement. There are already several Arbcom motions and site policies that require a block or TBAN for Thucydides and possibly others. Additional complex or unusual restrictions are not going to make enforcement more likely. The current case needs to be resolved conclusively one way or the other. AE will provide a resolution. Nobody's going to be able to read this ANI thread, discount the POV and unsupported !votes, and arrive at a resolution all editors recognize as correct. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Extended DS

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

SKZ2020

• SKZ2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Affected page: Michael Spence (academic)

Violation: User blanked page contents. Journeyman editor Dark-World25 reverted change and left "only warning" for disruptive editing. SKZ2020 then undid this reversion.

• Relevant DIFFs:

Original page blanking: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Spence_(academic)&diff=prev&oldid=945151968)

Warning: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SKZ2020&diff=prev&oldid=945163038)

"Undo" of Dark-World25's reversion: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Spence_(academic)&diff=prev&oldid=945164938) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utnapishti (talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry I don't have time to investigate but a quick look shows that the material removed by SKZ2020 is typical of what is seen at Wikipedia when people use an article to attack a living person. The issue should be raised at WP:BLPN where people might have an opinion on how many of the digs at the subject should be retained in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added a COI tag to the article. I've just chopped a lot of NPOV-violating promotional material from the article, and SKZ2020 repeatedly removes content critical of Spence without discussion, some (but by no means all) of which appears well referenced. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

For example, this edit by SKZ2020 is just adding lots of puffery, based on primary sources or SYNTHy extrapolation. Bondegezou (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Cross-article university vandalism

Heads up. I have noticed recent bogus claims that various universities are actually online universities, often through Zoom. IPs are all over the place, and the edits are sometimes self-reverted. See recent history of University of California, Los Angeles, University of California, Berkeley , Yale University and Pennsylvania State University for examples. Meters (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. This is being done because the universities have told their students to go home and take their classes online. I've already encountered one such article and protected it; I'll take care of the ones you list. If you see others, you could add them here. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Meters (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm giving them all two weeks semi. I protected UCLA and Penn. MrZ already took care of Cal. Yale hasn't gotten hit yet. Just a matter of time, I suspect, but I'll have to wait until protection is actually needed. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yale was self-undoen. Stony Brook University just popped up [66] with a bit of blatant extra v on the side. Meters (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Stony Brook isn't there yet; it's only been vandalized once. This same vandalism is being done on dozens of pages (I have personally protected more than 20 in the last couple of hours, and I'm not the only one doing it). I am wondering if this identical edit by so many different people is being inspired by something said on social media somewhere? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for not noticing the prior AN thread on this. Meters (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPECULATION on my part is that universities that are providing online classes during this coronavirus situation are being labeled as online by these IPs. Of course, there will be more to it than this but I'm adding this as food for thought. MarnetteD|Talk 23:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

That still leaves the question of why anyone would even think of going to a university's Wikipedia article and re-labelling it an "online university" just because of this. – numbermaniac 07:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Because it's "funny" to label a normally in-person university as online-only, since online universities tend to have a worse reputation/be less prestigious than traditional universities. creffett (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I wonder if this is some kind of spam campaign involving Zoom. Sheesh. I wouldn't leave the articles protected unless the vandalism is quite persistent though. On the scale of such things it's pretty tame. It's like the old joke of referring to Leland Stanford Junior University as a "junior university" because it says so right in its name, heh heh. 2601:648:8202:96B0:54D9:2ABB:1EDB:CEE3 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm still seeing it come up on more university pages. Can someone savvy make an edit filter? Natureium (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You can request a filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It's just a meme, not a scam. Someone made the joke, it got popular, so folks thought it'd be "funny" to change the Wikipedia articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. It's from the colleges where the kids have been sent home and are taking their classes online. Somebody started it, somebody spread it, lots of people copycatted, and we are stuck mopping up after them. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Alexa Megan Curtis Unblock page creation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?prefix=Alexa+Curtis&title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1 - someone is very determined to advertise this person's brand on Wikipedia. Why did this blacklist entry not stop these creations, by the way? Guy (help!) 16:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • If you mean the newest draft, it's because page movers can bypass the title blacklist. Before it was moved, the current draft was just a generic user sandbox. The other stuff existed prior to the blacklisting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

    NinjaRobotPirate, ah yes, that makes sense. Guy (help!) 23:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Editor doesn't understand what Original Research and Synthesis are

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.

---

Long time contributor to Wikipedia Coldcreation doesn't understand these concepts as demonstrated on Art Deco page. When I removed obvious OR and SYNTH he reverted me saying 'Restoring sourced material. The claim of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH is nonsense' [67]. I tried explaining it to him but he again reverted, this time adding source from quick key words search in google books which obviously didn't support text and context in the article. I raised issue at talk page, saying and giving examples of other sections also having the OR, he answered and completely missed the point. See [[68]]. Sauvahge (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There is already, appropriately, a discussion underway at Talk:Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 11:09, 14 March 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.

Possible sock-puppetry at the pages for Frank Oz and Ross Butler (actor)

There is a user (possibly multiple, but seems to be the same user using multiple IP addresses) who keeps adding ethnicity and/or previous nationalities into the leads of the pages of "Frank Oz" and "Ross Butler (actor)" against Wikipedia rules per WP:Ethnicity, but won't offer any explanations on his edits or post anything on the Talk pages of these individuals. Because the user is not logged in and uses multiple IP addresses, I have not posted on their Talk pages, as it would require me to post on numerous talk pages. Please take a look and tell me what I should do. I think it would be best if we could protect those pages, but I will follow the advice given. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They're not listening or engaging, so I've semiprotected both articles for a week. Thank you for reporting, Apoorva Iyer. Bishonen | tålk 12:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC).

Problems with User:Cassianto

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:Cassianto

Hello, I'd like to bring forth behavioral issues from user, Cassianto on the talks page section, Talk:Stanley Kubrick#lede photo. To make things simple, I'm gonna refer to them as "C." And I'm sorry that this message is word heavy. My reason for that is because I want to get the message completely across. This started on Talk:Stanley Kubrick in the section, "lede photo," when Cassianto was telling another user (I'm gonna use Cassianto's exact words.), "Bore off. You're incredibly tedious."

To try and cool C down, I said, "Please stay civil. Especially to those providing valid arguments."

I said this because the user C was telling to "Bore off" was providing a valid argument, like I said.

After this, C called me a, "Troll," to which I responded with, "PING @C: Don't just write someone off like that just because they have a differing opinion. If you want to keep up with that attitude, I have no problem with reporting to ANI for impolite and insulting behavior from you."

C didn't respond to that message.

Responding to a completely different comment from C on the page, I said, "PING @C: It is extremely weird that the one who posted this discussion, [user who posted discussion], has only made two edits in total and none ever since. I figured since they started this, they would've weighed in again, but I guess not. Thing is though (whoever they are) and agree with it or not, they did bring up a solid argument. In case you were wondering [C], this user (their screen name) is not me. I'm saying that in case you wanted to throw an accusation my way."

I said that last part because C told someone else (the one they told to "Bore off") the possibility of the user who posted this section was them using a sockpuppet. Could this have been a joke? I don't know.

Anyway, C responded to me with, "Fascinating. You're ever so twitchy, aren't you. But I'm glad you've thrown me off the scent by saying it's not you. I appreciate that."

I responded with, "PING @C: Not twitchy. I'm just making myself clear."

To which C then told me, "Clear as mud."

At this point, I was getting pretty annoyed at C, so I told them, "Do you really want me to report you to ANI, @C:? Your type behavior may have gotten you places before, but it is NOT going to work with me. Now, are you going to be civil to everyone here, or are you gonna keep insulting everyone with a different opinion than you? Paraphrasing what Bill Foster from Falling Down said, "In America [and on Wikipedia/the internet], we have the freedom of speech. The right to disagree."

I tried my best to let C know that I was being serious and not playing around. If I was to harsh, I'm sorry. Like I said, I was trying to be serious.

C then told me, "Paraphrasing what Harry Callahan said in Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day". What makes you think I give a monkey's toss about ANI?"

This was the last message from C to me on this page, but they did message me on my talk page. It was called "Pings." Maybe I pinged C too much. I'm sorry for that I guess.

Anyhow, they messaged me this: "No more please. I have nothing further to say to you. Any more will be considered harassment. And I WILL report you, film quote or no film quote."

And that's the situation between me and Cassianto. I tried my best to be as civil as possible to C, but when push came to shove, I decided to drop the niceties, be serious, and warn them that I would report them. To me, it seems like C is throwing it right back at me, treating my messages as harassment to them. Like I said, I tried being nice and tried being blunt and serious, but the message didn't seem to go through clearly. So maybe this will, because I warned them, and they asked for it (literally).

Addition: By the way, I tried adding the subset template at the top to C's take page, but they've removed it. Twice.

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

What I'm seeing from the discussion at Talk:Stanley Kubrick#lede photo is everyone else politely discussing their differences, you wading in for no apparent reason being thoroughly obnoxious, and then acting surprised when someone calls you out for it. Do you really want the increased eyes on you that an ANI post will generate, given that when an issue is raised here we examine the conduct of all the participants in the dispute? ‑ Iridescent 20:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think I was being obnoxious. I'm sorry for that if I was, that was not my intention at any point. And no, I didn't want to do this, hence why I warned them (by them I mean C).

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

And another thing, I did give my opinion on the subject of the section of the talk page.

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Best bet with Cassy Cassianto is just ignore them and don't feed the trolls. Just let it go or they just keep going. PackMecEng (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess so too. Thanks for listening. I really appreciate it.

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Thatstinkyguy

My advice would be that you read this, Don't be a jerk, and then go and find something productive to do on here. In your own words; "let's try to help out more articles. I know I need to". KJP1 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to take this off the "oh so important" topic of Cass, but does anyone else find it weird that an editor with 2 edits is suddenly worried about the picture of Stanley Kubrick? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I pointed this out here, but it fell on deaf ears. Cassianto^Talk 20:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(ec) So how many edits does an editor need to have before they are allowed to express an opinion about the Stanley Kubrick page? This is meant to be the encyclopedia everybody can edit - please don't bite the newcomers - driving editors away damages the encyclopedia, and getting back to the subject - hatting discussions under the heading "bore off" is very biteyNigel Ish (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Put it another way, Nigel Ish, how many edits does an editor need to not be a newbie? The OP, for the record, has been here nearly 2 years and has over 1K edits. Fyi. ——SN54129 21:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sadly, no I don't find it weird – it seems to be par for the course on that page. Mind you, I think it's weird to see these as the first and second edits from a user. Absolutely perfect in terms of formatting etc - and this from a supposed newbie? Hmmmm... Mind you, despite being told about the embargo of discussing that page's IB, canvassing opinions a year in advance of when the embargo is lifted seems to be pushing the line hard, and decidedly unconstructive. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Cassianto objected to your shortening of their username. Doing so may help this process for everyone, even if Cassianto felt the need to do the exact same thing to make a point elsewhere. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@MarkH21:No problem, I was just surprised to see that it upset them. It is a chummy name I have used before without a problem. Even here above Kansas Bear uses similar without objection. Strange world we live in huh? PackMecEng (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I like him, that's the difference. And Kansas bear didn't follow it with a personal attack, like you did. Cassianto^Talk 21:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, Cassianto is unusually targeted by ips and throwaway accounts, and has been for years. Certainly the few people doing this via many identities know which buttons to press. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, they do have a record of being a little abrasive to just about anyone that disagrees with them. PackMecEng (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Not true, actually. Pinging Serial Number 54129, Cullen328, and Ritchie333 all of whom I've disagreed with, over the years, but all of whom I've have remained friendly with. But don't let that ruin your narrative. Cassianto^Talk 21:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that's why the many ips..its a sport, specifically bear poking. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Entrapment is another word. To be fair, Cassianto stays on articles within his interest, but is followed. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "a little abrasive to just about anyone that disagrees with them". I'm not sure about that: I disagree with him on a few things and he's never aggressive in response, but I don't bait or poke him. Just like everyone else, if people disagree constructively he'll respond constructively, but he does bite back when trolls target him. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Their block log disagrees. I think it generally goes past being poked or baited. PackMecEng (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

My experience is that he's a thoughtful and considerate article collaborator, who goes the extra mile to help, and is very highly though of among content orientated folks in his areas of interest. But he has limits of patience, which have been well tested, and have lead to vicious circles..ie block logs put very attractive targets on peoples backs. I note a recent block of BHG by Tony B recently lead to such a concern. Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (again!) Nah. There's a few of those blocks placed by people with grudges, and a few where the trolls won and Admins ignored the baiting. - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I could see that for a few, but not with as many as he has. It is just trying excuse repeated poor behavior. PackMecEng (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• I see nothing at all wrong with Cass' behaviour and comments, Given we'd only discussed the image 3 months ago it's fully understandable that people in that discussion would be pissed off, I would recommend closing this pointless thread. –Davey2010^Talk 21:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• +1 Is there not a time limit on rehashing contentious issues. Ceoil (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sound selfish, but I did not post this about the photo! This is about User:Cassianto behavior towards me. Calling me a troll. I was "Clear as mud" as a reply to harmless comment. Maybe he could've been joking about all that. If he was though, he didn't make it clear after me responding or whatever. I'm starting to see why Cassianto doesn't give a care about this page.

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

When someone tells you that you're being clear as mud, it means that you're not being clear at all. It is not a personal attack. As to troll - condescending civility police tend to face that accusation a lot. There are few phrases that can be uttered on Wikipedia that create as much animus as please be civil (or variations thereof). It's a non-constructive interjection and creates nothing but bad feeling. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thatstinkyguy - Well you did mention "freedom of speech" and "infobox" which is a bit selfish or no particularly self aware in context. Dunno, maybe step back and look at the bigger picture...one of the things that strikes me is that development of the Kubrick article is choked by petty squabbles. Dunno, what did you expect? Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Where's @Intothenight1987:, btw? The Rfc should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, they'll be back next year, at another article I've been involved with, in order to stir up some trouble. But we mustn't bite the newbies, must we. Cassianto^Talk 21:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Or most likely, they are logged in now, but using a different account. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You sir, are a victim of multiple sock-puppetry. These newbies, should be immediately check-usered. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Good grief, GoodDay, where's your respect for "editor retention"? As Nigel Ish pointed out earlier, doing so "driv[es] editors away [and] damages the encyclopedia". Cassianto^Talk 21:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy to give any trouble making sock-masters, a one-way ticket off the project :) GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Just a note on the RFC. It is still active, several new votes in the past week. Two it has only been open 19 days, not 30 yet. Three the other RFC noted was not for this photo, was of different photos, and was closed no consensus so largely unrelated to this RFC or the topic of this thread. PackMecEng (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I get the gist from this otherwise incoherent comment that you want to talk about the RfC? You'd better check with the instigator of this thread first as they may get upset that it's not about them. Cassianto^Talk 21:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I am commenting after the close because I was pinged. Cassianto has a style of communicating that is very different from my own. I try for diplomacy while Cassianto is far more direct. It is indisputable, though, that Cassianto is an outstanding encyclopedia editor. In this particular case, I do not see that Cassianto has said anything that violates civility standards or calls for sanctions. It is pretty bizarre for a new editor to create an RfC in their second edit, and it is entirely reasonable to suspect that this may be a sockpuppet trying to irritate Cassianto. As for you, Thatstinkyguy, your username is disruptive. If you were a new account, I would block you. Instead, I will give you a chance to change it to something that carries no connotations of trolling. Please do that promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

What the? Are you serious? PackMecEng (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No, He's pulling the socks leg!. –Davey2010^Talk 22:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Heh PackMecEng (talk) 22:30, 14 March 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 term disruptive account

• BallantynesDay (talk · contribs)

The outgrowth of another report I made recently at AIV, which was ignored until deleted, presumably as un-actionable. Sometimes I don't know why I bother there. So, a series of disruptive and promotional edits and bogus links wedged between ostensibly constructive edits; I've been selective, and haven't included the edit warring over the school's name: [69]; [70]; [71]; [72]; [73]; [74]; [75]; [76]; [77]; [78]; [79]; [80]; [81]; [82]. Also, given the edit history at that article, it's reasonable to ask about a relationship to accounts such as Zerokewl1998 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocking now, amazing that went on for so long. Thank you for raising this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, The Blade of the Northern Lights. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Long term genre warring

Omair00 (talk · contribs · count)

User has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources and has not heeded multiple warnings stretching back years. Has a couple blocks, presumably for the same type of issues. Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The edits made by Omair00 on March 14 are identical to edits made by various IP accounts over the past couple of weeks. For example, Omair00's edit to Skinny Puppy [83] and edits by the IP accounts [84] [85] [86] [87]. They've also done this for several other music pages such as Coldplay (Omair00's edit [88] and the IP edits [89] [90]) and Red Hot Chili Peppers (Omair00's edit [91] and the IP edits [92] [93]). These edits are all made without any discussion and without reputable sources. Their reasoning for some of these changes appears to be simply because they feel it should be a certain way (the Skinny Puppy edit from March 10th: "They are goth (i.e. the process), and industrial is used too frequently"), though they often give no reason at all. Looking through Omair00's talk page demonstrates a long history of disruptive editing and edit warring which will likely continue if left unchecked. NoseyMoose (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This editor's talk page is a ten year litany of warnings about unreferenced content and genre warring. Accordingly, I have blocked them indefinitely, making it clear that they can be unblocked if they demonstrate knowledge of our relevant policies and guidelines, and commit to refraining from this behavior in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

All sorts of disruption

• Kristina0z (talk · contribs)

Edit warring, removing redirects, adding copyright violations (there will need to be much rev/deletion at multiple articles after they're blocked), and removing comments from talk pages by those with whom they disagree. Also personal attacks therein, for good measure. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I see the disruptions. I also see the editor has been blocked. Lightburst (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'm requesting an indef, rather than the current 36 hour block. The multiple personal attacks alone establish that the user isn't ready to edit here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Already blocked for 31 hours for the edit-warring. Please see my my note at User talk:Sphilbrick‎ on the copyright question – it seems that this awful drivel came from a past version of our Shiloh Shepherd article; if it's a copyvio, it isn't from the sources that've been identified. Going to bed now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I stand by the request re: all the behavior. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

High Volume Vandalism at Louis XVII of France

Protected for a year. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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

---

• Louis XVII of France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page only recently lost Semi-Protection. Now we have vandalism there again. When the first Vandalizing IP was blocked, Vandalizing immediately resumed under another IP. Page Protection already requested at WP:RFPP --Info-Screen::Talk 01:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Now protected one week by User:Dreamy Jazz. If you have filed at RFPP then it shouldn't be necessary to post here as well. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it to a year. The immediate resumption of the vandalism on multiple IPs after a 6 month long protection shows this problem ain't going away. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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

POV-based removal of content

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.

---

Hi I'd be grateful for any help or second opinions as to why my recent edit on the page National_Rifle_Association is being removed. I did my best to be concise and maintain NPOV, but I suspect some POV or bias is behind removal of the content I am adding. Thanks. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@WinstonSmith01984: I'm not sure you want to do this. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@WinstonSmith01984: This may already be too late but I strongly suggest you stop edit warring to the extent of self reverting or you are going to be blocked. Then start using the talk page. To be clear, the only thing that requires administrative attention here is your edit warring. Everything else is a WP:Content dispute and you need to engage in dispute resolution just like everyone else. And that begins in the article talk page, and should never involve ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The filer has made false accusation of vandalism, [[94]] has edit warred and refused to take advice from multiple uses (IDNHT). In fact I am getting a whiff of not here. and add to this accusations of POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

They have been partially blocked for a bit, so this can be closed now I think. Hopefully this will have an effect.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 14 March 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 be re-opened? Regarding the edit war, I added a Talk section after seeing some users reverting my edit but providing no explanation. User Slatersteven who originally reverted, did not explain why he raised UNDUE as the reason for reverting my edit when asked. There's an un-addressed issue here and my suspicion of bias remains. I'd be grateful to just know what was actually wrong with my edit in the first place! WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This noticeboard does not discuss content disputes. O3000 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeking clarification of whether the use of UNDUE is tantamount to bias or POV-pushing; not whether the content was in dispute - that is being discussed on the talk page section I added. The article has been flagged as controversial and organisation in question has a history of surreptitious activity on Wikipedia. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WinstonSmith01984, that is still a content matter which belongs on the article talk page. The noticeboard is not intended to discuss such questions. El_C 08:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WTF? This is not for that, try wp:teahouse, but I would advise dropping this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

From the Vandalism page: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia", Mr Slater, you have met this definition by removing encyclopedic content, and continue to attempt making distractions from that issue. This potentially goes beyond vandalism and into the realms of POV pushing, which is why I am seeking clarification. If you are so certain of your innocence, then why not welcome further scrutiny? You have made baseless allegations of personal attacks on my talk page too. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not then place to ask for clarification (from the top of this page "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." "If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse." "To challenge deletion, click here.". This page is not for discussing content disputes. Now either make outright and unequivocal accusation of wrong doing on my part (In other words make this a complaint about my alleged POV pushing and vandalism, I would advise against it, you ignored my advise last time and got a block, so please take heed), or take it to the correct venue .Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been clear and consistent here. The reversion of my edit is vandalism because removal of encyclopaedic content is one of the definitions of vandalism. Yet I am the one being sanctioned, which is grossly unfair. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Also (although I know about this) I have still not had any notice of it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WinstonSmith01984, this is the only warning I'm going to issue to you about accusing good faith editors of vandalism —read what vandalism is not— which is a personal attack. Next time you do so, I will block you from editing, and this time the block will be sitewide. El_C 09:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place. If offering the benefit of doubt, then it's more like vandalism, but Mr Slater should at the very least be sanctioned for making a baseless allegation of personal attacks on my talk page, because I never made any personal attacks towards him or anyone else. On the contrary, I've been chastised for simply making a bold edit. I'll look into raising this on the vandalism noticeboard instead if his behaviour continues after the BRD cycle. Thanks El_C, warning understood, I think we can wrap this incident up for now. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WinstonSmith01984, definitely do not list this on the vandalism noticeboard. Again, it is not vandalism and calling (or listing) it as such is a personal attack. El_C 10:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Things are getting out of hand here.. can you please ask Slatersteven to pull his head in? I've been trying to focus on reaching consensus but he's now accused me of Tendentious_editing, but I have done nothing of the sort. Although he has conducted tendentious editing, in particular by 'Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others' here:[95]. Please forgive me for being a newbie, I hadn't realised there was a tendentious editing policy - what is the correct area to discuss concerns about that? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The place to discuss your content dispute is on the article talk page. If you reach an impasse there, there is dispute resolution and accompanying requests to gain more outside input into the dispute. In the meantime, please adhere to WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 10:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance El_C, I understand the onus is on me to justify inclusion of a contested addition, and am engaging in related discussion on the talk page. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WinstonSmith01984, you are welcome. Glad I could help. Good luck in reaching an amicable resolution to the dispute. El_C 12:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, requesting help here - the User:Drmies has been reverting[96] a WP:3O request I made. Is there something wrong with my 3O request? Am I prohibited from raising a 3O request while blocked? (The block is disputed BTW). WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest a boomerang for WinstonSmith01984 for continuing uncivil behavior. Following are diffs from this editor only after the editor’s block:

• [97] Accuses editors of casting aspersions based on political views

Casting aspersions based on political views is against WP:ASPERSIONS - to simply raise an accusation is not evidence on uncivil behaviourWinstonSmith01984 (talk)

• [98] Refers to other editors as belligerents

Per the dictionary definition, the parties in any dispute are known as belligerents. This is simple English. Not evidence of uncivil behaviour.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)

• [99] “nothing other than an attempt to sully my reputation by an aggrieved editor.”

I stand by this claim.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)

• [100] Suggestion that editors are engaging in surreptitious NRA activity

There's a notice on the talk page saying exactly that - I'm not making the claim just giving the gist of notices already on the article.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)

• [101] Accusation of vandalism

Probably is.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)

• [102] Accusation of vandalism

Probably is. If it isn't then it's WP:TENDENTIOUS and having valid reason to make the accusation is not evidence of uncivil behaviour.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)

• [103] "I get the feeling you are not intent on engaging in good faith here."

Quite right.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)

• [104] Referring to a editor’s disagreement as belligerence

As per the dictionary definition of belligerence and nothing more.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)

• [105] Calling editor belligerent at 3O for not agreeing O3000 (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not actually uncivil behaviour. I have not indulged in ad hominem or lost my cool. I am humbly following procedure and raising a 3O request regarding a disputed edit. Unless something wrong with the 3O request this is basically just a distraction from the issue at hand. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WinstonSmith01984, just a general observation from my time editing here: if you are being reverted by Drmies, it is usually a strong indicator that you are doing something wrong. Did you ask him why he reverted you? You should, and then listen, in full-on receive mode, to whatever he tells you. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit, in my experience, if an editor gets called out for personal attacks, and claims they were not making personal attacks while continuing to make personal attacks, the end result is a NOTHERE block. There are two questions: a. will they be able to turn this around and b. how long until the block if they do not turn it around. As for the 3O undoing, Nil Einne placed a much more comprehensive note than I did, for which I thank them. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, will do. Thanks for chiming in. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WinstonSmith01984, do not edit other editor's edits except on articles. I have not reverted because your edits display the problem at hand. O3000 (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It's called an in-thread reply, not an edit of your message, but I'm sorry if in-thread replies are not allowed here. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's called "rude, confusing to readers, and NOT WHAT WE DO HERE". Happy to help you. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• WinstonSmith01984 seems to be a new editor. He is still learning. There is almost no editor who has read the policies and the guidelines of Wikipedia before editing. We learn a policy when we do a mistake. WinstonSmith01984 should have learnt that he should not call an editor edit vandalism except if it's vandalism. WinstonSmith should have learnt that he should not editwar and instead discuss the matter in the talk page. Editor should be aware of the one revert rule and the three reverts rule. One revert rule means you should not revert more than one time in 24 hours. This rule is applies in some articles. Three reverts rule means you can't make three reverts in 24 hours. This rule applies in all articles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  almost no editor who has read the policies and the guidelines of Wikipedia before editing – And when such an editor appears, he's denounced as a sockpuppet or LTA. EEng 05:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It's perhaps unsurprising that I should be on the receiving end of all these accusations given the controversy that surrounds the NRA.

If I am free to speak here, this all comes back to a bold edit[106] I made, which I think may have ruffled the feathers of some NRA supporters intent on glossing over the NRA's connections to the far-right. Which is apparently behaviour already identified as problematic on Wikipedia[107][108]. Hence me opening this AN/I section to discuss. I would also note the user Slatersteven exhibits a concerning ambivalence towards "Nazis" on his user page, but he's free to support that type of thing if he wants and I don't want to cast any aspersions.

The tirade of accusations against me are in my view, a poorly-veiled attempt to smear my reputation and bury the edit[109] I made using distraction technique. When asking my accusers what "ad hominem" I've indulged in, the reply was further accusations against me. I never called anyone a vandal, and describing behaviour that meets the definition of vandalism - "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" - is worlds apart from calling someone a vandal. This dispute I've been drawn into cuts to the core of Wikipedia's principles.

Focusing on the content is my only real concern. Slatersteven has bowed-out of the discussion on the talk page, which I think corroborates my point he is not intent on engaging in good faith. The user Objective3000 has been less noisy, but is engaging in the exact same behaviour. I've acted in good faith and done my best to address their UNDUE concern, by seeking agreeance on alternate wordings and offering additional sources, but these users keep repeating the same point ad nauseam - that mention of the NRA's far-right links is unworthy of inclusion, because the links are to a "pathetically small"[110] Australian political party; in spite of the fact English Wikipedia has a global audience, the political party in question held the balance of power in recent elections, and millions of Australians are aware of this party's extremist views. I comprehend all of their objections and politely refute them, however the same courtesy is not being extended my way.

In my view, the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS has been met by the users Objective3000 here:[111] and Slatersteven here:[112] by repeating the same argument without convincing people, ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors, and deleting the pertinent cited additions of others, while simultaneously exhibiting a paucity of interest in improving the article in any manner that does not reconcile with their POV.

The user PackMechEng was right to revert[113] my edit, because I was in error to revert three times, and I must respect his reversion. I'm sorry PackMechEng - won't do it again. But apparently, according to others, this makes me public enemy number one.

I accept my response to all this could be better but I don't have the years of experience many of you do, please forgive me for being new, but I think that is my only crime here. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I bowed out because we were going round in circles. Nor has anyone said the NRA's far-right links are unworthy of inclusion, we have said [[114]] re-write this to make it about more then just one minor Australasian political party. I had agreed to comment no further here, but the continued misrepresentation of mine (and others) actions is getting vexatious now, the filer is trying to bludgeon the debate. This was closed, and should have been kept closed, it is a false complaint and the user has now been told he is wrong about my actions more then once. Simply IDNHT is very much the case here. This is not going anywhere so can it be closed, ANI should not be tuned into an attack page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back Mr Slater, but exactly why must I make it about more than one? That's an arbitrary requirement.

The claim of UNDUE has no merit, has also been refuted by people other than myself, yet Slatersteven continues to repeat it. Please Mr Slater, don't take this personally or repeat baseless accusations of ad hominem - you even left a PA notice on my talk page, falsely accusing me of personal attacks. The allegation of vandalism I raised is based on actual behaviour: the removal of pertinent, NPOV, referenced content. I filed this incident report for good reason, and do not make such accusations flippantly or without just cause.

This has reached the point where I think WP:CRUSH can be established, and in contrast to the tacit haste with which Mr Slater wants to bury this incident report, I'd be grateful for moderators to look into this incident further.

Slatersteven has tried to water-down the language used, and is giving undue credence to UNDUE. The party being "minor" is not reason-enough to assert UNDUE in the first place, for reasons already made clear to him, which he ignored, on the Talk page. And anyway, the One-Nation party are rather notable due to their extremist views, have a Wikipedia article and are a prominent feature of the Australian political environment, gaining as much as 22% of the vote in some states, which is not "minor" by any stretch of the imagination. It's actually ridiculous to try and continue with an UNDUE objection here. WP:SNOWBALL comes to mind.

There's a growing consensus the user seems very keen to ignore, and no reliable evidence is being offered to support his perception of personal attacks. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: NOTHERE

El C, I'm done with this editor. The most recent personal attacks on Slatersteven kind of settle it for me. I propose an indef-block per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The attacks on Slatersteven are certainly unwarranted, especially since Slatersteven is not a pro-NRA POV warrior in any way shape or form. Still, this is a new editor and perhaps they just need to learn the ropes a bit more. Would something like a 3 month Tban or a soft indef Tban that could be lifted when they show an understanding of what why people are concerned with the behavior be less punitive? By "soft indef" I mean it we understand this is a new editor and all we need to see is an awareness and correction of the problem and there is no time limit on when they could appeal. Just a suggestion for the more seasoned admins to consider. Springee (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Added strike through Springee (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

But Springee, this new user has been advised a few times already to drop this stick, and they are not letting go. An indefinite block is not an infinite block, of course--what topic ban would be applicable here is also not very clear, given their history. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The editor has been warned numerous times and several editors have attempted to explain the problem to no avail. Indeed, the attacks continue this morning.[115] And another edit suggested an editor exhibits a concerning ambivalence towards "Nazis".[116] If the editor expressed some sense of the problem, that might be different. But, BITE only goes so far. I agree with an indef-block, with no appeal accepted that doesn't include a realization of the problem and steps to improve. O3000 (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Strawman - No personal attacks have been made against Mr Slater, much less proved. The accusation of civil POV pushing has been egregiously perceived as a personal attack instead of being dealt with maturely. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on the accusation of Strawman I'm striking my above suggestion. Springee (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I appreciate your sticking out your neck for this editor. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Would anyone care to look into the validity of the claims against me, rather than assuming that they are valid on an ipse dixit basis? At least some attempt to address the points I have raised should be exhibited, to avoid further substantiating my claims of civil POV pushing. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WinstonSmith01984, who both makes and is the best argument for indefinitely blocking. ——SN54129 15:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Frankly I'd consider this alone grounds for an "indefinite not infinite" block until WinstonSmith01984 agrees to tone it down; there's no reason any editor should be expected to be the subject of this kind of thing. ‑ Iridescent 16:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

With love and respect, there is nothing to tone down. The claims I've made are all in good faith and I genuinely believe them to be true. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

In light of the above response, switching to support for a straightforward permanent block and/or community ban. If WinstonSmith01984 considers this kind of conduct defensible let alone appropriate, this is a straightforward WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE case. ‑ Iridescent 16:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

How then, should I have gone about raising a suspicion of WP:CRUSH? It's a sensitive subject I understand, but I'm not afraid of being bold. The page is just a bit light on what to do in these situations, grateful for any advice. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support per SN. --MrClog (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support various experienced editors have offered copious advice, followed by numerous warnings that their actions aren't appropriate, but it's all been ignored and the user continues to assume bad faith of other editors and argue that their accusations of vandalism are valid. In other words, they seem eager to die on this hill, and I don't see why we shouldn't let them. An indefinite block would put a stop to this time sink. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has been ignored, and I made no personal attacks. I've aired my disagreeance and it should be okay to disagree. None of this indicates any disrespect for policy and rules, which I pledge to abide by. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Support Frankly I am not sure this is NotHere so much as genuine lack of comprehension (I wonder if I should write an essay on either "we are not as dumb as you think" or "we are not a debating society, such tactics will not work") and a firm belief that their (self assessed) "superb" oratory will win them arguments. Either way I do not see this ever being a truly useful account (and it my well be a troll account, though I suspect either some kind of social experiment or more likely a badly coached account) and will be a net drain. But as a newbie they should be given a bit of a chance (not as much as frankly they have been here so far). Thus I would prefer a TBAN from all right wing politics.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: you called it dude :-) Here's the sock-puppet accusation. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

What the hell? Seriously, where do I say you are a sock (and this is the first time I have said anything like this)? Change choice, my first instinct were right, the lack of awareness (both self and of others) here beggars comprehension and must be calculated).Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Presuming I'm allowed to oppose here, none of the claims of support show any regard for the content which gave rise to the dispute, rely heavily on ipse dixit counter-claims from persons WP:INVOLVED, and even go so far as to repeat unsubstantiated claims of personal attacks. Hitchen's razor applies here. The users making counter-claims of personal attacks have the onus to provide evidence of any such attacks, but have not done so. And FWIW, I bear no animosity towards anyone I've locked horns with in this dispute. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and a few others I probably missed based on the previously mentioned diffs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per... pretty much everyone. Been a while since I've seen bullheaded folk like this.--Jorm (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• I have applied a WP:NOTHERE block to avoid further time wasting. Effective communication requires listening as well as talking. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 17 March 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.

Gerixau and total disregard for V, BRD, CIVIL

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

A common feature of this editor's content work is to slip short, uncited, frequently trivia-like details into articles; here are examples from their last 50 edits: [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122]. Some of these may be sourceable in principle, but others seem impossibly problematic: there's no way [123] could be appropriate without a source, and I can't imagine sourcing the "rarely used" part of [124]. (Again, examples are chosen from their last 50 edits.) As can be seen on their talk page, this issue has been raised repeatedly by other editors over the last 6 years.

If one of their edits is reverted, Gerixau seems to invariably respond by re-reverting. If they are reverted a second time, they re-re-add the material without using the "undo" feature, presumably to avoid alerting the person with whom they are edit-warring; recent examples are in the histories [125] [126] [127] [128]. When challenged on this (or anything else), Gerixau's responses are invariably hostile and uncollegial; often they take the form of faux compliments (again just look anywhere on their talk page from the last 6 years, or this recent example).

I feel it's quite clear that something should be done about this; I leave it to others to figure out what the best form of "something" might be. --JBL (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"why not search for the cites yourself, and improve it ? That is my approach." a b strikes me as an unconstructive response to a WP:CITE warning - twice. Passive-aggressive/sarcastic Talk Page comments like c, d and e also strike me as uncollegiate. Narky Blert (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. The editor has been made aware of WP:BURDEN and doesn't seem to care much. Once Gerixau agrees to follow that policy, I don't see a problem with an unblock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --JBL (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Tambov State University

• Triskelion2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexadrovalexei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two single-purpose accounts here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS – persistent disruption at Tambov State University. Triskelion2 started in Nov 2018 and Alexadrovalexei started their crusade in Feb 2020. Both started out adding unsourced claims about corruption, and now have graduated to adding sources that talk in general terms about corruption at universities in Russia, but do not specifically mention Tambov as being corrupt, or back up their claims. Both have had their numerous edits reverted by multiple editors, as seen in the page history, and both have multiple warnings on their talk pages. In my first revert, I mentioned in my edit summary – sounds like some disgruntled students, and in Triskelion2's next edit, they did admit to being disgruntled. Alexadrovalexei likes to leave a more detailed account of their experience. Asking for a partial block for both editor's from Tambov State University for persistent disruption, or in the alternative, extended confirmed protection if that is an option. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I blocked both editors indefinitely from editing Tambov State University. Apparently, they are indeed on a crusade and have difficulties understanding WP:V and WP:RS.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this matter and taking action. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's minding the store at AIV....

Please block and rev/delete the racist crap by 2603:900A:2005:24AC:FDA0:F934:B844:9180 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done 2020-03-15T05:34:51 NinjaRobotPirate blocked 2603:900a:2005:24ac::/64 talk with an expiration time of 1 month (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

JesseMRogers

Heading added to easily mark this section as done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

And I'd appreciate help with JesseMRogers (talk · contribs), who's only here to post personal content and social network links. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have now warned them about two issues that would make me block them if the behavior continues after my warnings. Feel free to message me on my talk page if that happens. As always, thank you very much for your vigilance and dealing with such disruption. Much appreciated! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies to Cassianto

Whether this is deliberate trolling or jusr a competence issue is irrelevant; nothing productive is going to come of keeping this open. StrangeloveFan101, I'll do you the courtesy of not giving you a formal warning, but I can pretty much guarantee that any more of this battleground nonsense, or any further attempts to weaponise our dispute resolution processes in an effort to bully your opponents in content disputes, is not going to end well. ‑ Iridescent 13:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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

---

• Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StrangeloveFan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After the stuff that went down yesterday between me and Cassianto, I realize the error of what I did, and I was wrong. I should not have been rash to threaten them, and I'd say there's more I'm guilty of. I tried giving a genuine apology to Cassianto. Here is the full message I sent to them with a short explanation of my former screenname, "Thatstinkyguy:"

I'm sorry

Cassianto, I completely understand if you just want to delete this message, I really do. I just wanted to let you know, I'm not here to harass or attack. I came to say that I'm sorry for misunderstanding what you said to me. I will admit, I made a gigantic ass of myself.

By the way, I also applied to change my name once again to "StrangeloveFan101." The reason I had Thatstinkyguy was not to harass or troll, far from it in fact. I went by the screenname, Stinkyjaden, for a long time, even off site on others for years. But, when I started editing wikis (I started with Fandom's Wikias back in 2015) and I used the name Thatstinkyguy, an offshoot of my previous name edited for the sake of anonymity.

Anyhow, truce?

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

But Cassianto just deleted it with the summary, "go away." So, I came here for a dispute resolution between us. I just want to start over and put everything behind, like nothing happened between us. And again, I'm sorry for my words, rash judgement, and anything else from earlier. Cassianto and I may have different opinions, but that shouldn't stop us from maintaining a stable relationship as editors and decent human beings.

Thank you for your time.
- StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC) (formally Thatstinkyguy)

• Can someone please BLOCK this troll. I am sick to the back teeth of this harassment. Cassianto^Talk 12:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Enough. This is just childish trolling that needs to be brought to a sharp end. - SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Just let it go. There is no need for dispute resolution here; you just need to leave Cass be. Go edit some articles or whatever else you generally do. Don't ping Cassianto, don't edit their talk page, don't mention them elsewhere. Drop this, move on. You'll be much better off. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Cassianto, I completely understand if you just want to delete this message .... well ... ummm... apparently you don't understand given he deleted it and now we're here, As Elsa would say Let It Go. –Davey2010^Talk 12:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• @StrangeloveFan101: If you don't want to be called a troll, don't give the appearance of acting like one. Viz: You left a message for Cassianto apologising for taking him to AN/I, and—when you don't get the answer you want—you proceed to take him back to AN/I?
  Suggestions of trolling might, of course, be mistaking malice for incompetence. ——SN54129 12:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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

User:220.255.71.13

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:220.255.71.13 has begun using profanity and insults on my talk page here and here. Some admin help please. Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Llammakey, I've blocked the IP for harassment, and comments the edits from your talk page. If they start up again when the block expires please report again. I'm sorry you experienced that. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:12, 15 March 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 need help. A registered user keeps reverting my edits without any explanation and is threatening to block me

Hello, could I please get some help solving an issue I have with Feinoa (talk · contribs)? I added some information to Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic about anti-Italian sentiment in Europe and changed "Asian" to "East Asian" because so far only Chinese and Japanese origin people have faced racism in Africa and the Middle East. Feinoa, however, has reverted my edit without any explanation. I reinstated my edits with an explanation but then again they reverted it again giving a vague statement claiming they "Already explained, not the right article" (I can't find their explanation anywhere). They then proceeded to threaten me by claiming that they will block me if I don't stop. I have read the Wikipedia rules regarding edit warring and I have not officially begun edit warring. I reverted their edit once but they insisted that I was edit warring which is incorrect. I need help with this. I don't understand why they are removing information regarding xenophobic incident towards Italians and changing "East Asian" to "Asian" (a term that is much broader in definition). I would proceed with a discussion at the talk page but I have noticed other people that have brought this up have been dismissed. Could I please get help solving this? I don't want to be blocked when I have not broken the rules. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:7530:104F:34EA:5761 (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC))

You refused to establish a consensus on the talk page, added materials with vague sources, and then claim to be 'threatened' when your edits were reverted. Quit using sock accounts and feign ignorance. You attempted to do the same thing approximately 2 weeks ago on the same article with a different account. Feinoa (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Feinoa: Firstly, I'm not using sockpuppets thank you very much. It is not my problem that my IP changes. Secondly, I did not do the exact same thing "approximately 2 weeks ago". Can you provide evidence for this claim that you have made? You have behaved in an undue manner and have not followed the rules of Wikipedia. I don't know why consenus needs to be achieved over the fact that xenophobic incidents have occurred towards Italians in parts of Europe. To me, you and a few other people on that page are policing it and preventing any information you don't like from being published. You have not given me any clear reason why you have reverted any of my edits. Your undue warning that you will block me without warning also makes no sense. I reverted your edit once meaning I am not edit warring. I am fully aware of the rules of Wikipedia and you have given me no explanation for your behaviour. (101.182.48.203 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC))

My IP address changed yet again. I don't know why this happens. (101.182.48.203 (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC))

Please respect the WP:BRD process & bring your propose changes to the article-in-question's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Thank you for your reply. I have started a discussion at the talk page, I shall see what happens. (101.182.48.203 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC))

@101.182.48.203: The IP is linked to your internet network, not your computer. That is why your IP changes when you change network. In addition, many internet networks have a dynamic IP address, meaning its IP address changes even when you stay on the same network. If you'd like to avoid this, you can register an account--it's free! --MrClog (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Elmidae

Can you tell them to stop deleting the article The Magic of Christmas (Celtic Woman album) and let us edit it to achieve independent status BEFORE they redirect it? It's annoying, and their not even giving us time to add stuff! Kay girl 97 (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Kay girl 97...may I suggest NOT restoring a previously redirected article to the exact same undersourced state with a comment that basically says "it is clearly notable because it charted", and then expecting it to stick? If you can add evidence of independent coverage, by all means go ahead, but the expectation for people to wait for you to do that was more realistic... um... on 12 December 2019. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you're concerned about having time to add content to the article, it can be useful to work on a draft of it in your userspace--you could create it under User:Kay girl 97/whateveryouwanthere for example--and move it into article space when you're ready. It would give you time to add enough sources to demonstrate notability and avoid the article being turned into a redirect. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 19:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Kay girl 97 Note that you can work up a draft in your sandbox or in draft space, get it all ready with references etc, and then suggest moving it into article space. I'd be happy to review any such draft once it's ready, I'm sure Elmidae would be as well, they're a really experienced, helpful editor. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, Kay girl 97, and Elmidae: It got nominated for deletion and then copy/pasted into draft space (Draft:The Magic of Christmas (Celtic Woman album)) while the discussion is ongoing, which is problematic, due to a loss of attribution and such (there were other contributors). I'm not sure of the best way to proceed here, but it would probably be a good idea to figure out before it gets more complicated. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis, thanks for the heads-up - it's sorted now, the copy/paste draft was deleted and the article properly draftified. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Persistent WP:BLP violations at Nikhil Chinapa

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.

---

No sooner does page protection end, than the puerile edits recur. Requesting a longer lock on this, as well as consideration given to rev/deleting as far back as necessary. I suspect the impetus to post the number of boyfriends his wife had before marriage is intended to be demeaning. Let's remove the juvenile history of attempted humiliation. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 22:03, 15 March 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:186.96.116.138 and their unsourced additions

• 186.96.116.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This anonymous user has persistently continued to add the same unsourced information to Tokyo 2020 related pages despite multiple reverts and warnings not to do so. I first noticed their behavior on 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round with their unsourced claim of a cancelled match well before the announcement of postponed matches. All edits so far have related to Japan events and sports teams, most of which have been reverted as unsourced. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have posted a warning notice to their talk page in addition to the current notices there. Please let me know if they continue to make unsourced edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Second (maybe third) time this weekend I've come here, because there's nobody at AIV

Case in point: Couchpotato11 (talk · contribs). Should have been blocked immediately. Reports languish there, and reversions and warnings are meaningless without administrative enforcement. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bob! I just went through AIV and handled all of the reports there. Since I only saw one report, I figured that another admin must've seen the discussion you started here, or just happened to patrol through it just now. Either way, the AIV noticeboard is no longer backlogged, and I apologize for any frustration that the delay handling these reports caused upon you. I agree that it can be frustrating and put no words behind the warnings left if action isn't taken in an adequate period of time after a user, who is causing a high amount of vandalism or blatant disruption, is reported to AIV. I'll be active throughout the next few weeks; feel free to reach out to me directly if you believe that AIV needs urgent attention and if other methods of trying to reach out to admins for attention doesn't go anywhere. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

2601, you do understand that this is a volunteer activity right? Most people have a lot of stuff going on in their lives these days. Wikipedia may not be the highest priority, 24/7. I think filing six reports on ANI over a weekend is probably sufficient to bring attention to AIV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll back away for a bit, both out of exasperation, and because, with sequestration offering a lot of time at home, I'm clearly far too invested here. My thanks to you both. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Take a break but please do return, 2601...we need your vigilance! Just be understanding during this stressful time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Lowercase sigmabot III 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.

---

Entire information regarding jammu and kashmir is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvian97 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Considering that Lowercase Sigmabot III only archives talk pages, how is this not an attempt to litigate a content dispute under false pretenses? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 04:25, 16 March 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.

Canvassing by Seadoubleyoujay

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 has been a somewhat extended and convoluted between Seadoubleyoujay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I (109.159.72.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) over whether content relating to 'Squadron 42' should be split off from the existing Star Citizen article, a contentious article concerning the funding and development of as-yet-unreleased video games. So far, though the debate has been heated, with more than a little sniping from the pair of us, it has otherwise been fairly conducted. Unfortunately though, Seadoubleyoujay, who had earlier added a neutrally-worded link to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games (a reasonable enough thing to do, though as our article makes clear, the Star Citizen project is of interest to more than just video gamers, having attracted commentary from, amongst others, the BBC and the NYT), has now decided to use the WikiProject talk page for canvassing. I had no real problem with the original, neutral, post but after I stated on Talk:Star Citizen that I was shortly going to start an RfC issue, Seadoubleyoujay (who must have seen my statement re the RfC - see [129], which follows my post on my intentions almost immediately) has now posted a highly-partisan 'summary' of his arguments on the WikiProject talk page.[130] Even without an RfC imminent, I would have considered this highly questionable, but knowing that an RfC was about to occur, I cannot see any justification for this whatsoever, and I cannot see how it does not constitute a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing guidelines. I am unsure at this point what the best course of action should be: regardless of whether Seadoubleyoujay is sanctioned, the potential RfC has been tainted at this point, meaning that going ahead with it could be problematic, result in even further acrimony, and make any conclusion void. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This is very WP:BITEY. Seadoubleyoujay seems to be a good faith editor and the best course of action is to remind him in his talk page rather than bringing up the issue here or WT:VG. OceanHok (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Would it not have been appropriate to note that you have been a participant in the discussion, and are in agreement with Seadoubleyoujay's perspective, OceanHok? 109.159.72.250 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

My stance on the discussion has nothing to do with him canvassing or you being bitey and not assuming good faith though. What I can say is Seadoubleyoujay didn't word his WT:VG summary in a neutral manner but it is far from intentional or explicit canvassing. OceanHok (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I would be interested to learn how you could possibly know Seadoubleyoujay's intents. Telepathy perhaps? And presenting one side of an argument only while asking for input is precisely what Wikipedia:Canvassing says must be avoided. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Because we are talking about a new account which registered 2 months ago and I am assuming good faith? Is it appropriate to jump straight to ANI without telling the newbie what canvassing is? Is an ANI really necessary for all this? Wouldn't a friendly reminder in his talk page solve the issue? This ANI is probably going to cause even more "acrimony" than an ill-fated RfC ever could. OceanHok (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Aren't you stealthily canvassing here as well since you mentioned "the Star Citizen project is of interest to more than just video gamers, having attracted commentary from, amongst others, the BBC and the NYT", a rather unnecessary remark that happens to be one of your arguments in the conversation between you and me in the Star Citizen talk page? OceanHok (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

While WP:ANI is intended to cover behavioural issues, it may sometimes be necessary to at least provide a context regarding what is behind them. Indeed, I'd suggest that the majority of ANI threads require exactly that. And I'm not asking anyone here to participate in the discussion. In fact it has been suggested (by you) that the proposed RfC be postponed, which I have already stated I am in agreement with. Making any supposed 'canvassing' here by me somewhat pointless. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with OceanHok in that it's pretty petty to report a good faith editor to ANI for something like this. He's simply clarifying his arguments and the current outcome of the discussion - that isn't WP:CANVASSING, it's clarifying the discussion for editors that wish to comment on it. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 17:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding a 'new account', the apparent level of knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings displayed in Seadoubleyoujay's early postings might make people wonder how new to it all they were, though I'm not sure it matters much, since Seadoubleyoujay seems to know the inner workings, and ought surely to understand that making partisan postings to raise support for an argument is inappropriate. (And before anyone asks, I'm not new myself. Been editing for a decade. Edit under an IP, as Wikipedia policy permits. IP number changes whenever my ISP feels like doing so...)109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of making it easier for people addressing my initial ask of splitting the article, I summarized my points at WP:VG because two separate editors commented about the length of the discussion and you have even directly commented about the unwieldiness of the section. That post was meant as an invitation to discuss my ask with opinions of editors from this project, not force them to read through days worth of your and my arguments, parts of which have devolved into personal attacks, accusations, and non-constructive dialogue. If you wanted to add counterpoints to further balance my post, there wouldn't have been an issue with that (though the post was written to avoid beginning another long discussion and rather represent a summarization for newcomers to the SC discussion). An RfC shouldn't be affected by additional input on my initial request and justifications from WP:VG editors. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 17:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you summarised your points at WP:VG. Which constitutes canvassing, since you only presented your side of the argument. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why this editor is so determined to report SeadoubleyouJay. WP:CANVASS list inappropriate and appropriate forms of canvassing. Everything SeadoubleyouJay did coincides with appropriate canvassing.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 18:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I suggest to have this thread archived as soon as possible since IP editor hasn't followed the suggestion as stated in the WP:CANVASS policy page, which is to "politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices" or warn the new editor before bringing the issue to ANI. OceanHok (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

And I'd suggest that any proposal by someone so closely involved in the debate that lead to this thread that it be archived should be ignored. And since you are yet again insisting that Seadoubleyoujay is a new editor despite their obvious early expertise in Wikipedia's inner workings, I'd also suggest that people might take that insistence with a degree of scepticism, at least until Seadoubleyoujay has been asked about the matter. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Even if he is not new, you are not assuming good faith and being overly aggressive by skipping the protocol and directly bringing this issue to ANI. OceanHok (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

To comment on my Wikipedia experience, for the interest of disclosure I created an account in 2014 (User:UnrealDonnie) and promptly abandoned it after a grand total of 1 actual edit. This current profile was my attempt to get back into Wikipedia and I've been trying to catch up on policy, but there is quite a bit to get through. I would've welcomed actual education on policy I may have been misunderstanding or unaware of rather than yelling about my actions and, as the IP user wrote, a "long list of Wikipedia policies [I] don't understand."[131] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadoubleyoujay (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I've 31 hour blocked the IP for disruption at WT:VG and the general tone of bad faith assumption throughout this entire thing. ANI is not a bludgeon to swing around when you don't get your way. -- ferret (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the block is very well suited in this case as a WP:BOOMERANG. No WP:AGF and clearly not able to read the room/antagonistic. This is clearly not a serious case of canvassing, and especially not such a grievous error to push to ANI. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy close - the IP who started the discussion has been blocked for disruption, as addressed above. This entire "discussion" has been nothing more than him pointing fingers at people and lobbing many passive-aggressive comebacks at those who have refuted his arguments. He has also failed to provide any definitive evidence that Seadoubleyoujay has done any canvassing with a malicious intent. This entire thing has been a colossal waste of time for everybody involved, and purely exists because the nominator disagreed with the other's actions, not because he actually violated site policy. ANI is not a weapon at your disposal. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 19:29, 16 March 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.

Indian Politics

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, can an administrator review this User:Diamond Head green contribs. Seems to be POV issue, at 3rr at this point and unexplained removal of content since the account was created. Userpage shows multiple warnings. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:56, 16 March 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.

Hoax/fraud attempt

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'd like other editors to have a look at the editing patterns of KnowledgeIndiaOnline}. There appears to be a number of attempts to commit fraud;

• KnowledgeIndiaOnline has edited the articles of 4 distinct trade union bodies in India Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Trade Union Centre of India, Trade Union Coordination Centre, United Trade Union Congress, - removing logos (and replacing them with home-made ones, check tineye.com...), and adding links to blatantly fake social media profiles. Presumably the intent would be fraud.
• Seems to promote Veer Foundation, with a number of unsubstantied claims of links to Salman Khan's charity or CNN-News18. Likely a hoax/fraud, same social media style as the fake trade union accounts.
• Likewise on Citizens Foundation India, adding a contact e-mail ("official" e-mail that cannot be found anywhere else online) and an instagram account.

--Soman (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a sock puppet of Vyadav7636 (talk · contribs) to me. Blocked indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 18 March 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.

Limiting people ability to edit COVID19 content when they add "falsehoods"

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 need help. I think partial blocks would be fine. For example this edit:

• [132]

By User:Sylwia Ufnalska

In my opinion deserves a partial block from editing COVID19 content for 3 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

They were already warned to use proper sourcing by the way. Plus we will need more eyes on these articles. Work is going to be picking up for me soon and I may be to busy for a few months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That seems a bit extreme. Have you tried discussing this with the editor on their talk page or the article talk page? - MrX 🖋 17:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with Doc James. I'm sorry but this is a global crisis right now and we definitely don't need people peddling quackery and medical or scientific falsehoods. Intent might be good but considering how widely read Wikipedia is, there is a duty here to make sure that we're not propagating misinformation. Overall, I think the ability to edit any articles from a medical aspect relating to COVID19 should be heavily restricted to prevent exactly this. Praxidicae (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  PS: they're already blocked indefinitely on commons for spreading disinformation on this exact subject. Praxidicae (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• • • user:MrX I am not asking for a full block. I am asking for an block of all things COVID19 related. These articles are getting more than a million views per day and this is going to increase soon from what I understand. Our reputation is on the line. They were already asked to use proper source and they have declined. These articles may reach a point were they need to be treated like the main page of Wikipedia... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
      • OK. I didn't see where they had been asked to use proper sources and declined. Obviously that is not acceptable in these articles. - MrX 🖋 18:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• I understand your reservations, but Urica dioica agglutinin truly inhibited SARS coronavirus replication in a laboratory study, so it's worth testing in a simple form (like commercially sold nettle tea bags, very cheap), especially that it's very rich in vitamins and minerals, also vital for immunity. (That's why people for ages have added it to soups it in early spring). The poster is evidence-based. Italians aggravaated the situation by preventing fever with let me know how I can correct the poster|NSAIDs]], while fever is our natural defense mechanism, fighting off the virus. If you don't believe me, then ask physicians. Also paracetamol should be promoted, as it;s the only NSAID that has only minor anti-inflammatory activity, but still treats pain and lowers body temperature. As for physical activity (like gardening in a lawn under your blosk of flats or waling to a park/forest nearby), it helps in fighting pessimism and is crucial for immunnity. Please let me know how I can correct the poster, so that it could be published hereSylwia Ufnalska (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You were provided a link to WP:MEDRS. You need to follow the advise there which requires high quality review articles.

The facebook pictures were gah. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• The poster is evidence-based. based on whose evidence? Praxidicae (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  User is now topic banned by User:El_C. That should be sufficient. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  As mentioned elsewhere, I am of the opinion that MEDRS standards for this topic area are to be enforced aggressively. El_C 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's based on available scientific evidence. SARS virus is very dangerous, so it's completely unprofitable to study effects of common herbs on its proliferation. That's why there are no high quality review articles about it. We should start clinical trials now, as Urtica dioica is very likely to save many lives. Since Thursday (when I discovered the article), I've done my best to promote antiviral properties via social media, quite effecively. Anyway, Polish people commonly use various herbal teas, so it's much easier to persuade them then the Westerners, who are very skeptical about medicinal herbs. If you don't believe me, look at the graphs showing the spread of the disease in Poland. It's much slower here, particularly in my region, although the first serious Polish case was recorded very close to me (near Poznan in the mid-west]]. Please discuss my suggestions with epidemiologists, if you can.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• As I said at WP:AN, admins should simply indef any account (or give a long block to any IP) inserting pseudo-scientific bullshit into these articles. No discussion, no arguments. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 17 March 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.

BLP violations by IP User:107.77.224.112

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.

---

With three edits today, IP User:107.77.224.112 has persistently added defamatory content to Tilman Fertitta BLP. Please topic ban this disruptive IP. NedFausa (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked and revdel applied. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You might want to go back a couple of days in the history; it appears that objectionable material remains in the article. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Done and semi-protected for 2 days. Email me if there are any diffs I missed. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 17 March 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 addition of plagiarized content at Ormakalude bhramanapadham

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.

---

Relentless, even after Diannaa mopped up a few hours ago. Please block and rev/delete. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

My thanks to you and Widr. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This [133] says it all. Facepalm. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Way not to get unblocked anytime soon. :) No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the stolen apple metaphor. Cleaner than 'stolen intellectual property.' 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 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.

misuse of Draft space

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.

---

When an editor believes an article to be underreferenced or otherwise in need of improvement, the proper course of action is to discuss on talk, possibly using cleanup templates. Perhaps even using PROD or AfD.

What User:Citrivescence did instead was to move the article Raegan Revord into draft space Draft:Raegan Revord with zero prior warning or discussion.

I asked them [134] twice [135] to undo their action, and instead detail their grievances on the talk page first. Judging an article unfit for publication (by moving it to draft) should not be done unilaterally (unless the case is obvious and uncontested).

Please inform Citrivescence of proper procedure, so that other users aren't subject to the unwelcome surprise inflicted on me. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

CapnZapp I'm not sure what the issue is here. By moving it to Draft space instead of nominating it for deletion, they gave you the chance to improve it as an alternative to deletion. They also invited you to move the page back but warned you that it was possible it could be deleted. If you are willing to take that chance, then move it back. So what's the problem again? 331dot (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CapnZapp: Didn’t Citrivescence tell you that you could move it back if you wanted to, twice? If a WP:BOLD action is contested, the editor who made that action doesn’t have to self-revert. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:DRAFT#Requirements for page movers, "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD." In this case the editor who made the action should self-revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

CapnZapp Just chiming in to agree with 331dot. Draftification is a standard outcome of the New Page Patrol process in certain circumstances - see the flowchart at WP:NPP for more. It is correctly done unilaterally if the conditions described in that flowchart are met. I'd suggest just improving the sourcing and resubmitting it. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unilaterally moving an article into Draft space sends a clear message the article isn't ready for publication. Such a move needs to be consensual and discussed. It comes across as a slap across the face to an editor with experience. And it cannot be undone (you need to move it back). Telling an experienced editor his articles are trash is NOT acceptable, and putting the onus on the editor to move it back is NOT acceptable. Why would it be okay to move an article out of Wikipedia entirely with no prior discussion, when making even the slightest change can be easily reverted and then subject to intense scrutiny? Obviously a move to Draft space needs to be discussed first. At the very least giving a heads up ("gonna move article in 7 days") is the obvious courtesy. We have talk pages and cleanup templates (and AfDs etc) for a reason - using Draft space this way completely bypasses all our procedures! CapnZapp (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

CapnZapp, I agree that it's not nice to have this happen to you, but you are mistaken if you think that it isn't standard practice - this is a possible outcome of an established, consensus-driven review procedure. Again, please familiarise yourself with the flowchart at WP:NPP. If you disagree with the reviewer's assessment, you can move it back into article space - another editor will review it and make a fresh assessment. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Note: I have moved back the article and asked the user to detail his misgivings with its quality on its talk page. CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Moving it back is undoing it. You were invited to do this. You are also free to discuss any move after it has occurred. I don't see where what you wrote was described as "trash". You were politely informed on your user talk page that the reviewer felt that what you wrote did not meet guidelines. The reviewer followed proper procedure for new page reviews, and there is no issue here that requires action. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You were also already informed as to the issues the reviewer saw. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"cannot be undone (you need to move it back)" - that's a very weird definition of undone. Moving it back is undoing the move by most common definitions. There are plenty of times you cannot use the undo button to undo an edit, e.g. intervening edits such as an auto-signing, but it is still counts as undoing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Are all repliers looking at the same page? I have no problem moving pages to draft space, independent of who the creator is and whether they are experienced or not; and I don't normally use the NPP flow chart. But This article? Not only is it not a new page, it was more than 4 months old, had 12 sources, including seemingly good ones like the Holllywood reporter, CBS, ... This page should, if necessary, be tagged for problems, or nominated for deletion if the subject isn't notable. But moving it to draft is out of line, and not supported by the NPP flowchart at all, as this article clearly follows the left side of that chart all the way down. The reviewer did not "follow proper procedure for new page reviews" here, and should have nominated the article for deletion instead if they felt that the subject was not notable (which was their reason for draftifying it). Draft is for poor articles with potential, not for decent articles about a non notable subject. Fram (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The author moved the page back, as they were invited to do by the reviewer. There is nothing further that needs to be discussed here, if the reviewer was completely wrong in their judgment of the article, they can be told directly on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A user can actually draftify an article that they believe does not meet WP:GNG or a subject-specific guideline, if the article contains useful prose, and nobility is borderline or they suspect that some information not available to the reviewer is likely to proof notability. At least, according to the flowchart that is. I'm not sure if the article in question fails to meet GNG (I haven't reviewed it). --MrClog (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Fram - this is exactly the message I hoped ANI would send.   Thank you very much! CapnZapp (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Fram, it's a new page in the sense that it hasn't been reviewed - the backlog is, unfortunately, massive, I'd guess that the reviewer was working on the tail-end of the queue. I'm not aware of any agreed cut-off date after which reviewers should mark articles as reviewed without going through the normal steps. As for whether the reviewer was correct in how they assessed the article, I haven't assessed it myself - I was addressing the OP's assertion that the draftification was somehow bypassing our procedures. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about skipping the procedure (marking them as reviewed without reviewing them). This is about editors not anticipating their articles being yanked out of article space after months. A patroller that decides to draftify an article that an editor can think of as perfectly acceptable, and that decides to do so after several months, should play nice by first informing the editor(s) of this fact. Instead of treating the article as freshly created by a newbie editor. CapnZapp (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't look at the article. There was no need. My sole issue was the completely dumb comment "it cannot be undone" when the editor then went on to, or had already, undone it. If editors want people to take their complaints seriously, it helps a great deal if they don't say stuff which makes others think there's no reason to take them seriously. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we close the discussion. If the reviewer would like to have the article draftified anyway, (s)he can start an AfD procedure. If not, (s)he may review the page and, if appropriate, tag it, and otherwise (s)he can leave it up to a different reviewer. The decision to draftify may or may not have been wrong. I will notify the NPP coordinator - Barkeep49 (ping!) - about this discussion, who may chose to review the patroller's decision. Best, MrClog (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

My personal observation: anyone making a comment here without even looking at the page and the actions of editors involved should feel silly about themselves. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

CapnZapp, my personal observation - this page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, not single instances of another editor reviewing your work and coming to a conclusion you disagreed with. I'm not going to tell you how you should feel about yourself, but I will say that reviewing the article wouldn't have affected my opinion that there is no issue of conduct to examine here. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:00, 17 March 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.

Note to involved editors

An AfD procedure has been started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord. Best. MrClog (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary Roll back to another link please help

User:GSS is rolling back my article for meenakari even though the original link goes back to Kundan with no information on meenakari. I believe he has ulterior motives for doing so. Please have a look at the situation and take action if necessary. Link for article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meenakari. I am sure he has put a bot to do the rollback. Thank you. (Interesting009 (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC))

@Interesting009: You are hijacking a redirect without making a draft. You have been asked twice to stop this. Please use AfC. Also, please stop casting asperations. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Nselaa Ward

• AndreaPerry22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could some uninvolved admin look at the most recent history of both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nselaa Ward and Nselaa Ward? I'm sure that the perpetrator of the recent, problematic edit to the former and move of the latter was well intentioned: if it were me, I'd revert the page move and murmur some amiable suggestions. But I've already said my piece about the article in the AfD, so perhaps it shouldn't be me. -- Hoary (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The creator of this highly promotional article dropped the whole BLP on their first edit a few weeks ago; may need to check whether there are UPE/COI/SPI issues here. Britishfinance (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 has kindly reversed the page move and warned the perp. Good. If you (or anyone) would like to comment on the merits (or not) of the article, then the AfD discussion is the place (though I'd suggest SNOW instead). -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

BLP has been deleted at AfD after an almost unanimous vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC).

JackAtkinson22 keeps calling me a vandal

JackAtkinson22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, I had a disagreement with a new user JackAtkinson22 who started to mass-remove Arabic script Kazakh names from the articles. They insist that my reverts are vandalism and keep calling me vandal even after I provided them with a reference to WP:Vandalism. I obviously did not handle this in the best way, and the issue itself is debatable (if there is discussion, I would probably support removing Arabic script names - the justification to keep them is, as I can recollect, that Kazakh was written in Arabic script universally until 1929 and is still being written in this script in Xinjan), but I do not think that them to continue calling me vandal is acceptable. Could someone please have a look at their talk page and see whether it is in any way justified, and if not how it could be stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I’m ready to apologize if my statements about “vandalism” were wrong, but: First off, I'm not a new user. You can see it on my page, I have been registered here for a long time. Secondly, this user threatened to ban me. I understand that he has administrator rights, and in fact he can do it, but in any case, I will challenge this decision. This user is mistaken when he claims that the Arabic alphabet is relevant today in Kazakhstan. It is not true. But if this is so, then for his part, he must provide evidence. Evidence that shows that in Kazakhstan, today someone uses the Arabic alphabet. Because he claims it, and I deny it. I believe that his actions are wrong, since he misinforms people. He writes false information, and even more. He does not allow me to make edits, he immediately corrects my edits, this is suspicious. P.s. Xinjan is not affiliated with Kazakhstan. Please look at the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

JackAtkinson22, you were certainly wrong about the vandalism accusation - that's a personal attack, which can result in a block. You should seek to gain consensus to remove the Arabic script names - I suggest you start an RFC to see if others agree with you. If someone challenges an edit, a discussion is required to decide on the right way forward - you certainly shouldn't carry on changing multiple articles after someone has challenged what you are doing. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite claims to the contrary, Special:Log/JackAtkinson22 indicates the user account was registered recently, on 2020-02-22. I have some concerns about JackAtkinson22 making legal threats (see WP:NLT), but these don't rise to the level of blocking in my opinion. JackAtkinson22 should be advised to read WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:VERIFY. --Yamla (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Girth_Summit Yamla Ok, you can block my account, you can delete it, I have already made sure that ordinary users here do not have any rights. I did not intend to act against the rules. But just answer one question: if I add the Arabic name for example to the city of Amsterdam, or Paris, then you will delete it? Because the page of each region contains a name in several languages ​​that are somehow connected with this region, for example, Canada. The names are in English and French, as these 2 languages ​​are common in this country. But what does the Arabic language have to do with Kazakhstan? Why does this user add just Arabic names, namely to Kazakhstani regons? It's just absurd, I'm confused. P.s. And once again, I in no way want to translate the conversation into a negative tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and JackAtkinson22: I'm not an expert on any of this, but it seems to me that the Arabic names are significant historically. This is an encyclopedia, after all. – Athaenara ✉ 14:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

They are not Arabic names, they are Kazakh names written in Arabic script, and in any case they should not be removed without discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: As I said, I'm not an expert. The point stands. – Athaenara ✉ 14:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I think this is a valid point, which should be taken into account if discussion is really started.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter Athaenara I still say, I did not claim that these are Arabic names. I’m talking specifically about the Arabic script. Today, it is not officially used in Kazakhstan. Therefore, it is not correct to write the names of Kazakhstani regions in Arabic transcription. This is just an insult. Yes, this alphabet was used in the Kazakh Khanate, but today it is a different country. Yes, even if so, the Arabic alphabet was used in the southern regions of the country. And you added the Arabic alphabet to all cities. There has never been a given alphabet in the West. I understand that you are an administrator, and you think that no one can argue with you, but just think about what you are doing. I studied this story, provide it to knowledgeable people. I do not state that you do not know the story, but give at least a chance to other users to express their opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@JackAtkinson22: ANI is not the place to resolve WP:content disputes. If you want to propose we remove names in Arabic script from Kazakhstani place names, start an appropriate centralised discussion somewhere and try to reach WP:Consensus. No one is stopping you from doing so (unless you get blocked for your other behaviour). Just don't go around mass removing the names before you have consensus. And especially don't falsely accuse other editors of vandalism. That is personal attack and needs to stop. This is nothing to do with being an ordinary user or an administrator. An administrator who mass removes stuff without consensus or repeatedly falsely accused others of vandalism is likely to get in trouble as well. Also it's fairly weird to say you've been here for a long time if your account is less than a month old. Did you used to use another account? If so, it might be best if you disclose which account that is unless there is a good reason why you are not doing so. If you are referring to the Russian Wikipedia, then do bear in mind that each Wikipedia has it's own specific norms. Your experience elsewhere may not well inform you about the norms here. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Raymondocarling

User:Raymondocarling persistently adds unsourced and incorrect content to articles despite being told not to. He frequently inserts comments about volcanoes and edits pages about 20th century labor union workers. This has taken place on the articles about John L. Lewis, Samuel Gompers, George Taubman Goldie, Reuben G. Soderstrom, and Mary Harriman Rumsey.

John L. Lewis

• (Diff): Dubious. Unlikely the article subject became president of the Zimbabwe Pirate Society (which does not exist). Information was cited from American Strides in the Early 20th Century by Ian Brook, but neither author or book exists.
• (Diff): Dubious. Comments about volcanoes and a cocaine addiction.
  • Warned for adding incorrect information (diff).
• (Diff): Dubious. After being reverted, user adds comments about volcanoes and cocaine.
  • Warned for hoaxing (diff).
  • User responded on their talk page and mine (diff)
  • I responded on my talk page, telling them their information was unlikely and told them to make sure their information was verifiable by citing it (diff).

On Samuel Gompers

• (Diff): Dubious. Comments about cigar manufacturing and spreading article subject’s religion.
• (Diff): Dubious. Comments about subject’s desire to have his ashes scattered into a volcano, to represent his contribution to cigar manufacturing. Note that user previously made comments about volcanoes.

On Adolph Strasser

• (Diff): Unsourced, but plausible. Reference on the next line was from a different editor. I reverted because these rumours are unencyclopedic, unsourced, not notable, and cannot be verified.
  • User given another warning (diff).
  • User given explanation by Chris troutman (diff)
  • User responds with a vague message of a historian somewhere who may not exist and we cannot track down (diff)
  • User given more explanation (diff)
  • User asked to stop making hoaxes (diff)

On George Taubman Goldie

• (Diff): Edit was reverted by Orenburg1
  • User responds, but this is not really related to content (diff).

On Reuben G. Soderstrom

• (Diff): Comments about volcanoes, again. User’s citation, [136], does not support content given.

On Mary Harriman Rumsey

• (Diff): User cites three sources, but all return error screens and thus probably do not exist. [137] [138] [139]

I have notified User:Raymondocarling on his talk page. ~ Tridwoxi (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Plz block I don't see evidence Raymondocarling is willing to follow simple rules like WP:V and WP:CITE. We've made repeated outreach, to no avail. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indef as a vandalism-only account. That's a very detailed, clear, and organized statement of the problem, Tridwoxi, but (and I really hate to say this because I don't want you to feel discouraged) you could probably have just listed them at WP:AIV as a vandalism-only account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Tridwoxi: Right or wrong forum, a really well documented report like yours doesn't half make life easy for anyone following up. I can imagine how long it took to prepare. Narky Blert (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Category dispute at Stephen F. Austin

Stephen F. Austin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Docktuh has added the category "White supremacists politicians" to the article Stephen F. Austin and several others in violation of WP:CATVER. Neither this article nor the others I examined make the claim that these persons were white supremacist politicians. If this is the case, it is the editor's burden to produce the RS that makes this claim and add it to the article; otherwise, policy is clear that it should not be so categorized. I informed the editor of the policy and asked for the place in the Stephen F. Austin article where the claim is made and backed up by an RS, and the other editor did not respond to the point. The other editor either does not understand the policy or shows no willingness to comply with it. Here is the thread on the talk page: User_talk:Docktuh#Category.

No doubt that similar disputes have arisen on this subject, so I am looking for guidance. Thank you, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

A war of extermination is raging in Texas—a war of barbarism and of despotic principles, waged by the mongrel Spanish-Indian and Negro race, against civilization and the Anglo-American race ... the Anglo-American foundation, this nucleus of republicanism, is to be broken up, and its place supplied by a population of Indians, Mexicans, and renegadoes, all mixed together, and all the natural enemies of white men and civilization ... it is deceiving yourselves and your constituents to believe that the Texas war is not a war of extermination against Anglo-Americans and their principles and interests ... How is this to be done? By exterminating the American population in Texas, and filling that country with Indians and negroes ... I have, in times past, had more kind and charitable feelings for the Mexicans in general, and have been much more faithful to them than they merited ... I am, therefore, for the independence of Texas, and I am so from the soundest principles that move the human heart—those of liberty, justice, humanity, and self-preservation.
— Stephen F. Austin, May 4, 1836

Sounds like a white supremacist to me. Also, he was a slaver (as pointed out at User talk:Docktuh#Categories). In any event, this is a content dispute that should be handled through dispute resolution rather than an ANI report. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Levivich - this is very premature. The editor has responded to your questions and seems willing to discuss. True, they shouldn't have undone your revert and should have started a talk page thread, but we're a long way from 3RR - continue discussing it, ideally on the article talk page so that others can chime in, and seek dispute resolution if you can't agree. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and I'll take your advice about the use of this board and dispute resolution. First of all, I was not denying that Austin was a white supremacist. My claim is that the article itself does not make that assertion, and I stand by that. I should also remind Levivich that there's a Wikipedia policy favoring secondary sources over primary ones, though I must admit that their Austin quote makes a very good case for Austin being a white supremacist in 1836. The point is this judgement was made without consulting any secondary sources. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I’d expect that quote has as much to do with hyperbolic wartime propaganda than it does with simple racism, and I’d suggest that use of “white supremacist” this far before the post-Civil War southern retrenchment is anachronistic. Qwirkle (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Anachronistic? You’re not suggesting that white supremacy is a post-US Civil War thing? Our article White supremacy#History has some good information on that. Q: Who were abolitionists arguing against? A: White supremacists. Q: What do you call a white person who owns a black person? A: A white supremacist. (You kind of have to be, in order to believe that it’s OK for white people to own black people.) But yes, a secondary source should be provided in preference to a primary source, and these things should be worked out on the article talk page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man and User:190.233.207.10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment - Quite frankly I think this treatment of TRM is disgusting and pathetic. You're wasting valuable time trying to drag him through the mud with wild accusations of socking/proxy editing/whatever the hell you want to obfuscate in order to get him penalised. Quite frankly, if it were up to me I'd be tossing Rubin out on his arse already - maybe put it to the community to ban him over this behaviour. You're setting a poor example and it makes prospective editors like myself unwilling to give it a shot if this is what we're going to face. Get out. 86.140.87.97 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Treatment of IPs

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

• [140] is a series of correct but unsourced additions of TV series ending on the date indicated by the IP edit. This is not sensitive BLP material or anything else that needs to be immediately sourced, but material that can be sourced by others or tagged as unsourced if necessary. Still, it lead to a "final warning before a block" warnnig[141]
• [142] a final vandalism warning by Arthur Rubin, for these 3 edits: the edits were not even reverted, and contain no vandalism Ariel Winter is an actress and voice actress, and the two image changes replace other (acceptable) pictures with the pictures actually in the infoboxes of the articles.
• For this edit, the IP got another vandalism warning from Arthur Rubin[143]. The IP added Jay Moloney to the deaths in 1999, on the date 14 November. As the article on Moloney makes clear, he was born on 1 November 1964 and died 16 November 1999, so the IP made an understandable minor error here. But such an addition is not vandalism and should never get a vandalism warning.
• Another vandalism warning by Rubin for this, because the IP editor added images of two people with an entry in the list. Vandalism???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, today, Arthur Rubin is reverting good edits from a non-blocked I editor "per WP:EVADE": [144] (typo correction), [145] (changing an acceptable image to the image actually used in the infobox of the article) [146] (adding a birth entry to 1920, for a person whose death is included in the 1967 article since at least 1 January 2020 and perhaps a lot longer).

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

It looks to me that by doing this, Arthur Rubin is actively making enwiki worse, not better. These are all not major issues, but in each case the IP version was better than the Arthur Rubin version: [147],(why the easter egg on Disney Channel, by the way?), [148], [149] (the end date for the client is right with the IP, and wrong in AR version), a president of Brazil seems important enough to include in a year list, ... Fram (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When are you going to redact and apologise for your unfounded and shameful personal attacks? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes WP:EVADE is listed as a reason, but it clearly does not apply in this case. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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

"I am now checking each of his edits, and will try to revert only those which have errors", and then 40 minyres later you go and revert one where the image you prefer is changed to the image used in the infobox of the article involved[150]. Whether your or their preferred image is better is debatable, but neither is an "error" by any stretch of the meaning, it is a "preference". Fram (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Astonishing

Rubin continues to edit without responding to the multiple requests to redact his accusations of bad faith and direct brightline violations of NPA. Please could someone actually do something about this, or just close this ANI thread down in the understanding that certain editors are entitled to repeatedly attack me with impunity. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I would expect the community to ask for sanctions against an editor who casts unfounded aspersions. As a group we cannot make the editor apologize.... but the reverting, and accusations are a disruption to the project. If someone can propose a sanction for the WP:IDHT editor perhaps we can consider.Lightburst (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: I see the editor has just been blocked Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  I have blocked User:Arthur Rubin from editing the mainspace until he responds properly to issues raised in the sections above. Stephen 22:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think a one-way Iban might be in order. At least it would be a better result than permabanning AR. See: this case has a curious echo from this mammoth ANI thread of nearly two years ago. That also focussed on poor treatment of TRM by AR (the leitmotif of the day was "Request for diffs"), and was also sabotaged by AR refusing to participate further than a couple of opening comments. Yet again, the only way the community was able to encourage AR to join the discussion was the drastic step of community banning him until he responded, and this was noted by ArbCom: Arthur Rubin did not adequately respond to concerns raised by the community was a finding of fact.
  Yet, his failure to respond to questions seems, with hindsight, and in light of the current thread, to be more in the way of an instinctive response than a one-off lapse of judgement. ——SN54129 11:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a ban from edits relating to the filespace? The trouble with one-way ibans involving two such prolific editors is that genuine mistakes can arise so easily and policing the Iban is so laborious.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's not a IBAN that's required. I'm not interested in interacting with Rubin with or without any ban in place. But he must be stopped from making false edit summaries and making personal attacks and unsubstantiated aspersions and edit warring. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban

Arthur Rubin seems to me to be a self-appointed one-man "year page police force". Therefore, to prevent further disruption to these pages, I propose that Arthur Rubin is permanently topic banned from editing all year pages. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's more general than that. It appears to me from Rubin's edits that he literally assumes bad faith from every IP editor. I acknowledge that the majority of his edits are in the "year" pages so I think your fundamentally right to stop it at source on those pages, but sadly then the bad faith could be transferred to other areas that Rubin edits. It's a shame that Rubin has caught ANI-flu after lodging his original bad faith complaint, but it now seems that his indefinite block in the mainspace should just remain in place. Which is a little odd to say the least. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man I think you are likely right as far as it being a broader issue. I've pretty much given up editing any year related Wikipedia page because Arthur Rubin reverts almost every edit that I make. That in and of itself wouldn't be bad (there's nothing wrong with reverting edits that you disagree with) but his overall high handed and imperial approach to interacting with editors in general (not just IPs but also registered users like The Rambling Man) really needs to be curtailed in some way. It doesn't make sense to give one editor -- especially one with a relatively weak grasp of policy and a lack of interest in consensus-based editing -- such broad carte blanche over such a wide swathe of article. He's apparently gotten other editors blocked using misleading edit summaries and inappropriate warning templates in the past. Why is that OK? Michepman (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support I support a TBAN. The editor, Arthur Rubin has been blocked since March 11. They do not present a defense or an apology and the concerning behavior has been going on for a long time...the behavior a disruption to the project. Lightburst (talk) 01:10, 19 March 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.

Weboflight

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 blocked Weboflight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a Scientology-promoting WP:SPA. My review of xyr edits indicates that xe is not here to improve the encyclopaedia, but rather to buff up the encyclopaedia's reflection of Scientology and Hubbard. If others think this is unnecessarily harsh, feel free to unblock. This was a "gut feel" block as much as anything. Guy (help!) 22:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking it may be a bit harsh. They clearly have an interest, but I'm not seeing their edits as being particularly problematic. For instance this edit is them asking for a citation for something that's a core tenet of Scientology. Doesn't strike me as an edit someone trying to promote Scientology would do. Canterbury Tail talk 22:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

And this series of edits, if they were promotional or pro-Scientology I'd expect them to try and delete those sections, not make valid tidying up edits. I think they'll probably a reasonable editor, but my opinion. Canterbury Tail talk 22:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have as much respect for JzG's gut as the next person, but I think it's led him astray here. Can anyone point to any problematic edits in the past 3 years? I see one edit that *might* have a *minor* POV tinge last October. Might. Everything else seems helpful to me. People are allowed to have interests. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  Yup, I think this is just a focused editor. Non-promotional, doesn't seem to be trying to whitewash or cover up anything. And now they're asking for an unblock. I honestly don't see a reason to block this editor. Your instincts to ask for another opinion I think are right here. Total respect for your edits normally, but his one I don't agree with. Canterbury Tail talk 23:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, this is why I posted for review. I am absolutely prepared to be wrong here. It looks fishy, but I have heightened Spidey-senses about Scientology. Guy (help!) 23:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'm going to unblock in an hour or two unless someone really objects; my instinct is to unblock right now, but I admit I'm not as familar with Scientology-based POV pushing as Guy and Grayfell, so I'll wait a little to be talked out of it. While I understand the desire to short circuit potential pro-Scientology POV pushing, I don't think we can just assume that someone making legit gnomish edits to Scientology-based articles is such a person just because past pro-Scientology POV pushers also started out making legit gnomish edits to Scientology-based articles. If such users typically shift to more problematic edits, I don't have much of a problem being more proactive with them than normal once the problematic edits start. But blocking before any problematic edits even start seems a bridge too far. I'm not saying Guy and Grayfell's intuitions are wrong, just that this seems way to early, and prone to too many false positives. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  I've unblocked them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, thank you. Guy (help!) 21:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• I gave Weboflight a welcome template a few months ago. While that editor has been superficially productive, they follow the same pattern as various pro-Scientology sock accounts (the one that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsnag12, but there are some others, also). I think meat puppetry might be plausible, also, as technically unrelated accounts seem to follow a shared guide or similar. The pattern is to make gnome edits to random articles, usually with enough specific idiosyncrasies to make it unlikely to be a coincidence, then wait a while, then expanding Scientology articles with boring minutia to drown-out critical content. Straight-up removing critical content is rare, but on balance, the goal is clearly to tip the balance in favor of Scientology. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  Grayfell, that was my thought, but I trust Floq's judgment. Guy (help!) 21:17, 17 March 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:Hyrdlak edit-warring with WP:SYNTH/WP:OR commentary on Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study

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.

---

• Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hyrdlak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article in dispute is about a institute which was "created from the holdings of the Krupp family upon the death of Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach." Krupp was a wealthy German industrialist who served three years in prison for crimes against humanity in World War 2.

User:Hyrdrlak has edit-warring against several editors (myself, User:Objective3000, and User:DGG), insisting that a section on the institute created after his death have a section titled History and Holocaust denial, despite there being no sources to suggest that the institute is involved with or promotes Holocaust denial. The article about Krupp already details his WW2 activities and subsequent conviction for those actions; it's clear WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to accuse the institute of denialism simply by virtue of it not prominently mentioning Krupp's activities and conviction on it's website; this is a case of trying to use Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Attempts were made to resolve this on the article's talk page; Hyrdlak has been notified. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the entry, and happy to be in such good company. This is a slow-motion edit-war. But, it's worse because it makes an accusation of Holocaust denial, an egregious accusation that trivializes actual Holocaust denial. (Getting tired of saying this) In addition to RGW, SYN, OR; violations include WP:AGF WP:CONSENSUS WP:EW WP:IDHT, WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE -- that is, a general inability to discuss. O3000 (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Pretty straightforward violations across the board, as O3000 says. Blocking 36h for disruptive editing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:36, 17 March 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.

Resumption of sockpuppeteer activity

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.

---

Having noticed the resumption of activity by an indeffed sockpuppeteer, by IP User:92.13.79.121, I lodged an investigation case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cassandrathesceptic, but was disappointed to see that it is to be closed, per "IP edits too old". I'm most grateful to @JzG: for blocking the new activity. He has requested that I highlight it here for further review.

I'll point out the two most glaring examples, each being a post by the recent IP which effectively paraphrases an old post, raising the very same points and quoting the same passage from each article in question, verbatim: cf this with this,and this with the initial post here.

Would you agree? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The investigation has since been archived: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cassandrathesceptic/Archive. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:11, 17 March 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 of others' comment

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:CaradhrasAiguo edited another user's comment on a talk page in bad faith. The user has a history of doing so. [151] Please block this user. Ythlev (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ythlev, have you attempted to discuss this with the user? creffett (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

In the previous case, I have informed the user that it is inappropriate. The user continues such behaviour. Ythlev (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Your only contribution on my talk page was the notice of this thread. Eight unique users have since edited the pandemic page, at least two of them admins; none of them apparently view that I had inappropriately re-factored the IP's comments. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You have not only caused the community to engage in massive threads (wasting the community's time) two occasions with your disruption, on the first you even socked your way out of scrutiny (see remarks added by Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold at 01:47 UTC 31 Jan 2019, as that revision is hidden). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo Why hadn't someone requested a Check User to check if Ythlev was socking or not back then? I do not think we would be talking about this issue right now if someone had. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• There seems to be a history between these two users here that I'm not going to research or comment on. But in this specific instance, CaradhrasAiguo was reverting a bigoted fool (whom I have now blocked for a month). They were the original source for the "Unfortunate that it is not 30,000 in the favelas" section title I just removed, and the section CA removed was the IP babbling about how several groups who aren't white are dirty and at fault. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Is that something any user is allowed to do or only administrators? How is it determined if one is a bigoted fool? Ythlev (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You use your common sense, Ythlev. And, no, every editor is allowed —nay, encouraged— to remove anything of the sort. El_C 16:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright then. I withdraw. Ythlev (talk) 16:50, 17 March 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.

179.50.174.57 and persistent BLPCRIME violations

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:BLPCRIME reads A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. 179.50.174.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was specifically informed of this by me here and requested not to change figures on articles based on speculation or other things that are not actual convictions.

Since that warning they have violated this numerous times.

• [152] Changes Robert Pickton from 6 to 49 confirmed victims. The second paragraph of the lede says During the trial's first day of jury evidence, the Crown stated that Pickton had confessed to 49 murders to an undercover agent from the Office of Inspector General, who was posing as a cellmate, but it says in the first paragraph was convicted in 2007 of the second-degree murders of six women. So it's completely irrelevant how many people the Crown claim he killed during the trial, he was convicted of 6 murders not 49.
• [153] Changes Joseph E. Duncan III from 5 to 7 confirmed victims. The article says he's only been convicted of 5 murders.
• [154] Changes Joel Rifkin from 9 to 17 convictions. This is completely incorrect, he's been convicted of 9 and is suspected of a further 8 to make a total of 17.
• [155] Changes Lowell Amos from 1 to 4 confirmed victims, when he's only been convicted of 1 murder. They have made this change before, see 03:16, 8 March 2020 which prompted my warning and message. Based on the Costa Rican IP it's safe to assume they are also this editor from 20:45, 8 January 2020
• [156] Changes Niels Högel from 85 to 106 confirmed victims. While an investigation may have said he was responsible for 106, he was only convicted of 85.

Other problematic edits.

• [157] Changes John Floyd Thomas Jr. to claim "suspect to be 100 or 200", there's nothing in the article about this, so it's a completely unsourced claim that someone is suspected of 100-200 murders
• At David Parker Ray various Costa Rican IPs who are obviously the same editor have been involved in a lengthy edit war over the infobox. As he isn't living or recently deceased BLPCRIME doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean they get to constantly introduce factual errors into the article. He was never convicted of murder, yet despite this we have the following.
  • 23:39, 25 November 2019 Changes infobox to "3 murder convictions"
  • 03:21, 27 November 2019 Changes infobox to "3 murder convictions"
  • 17:08, 30 November 2019 Changes infobox to "3 murder convictions"
  • 18:02, 28 December 2019 Changes infobox to "3 murder convictions"
  • 23:25, 9 January 2020 Changes infobox to "3 murder convictions"
  • 23:44, 13 January 2020 Changes infobox to "3 murder convictions"
  • 05:29, 25 January 2020 Changes infobox to "3 murder convictions"
  • 23:29, 9 February 2020 Changes infobox to "3 murder convictions"
  • 21:28, 11 February 2020 Changes infobox from "0 murder convictions, possibly up to 60 killed" to "3 confirmed, possibly up to 60 killed or even more than 100". While avoiding the "3 murder convictions" blatant error it's still highly misleading
  • 22:23, 16 February 2020 Changes infobox from "0 murder convictions, possibly up to 60 killed" to "3 confirmed, possibly up to 60 killed or even more than 100"
  • 18:29, 22 February 2020 Back to changing infobox to "3 murder convictions"
  • 02:22, 26 February 2020 And back to the 11/16 February change
  • 00:00, 28 February 2020 And back to changing infobox to "3 murder convictions"
  • 23:32, 4 March 2020 And back to "3 confirmed, possibly 60 total killed"
  • 17:43, 17 March 2020 Changes infobox from "Unknown, 0 murder convictions, 60+ murders suspected, 3 tortured" to "3 confirmed, suspect to be more than 60 murders or even more than 100 or 200 murders, 3 torture and survived"
  • 19:42, 17 March 2020 Changes infobox from "Unknown, 0 murder convictions, 60+ murders suspected, 3 tortured " to "3 murder convictions, more than 60 murders suspected, 3 tortured and survived"
• They have received multiple talk page messages about this article here by a very frustrated @YatesTucker00090:. They refuse to communicate with anyone about their edits.

Although they have used various IPs the current one has been used since late January, so perhaps a lengthy block, if deemed appropriate, could be applied please? Rising5554 (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Blocked three months. The IP is being used at es.wiki so they may have the same problem.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:49, 18 March 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.

Multiple IBAN violations by U1Quattro

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.

---

U1Quattro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User U1Quattro violated IBAN multipe times in the past and is still violating the community imposed restrictions. Here are some diffs to prove my point:
Special:Diff/914766061 (my contribution) 07:55, 9 September 2019
Special:Diff/914981744 14:28, 10 September 2019
This one may be seen as a genuine improvement
Special:Diff/921006053 (my contribution) 08:03, 13 October 2019
Special:Diff/927267954 10:38, 21 November 2019
But this is no improvement at all. It was the most recent contribution and clearly summarised as "100,00th" and I see no excuse for it.
Special:Diff/925947216 (my contribution) 09:00, 13 November 2019
Special:Diff/927766491 17:21, 24 November 2019
And persistently after I restored my contribution to it’s original form.
Special:Diff/927931242 18:28, 25 November 2019

Special:Diff/605363095 (my contribution)
Special:Diff/928008006
Special:Diff/605617467 (my contribution)
Special:Diff/928003674
Special:Diff/676656268 (my contribution)
Special:Diff/928039858 (user removed my content as unsourced, then added a source that actually verified my content. Quote from the source: "Maserati called the second upgrade and redesign their nuovolook." Either it was done on purpose or He didn't read the source at all.)

The Maserati MC20 article up to this point was 100% written by me, so You'd think the banned-from-interaction-user would not mess about with it? The additions to the article are allowed and welcomed of course but not removal of text by other means. No diffs from my part are needed as up to 10:30, 7 March 2020 all contibutions were from the same user. If needed I'll provide them.
Special:Diff/946019506
Special:Diff/946020054
Special:Diff/946020917

And this is an outright and very clear IBAN violation by revertion of my contribution of adding a picture to the article. For no apparent reason other than misundestanding of the rules the user thinks that adding content is an IBAN violation!?
Special:Diff/945036496 (my contribution of adding a picture)
Special:Diff/946138335
Some of the issues I tried to discuss with an administrator: User talk:GoldenRing/Archive 8#IBAN query, but there was no reply. I have provided 11 (eleven) instances of IBAN violation by U!Quattro since the last time. YBSOne (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: Banning policy:

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

-edit each other's user and user talk pages;

-reply to each other in discussions;

-make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;

-undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;

-use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

Seeing that, I did not violate the IBAN. Nothing, absolutely nothing is written in the interaction ban section about modifying content added by another user. However, this user violated the IBAN today in which he undid the edits I made on the Maserati MC20 page. GoldenRing didn't respond to him because he basically made a fool out of himself by misinterpreting the IBAN policy. A quick glance at WP:OWN indicates that this user is in violation of this policy and is basically saying "I own this content, don't touch it." U¹ _quattro TALK 10:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means read this again, slowly. You cannot reword my contributions because it is equal to deleting some of the text added, and by comunity rules and restrictions You are not allowed to do so, neither am I. Calling me a fool is a personal attack. This diff is a proof that I do not own any article: Special:Diff/946021106, this contribution was not reverted beause I cannot revert is under IBAN and I do not want to revert it as I do not own this article and any user is free to add to it and any user exept You is free to change my contributions. YBSOne (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"Modfying" is not in the same nature as "reverting" or even "undoing". No reverts were carried out by me. This user is interpreting the policy in the wrong way. Statements like You are not allowed to interact with my contributions in any way are a proof of violation of WP:OWN. No restriction is imposed in case of an IBAN by the community that a user is not allowed to modify the content added by a user wuth which an IBAn restriction is imposed.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Administration told You muliple times in the past, do not act surprised. Special:Diff/905956531 You said You would stick to the community restrictions and here we are again. YBSOne (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"You are not allowed to interact with my contributions in any way" Let me reword it as it was intended: "You are not allowed by community restrictions to interact with my contributions in any way and so am I". I do not own any article on Wikipedia. YBSOne (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I was involved in an edit revert. I'm pretty confident that in this case, this user is violated the IBAN first on the Maserati MC20 page. It was decided last time that the first one to break the IBAN would be blocked indefinitely by GoldenRing.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine, here You go: Special:Diff/928008006 and Special:Diff/928003674, clear enough? Time stamps preceding? Do not have to use the revert function to violate IBAN. Any text added by me and removed by any means by a banned user is an interaction and a violation of an interaction ban. No more comments from my part. YBSOne (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

No Wikipedia policy or rule states anything about removal. A revert would have counted if I restored the revision to this, which I did not. I have copied the exact rules from the banning policy.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The iban policy should be read in whole not just in part. It says

A one-way interaction ban forbids one user from interacting with another user. A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other. Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.

Editors editing the same page is always a tricky area. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to work out who wrote something 4 years ago. (Of course, if the editor does know for some reason who wrote it, that's more tricky.)

However editing the same article about a day later to specifically reword something someone wrote is clearly not "avoiding each other" and editors should are expected to take care and pay attention so it doesn't happen. Doing so creates problems because it effectively means that the editor making the changes to the earlier editor's edits run the risk of violating their iban my explaining their changes. It is likely in part any explanation is addressed at the editor's who's edits they changed.

In addition, it means that the editor who made the second edits has a sort of veto because the first editor cannot actually revert to their version and can't even discuss why they feel it was unhelpful. Even if you argue technically they can change them in some way, ultimately you're going to get into unnecessary semantic arguments about what an "undo" is. (I'm sure these happen especially when 1RR or 0RR is in play.) And all this has to happen without the editor's talking to each other, which is not desirable in general.

I'm not aware of the history of the iban policy. But I suspect it was worded the way it is to avoid silliness from arguments that one editor technically originated the changes 4 years ago and now maybe after many re-writes, the second editor has modified them; while giving some recognition of the problems of editors editing the same articles.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, and this is directed equally at you both: If you believe an editor has violated their 2 way iban, do not undo their edit as an iban violation. Instead, bring it to the attention of an admin. An iban violation by someone else does not allow you to violate your iban. I think WP:BANEX is clear enough on this. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/GoldenRing has not edited since October. Subscribing any reason other than GoldenRing having gone inactive for them not replying to a question (in November) makes no sense. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I just improved the Maserati MC20 page. The banning policy doesn't state anything about modifying content added by a user under IBAN. It just states not to undo any edits, which I did not. I don't know who added that content I removed on the Maserati Ghibli and Maserati Quattroporte pages respectively and neither the banning policy expects me to do that. About latest content, I have an idea about which user added it. But for some content years ago, I don't have a clue. I don't have access at all times to some tools so I can review which user added what content of an article. This user has however, highlighted diff history by using words my contribution which is a violation of WP:OWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U1Quattro (talk • contribs) 12:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not exert any ownership over Ferrari Roma page when this user began editing it ans modifying content added by me. Yet this user gets offended when I modify content on the Maserati MC20 page.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Show diff of me modifying content added by You to Ferrari Roma. Modifying means removing and replacing, not just adding, or elso this is an empty accusation and fabrication. I'm not offended I'm stating that You violated the rules. Yes I did the same. I tried to restore my original contribution so we don't end up here. Your contributions to Maserati MC20 article apart for one are marked in red under bytes added because You removed more than You added. If You removed the content from an article written in 100% by me, You removed content added by me. And this falls under undoing an edit by other means, as rules state. YBSOne (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You are gaming the system WP:GAMING by quoting random policies not related to the topic. Using the term "my contribution" to differentiate the diffs between contributing users is not owning an article on Wikipedia. YBSOne (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne July 2019. "Not bothering to check because it is too much work is not an excuse, any more then not being aware of the speed limit justifies speeding.", "An accidental violation is still a violation (and that is assuming your claim is true)." Interactions reffered to content removal AND modifications. YBSOne (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

And earlier June 2019, "Note an IBAN means no interaction of any kind". YBSOne (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You are bending the Banning policy in your favour. Please read the policies then comment. The policies I mentioned are relevant to this topic. Ferrari Roma was created by me. Content was moved to a redirect and this user then modified the content. I didn't bicker about IBAN violation at that time. Yet when I modify content, this user labels it as IBAN violation.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall this conflict has been dragging on since last year. It obvious that its not going to end until; both users cannot poke each other. I suggest a TBAN for both users relating to cars.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven is correct. These content disputes and ownership disputes have been ongoing. A TBAN for both sounds like a good idea tostop this constant disruption to the project. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This conflict is based on wrong interpretation of the IBAN and undue expectations from me to search years old history of articles before editing them. This user thinks that modifying content is a violation of an IBAN when it doesn't fall into the nature of reverting/undoing an edit. I'm pretty much fed up with how things have gone ever since this IBAN has been put into place. Everytime I edit an article, it is termed as IBAN violation. The IBAN has seemed to given this user a liberty to own the content which this user adds. It is time that Do's and don'ts of IBAN are clearly explained so this conflict comes to an end.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

And the last time you were here over an IBAN violation [[158]] it was made clear that it does not matter how old an edit it is, its down to you to make sure you are not violating the IBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This conflict is based on wrong interpretation of the IBAN and undue expectations from me to search years old history of articles before editing them. This user thinks that modifying content is a violation of an IBAN when it doesn't fall into the nature of reverting/undoing an edit. I'm pretty much fed up with how things have gone ever since this IBAN has been put into place. Everytime I edit an article, it is termed as IBAN violation. The IBAN has seemed to given this user a liberty to own the content which this user adds. It is time that Do's and don'ts of IBAN are clearly explained so this conflict comes to an end. I pretty much improved what was a poorly written article about an upcoming car and this user gave comments like You are not allowed to interact with my contributions in any way. I haven't seen any administrator make such a statement ever since this conflict took place that I'm not allowed to modify content added by this user. I have ensured maximum compliance with the IBAN by not reverting things added by this user, yet this user terms every single thing done by me as an IBAN violation, follows each and everything I do on this site and complains that to an admin. What this user did on GoldenRing's talk page is an example of this.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You have accused me of modifying Your contributions to the Ferrari Roma article and still You have failed to provide any proofs. You cannot falsely accuse users, contrary to what You think. You are not the victim here, the community that instituted the rules and restrictions is. YBSOne (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

My reach for an administrator's intervention was so You wouldn't be permanently blocked. But here we are again. YBSOne (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The rules and restrictions are not clearly defined. Hence the wrong interpretation that keeps coming. I have provided the relevant diff. HJUdall moved the content in this diff and then this user modified it here, and here.U¹ _quattro TALK 15:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You were meant to show the diffs of modifications not of addition of content. What did I delete of Your contribution? I added content as I am allowed to. Or is it that I added it to the article that You own? YBSOne (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Addition of content counts as modification. I said content was modified, not deleted. Addition counts as modification. Its useless arguing here about that. No further comments from my side unless other users state their opinion.U¹ _quattro TALK 15:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Both users blocked for 1 month for continuation of a feud and violation of interaction ban. We may need to indef block these two, which would be a shame since they both seem pretty productive. But both seem more interested in fighting and getting the other banned than in finding a way to coexist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 18 March 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.

Being harassed by editors

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.

---

Ok so this guy GreenMeansGo thinks he can remove any link he wants and if you complain and ask why he sends comments like "I'm the guy who just reverted every link you've ever added, and if you add any more links to these garbage Morton Technologies LLC..." when I'm trying to find out why. Wikipedia is FULL of links to websites like ours. I see them in bunches. We spend a lot of time on our content, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with our sites. If you're removing our links as "SPAM" you better be prepared to remove every single 3rd party website out there. This is crazy.

When you ask this "editor" why he removes links, you get replies like this: "Well, what I was considering, though I'm not sure how feasible it might be, is whether we could have a blacklist entry for any site that contains the string Morton Technologies LLC regardless of the domain."

Then another editor MarnetteD has started to send in additional harrasments and he wasn't even involved.

These are other messages he's left for others:

- That wasn't a threat; it was a warning, and one you should probably take seriously. You been edit warring on that article for weeks now and you're liable to be blocked for it.

- I foresee this going well for them. (posted when someone complains about his abuse, which implies he can do as he wishes with impunity) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GolfEditorUSA (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is another comment from GreenMeansGo, these are the kinds of comments he uses to try and tell everyone that can do whatever he likes and will face no scrutiny:

"Let me help. Click here and fill out the box. Don't forget to sign your post with four tildes like this: GolfEditorUSA (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC). Then press the button that says "publish changes". Someone will attend to your complaint shortly."

GolfEditorUSA (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I foresee this going well for them. was the response to your Ok tough guy, I will undo every change you ever made. Fucking idiot. I foresee this going well for you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Acutally no Elidaee, this was a reply to another user, looks like his standard reply, to anyone that dares challenge him:

"There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Warning a user. Amaury • 17:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I foresee this going well for them. GMGtalk 17:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)" GolfEditorUSA (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the thank you we got from the Arkansas page for providing information for Arkansas Coronavirus. So they thought it was fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Arkansas&oldid=prev&diff=946197846 GolfEditorUSA (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Multiple people have warned you to stop doing this because we have a number of policies regarding spam, such as WP:EL and WP:SPAM (not to mention WP:COI). If you keep canvassing your website all over the place, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you please show me warnings? What warnings? GolfEditorUSA (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The warnings on your user talk page that you responded to. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

These are warnings to stop spamming. You won't get any further warnings. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That's ONE warning, not multiple warnings. I got the warning, and I stopped adding links. But this harassment must stop. GolfEditorUSA (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I noticed the edits I made to the case counts at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Alabama WERE NOT reverted. Why? Why not revert everything? GolfEditorUSA (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This community of "editors" needs to get a grip. Not only were we adding links to specific STATE PAGES (totally relevant to the topics) with up-to-date Coronavirus information for THAT STATE (which is what the article is about!) we were starting to UPDATE the case stats on WIKIPEDIA and LINKING BACK TO WIKIPEDIA FROM OUR PAGES!!!! What are you people thinking? GolfEditorUSA (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

ummm this is Just a Friendly tip ... Withdrew this and say your sorry to everyone or you might get blocked Jena (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Zero chance. I'm not putting up with some petulant child calling our websites "garbage" - we spend a great deal of time creating content, our sites are not garbage, opinions here notwithstanding. GolfEditorUSA (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GolfEditorUSA (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@GolfEditorUSA: - I can barely make sense of what this kerfuffle is about, but (1) are you connected to CoronavirusUSAMap dot com and (2) are you being paid to add these links? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Boomerang incoming. SITH (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not, I'm not getting paid to do anything. Yes I own the website in question CoronavirusUSAMap and yes I was adding links from each state page back to our state statistics. I got a warning to stop, so I stopped. And asked why? And I get this reply: "I'm the guy who just reverted every link you've ever added, and if you add any more links to these garbage Morton Technologies LLC..." - does Wikipedia really want editors making defamatory and libelous statements like this? This is not right. Sorry but it's not. GolfEditorUSA (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry GMG was rude and insulted your website(s). The statements were not defamatory or libelous though, just insulting (also see WP:NLT). However, given that you own the website, you clearly have a WP:COI and should edit on topics with great caution. It would be best to request an edit on the article's talk page and see what non-COI editors think. The main issue is, from Wikipedia's view, that you benefit financially from ads from the website(s) you are linking to. As such, other editors should be the ones making the call whether or not to add these links and to determine if they conform to WP:EL. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Good enough, I can accept that. No problem, but maybe editors can act more professional? Because in fact calling my websites "garbage" in a public forum like this absolutely meets the standards of defamatory and libelous. GolfEditorUSA (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't get it, I revert vandalism daily which includes new users that are reported at AIV then blocked for continuously spamming/adding personal or company websites despite receiving warnings not to. For some reason though, ANI takes its sweet damn time in taking action on something that's so obviously disruptive. Jerm (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• I see no basis for the non-admin closure. I've indeffed GolfEditorUSA for a multitude of reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 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.

Anti-Semitic comment

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.

---

As part of a diva quit, following an ongoing edit war, You've gone incognito posted a retirement notice with the utterly unacceptable comment "Fuck xxx as well as this site and its admins" (which I have removed). For this alone he deserves an indef block, possibly with removal of talk page access. – SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment that is a rather WP:POLEMIC parting statement. Because it appears on the editor's user page and is not addressed to anyone in particular, so I am unsure how this should be addressed. Lightburst (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC) I see that the statement has been scrubbed by an oversighter. Lightburst (talk) 21:45, 18 March 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/BLP issues at Rafael Rodríguez Mercado

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.

---

Mostly over Puerto Rico's handling of the pandemic. Looks like a concerted whitewash here by COI accounts. Page protection may be an option. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

With no objection to page protection, and without reinstating the material myself, I have blocked the disruption-only account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:34, 19 March 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.

Tagging concerns

I am quite concerned with the fact that the image File:Mrs Right and Mrs Wrong - Sylvia Ashby.png has been tagged as not illustrating critical commentary. The article Sylvia Rose Ashby in fact goes into the whole "Mrs. Right vs Mrs. Wrong" in great detail. I was concerned enough to review the history of the person doing the tagging, User:JJMC89 and noticed at least four images he tagged out of process. Can someone please review the taggings by this editor? I appreciate that tagging fair use is important, but the person needs to at least show that they read the article itself before they make a claim like "Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding". The history shows itself as merely "F7", which means very little to the one who did the upload. I also provided a fair use rationale. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I have advised him of my concerns User talk:JJMC89#Concerns with your tagging but given the sheer volume of tagging that he is doing I feel that this needs to be reviewed at an admin level. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note that he has removed my notification. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Chris.sherlock: I get that you're frustrated that a file you uploaded was tagged for deletion, but you need to be careful of WP:POINT in going around and removing other speedy deletions notices from files unless you truly believe that the tagging was done in error and not just because the file was tagged by JJMC89. Three of the files (File:Scott Pilgrim the Videogame Soundtrack.jpg, File:The black hammer.gif and File:Empty albrook mall due to coronavirs fears.jpg whose tagging you've challenged actually seem to have been appropriately tagged by JJMC89 as clear-cut violations of WP:NFCCP (the photo of the empty mall in particular seems to completely fail WP:FREER). Some of the other files you challenged might not be as clear cut, but I don't think their tagging was done in bad faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing pointy about it. I didn’t in any way remove every tagged CSD, none of them were done in bad faith and every one of them was challenged on the talk page with a detailed explanation. In fact, some of the tagging I agreed with so I didn’t touch them. I would appreciate some assumption of good faith here. I think there is nothing wrong with me looking at the tagging he did and disputing some of it. I followed the procedure and some of them are going to files for deletion, which is fair. Quite a few of them are not though.

The images of the soundtracks looked to me like they didn’t clearly fail NFCC#8, unfortunately I wasn’t aware of the guidelines around movie soundtrack images - possibly this was pure ignorance but not helped by the act it wasn’t mentioned by the nominator for CSD. If I made an error there then I apologise. The mall photo was not tagged under WP:FREER, but nominated because it didn’t improve the subject matter (NFCC#8) so this just underscores my point about tagging correctly. Not, by the way, that I actually think that - I don’t encourage anyone to go around taking potentially risky photos that might get them infected so I dispute that rationale anyway, and would do so had that be made - but of course it wasn’t so it’s a moot point. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I didn’t ever talk about bad faith. I am concerned that he may be working too quickly to get through a backlog and is making some egregious mistakes. In fact, I did message him in good faith, he told me I just don’t understand the policy (believe me, I do - I’m the guy who removed a huge number of Time covers for bad fair use reasoning many years ago) and I’m not in any way hugely new to the criteria. But if you look at the rate he tagged those articles, he was tagging them sometimes within seconds via Twinkle. There is no way that I believe he read even half those articles. This means that people who upload acceptable fair use images have been caught in the crossfire and given I spent a lotof time researching, referencing and judiciously picking relevant and informative images it is indeed frustrating to see someone misuse twinkle to have completely valid images deleted. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith on your part and only suggested that care be made not to be "POINTY" partly based upon someone posting about this being a possible "abuse of power" by JJMC89 on his user talk page; so, I apologize if my post seem to imply something else. FWIW, the mall photo was tagged with two deletion templates ({{di-fails NFCC}} and {{Di-replaceable fair use}}), and the wording "it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information" in the one of the templates has to do with WP:NFCC#1. Even if FREER wasn't an issue, this photo would, at least in my opinion, also fail WP:NFCC#8 as well since there's no content at all in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Socio-economic impact that requires that this particular image of this particular mall be seen the reader to be understood. For reference, Only one of the ten non-free content use criteria needs to not be met for a non-free use to be considered non-WP:NFCC compliant and the fact that the mall photo clearly seems to fail two of the ten indicates, at least to me, the the tagging was appropriate and not a misuse of Twinkle.

As for Quite a few of them are not though comment in reference to some of the file's JJMC89 being subsequently nominated for further discussion at FFD, that doesn't mean the uses of those which have already ended up at FFD are NFCC compliant and that they won't end up at FFD since JJMC89 or any another editor could nominate them for further discussion if they still feel their respective non-free uses are not policy compliant in some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it was an abuse of power. I feel I need to point out that I never removed the other tag from the mall photo. And I have no problems with them going to FFD. In fact, a lot of them should have been put through FFD and not been tagged as CSD, as they were quite controversial. It looks very much like to me he got a list of files uploaded from a particular date and just started tagging them quickly. Have a look at the logs for his tagging and you'll see that many of them were done within a minute, some even in seconds, of each other. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

A file can be removed per WP:BOLD, prodded for deletion per WP:PROD or tagged for CSD in good faith by any editor. It only becomes contentious when another editor re-adds the file, WP:DEPRODs the file, or challenges the speedy deletion tag. Until those things happen, there's no way to state that the remover, prodder, or tagger should've known better no matter how fast they're editing. Some editors use bots or scripts to quickly revert vandalism, remove unsourced content or make other edits that they think are beneficial to Wikipedia and it's only when such edits are challenged that they are considered contentious. JJMC89's tagging of files are all subject to administrator review and the files would only be deleted after seven days if another administrator reviews the tag and concurs with it. So, unless you stating that JJMC89 is re-removing, re-prodding, re-tagging files after their original removal, prodding or tagging has been challenged, or even worse that he's somehow deleting the file' he's tagging himself without allowing the possibility for any further discussion, then I'm not sure how quickly he's working is relevant. Being "too quick" seems to be sort of a WP:CIR type of argument. Is that what you're arguing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you have not understood my argument. I don't mind fast work, I've done it myself. I actually did it a few times when I was an admin and I started clearing backlogs. What I am saying is that it is evidence of sloppy and rushed work.

Let's look at this. I removed the tag. He reverted it and put it back. How, out of interest, am I meant to be defending my decision to upload the photo? I have now done the only reasonable option left to me, I have listed it on FFD. What I am arguing is that there is no way that he could argue that my image didn't meet the test for countering NFCC#8. I literally wrote an entire, researched, paragraph about the photo. Without the photo present, it suddenly becomes much harder to know what I was talking about. Only someone who actually read the article would have known this, and he clearly did not read the article or he would not have removed it.

The text is from Sylvia Rose Ashby#Formation_of_the_Ashby_Research_Service something I agonized over for at least a week. The text is:

Ashby's methodology was to mainly employ women who she believed were better and more conscientious investigators than men, were "much more patient with other women" and further felt that "women will talk to another woman more freely".[15] She preferred unmarried women however, as she believed that "a single woman is better able to concentrate solely upon the problem on hand [and] she has no home worries to distract her [and] she has more time to keep herself physically fit". Ashby essentially believed that unmarried women had "a singleness of purpose denied to the married woman".[16] She found focused interviews made directly to housewives the most effective approach to market research. In a later interview with Australian Women's Weekly, she showed two small wooden, jointed mannequins – one showing "Mrs. Right" and the other "Mrs. Wrong". Mrs. Right, she explained, "is erect, relaxed; the left arm (holding her bag and papers) is slightly to the rear; the right arm is forward; the head is slightly tilted – she is the epitome of confidence." Mrs. Wrong, however, "is a bundle of nerves; head downcast, bag clutched to her – the epitome of apologetic timidity." Those who displayed a lack of appropriate deportment, she maintained, would cause suspicion and sometimes hostility, and the interviewee would be unresponsive to questioning, leading to poor survey results.[17]

I am not the only one who thinks the tagging was done wrongly, on the image talk page someone else agreed. I'm also curious - when did it become the sole domain of administrators to make decisions on whether a CSD is valid or not? Something must have changed and nobody has documented things, because I see nothing in the policy or guideline that states this.

So what I'm saying is, based on his action in tagging the image, I checked to see how he could not have seen such an obvious paragraph in the article. The log shows that he literally went through all the fair use images uploaded for that day and within minutes started tagging them. In fact, he tagged them with the same text, and even you saw that a few of the tags were quite iffy. I think I can extrapolate that he is not carefully reading the articles before he tags them. This then becomes a numbers game, on most he will be correct, but on others he will not be and then the onus is on the uploader who added the image in good faith and for the right reasons. And that, I'm afraid, is really unacceptable, because the uploader has no way of objecting effectively. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what tag you're referring to but if you look at WP:CSD it states in bold "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag"; so, if you removed a tag from a file you uploaded that might be why it was re-added. Another editor may remove the tag in good faith and if they do it would be a good idea to explain why on the file's talk page. You can challenge the tag by following whatever instructions are given in the template and posting on the file's talk page and the administrator reviewing the tag should check the talk page before deciding whether to delete the file. If the administrator feels that further discussion should take place, they will suggest FFD or even start the FFD themselves. If not, they may just delete the file, but even in that case you can ask for further clarification on their user talk page.

FWIW, I've never said that any of the tags were quite iffy; I posted some might not be as clear cut, but that doesn't mean I disagree with them or think they were done in haste without the reading of any articles. It'ss possible I guess that some of the files were reviewed previously by JJMC89, and those which he felt had non-compliance issues were set aside to be dealt with together at a later time. Only he, however, can clarify the process he uses so it serves me no purpose to try and speculate on his motivation. Is it possible that some files that were tagged should be discussed further? Yes. Does that mean it was disruptive or an abuse of something to tag them for speedy deletion? No, I don't think so.

Finally, You challengedthe use of a file JJMC89 tagged at File talk:Empty albrook mall due to coronavirs fears.jpg. After reading your post, one might assume that your didn't really read 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Socio-economic impact or might not have a good understanding of WP:FREER or WP:NFC#CS because there's nothing in that particular section that would justify the non-free use of any image yet alone one of empty mall in Panama that's not mentioned anywhere in the section. Every other image (and they're quite a lot) used in that article is freely licensed, but a non-free one about an empty mall that's not mentioned anywhere in the article is justified according to what you posted on the file's talk page and in the edit summary you lef when removing the tagt. I'm not trying to belittle you in anyway, but just point out that your assessment as to what's NFCC compliant might not necessarily be better than JJMC89's, at least not with respect to that file in whichwhere you did removed the speedy deletion tag. That's why an administrator is usually the best person to review and assess speedy deletion tags like this and the ones who tend to do so have lots of experience dealing with files and usually figure out the best thing to do. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly for some minor copyediting and other cleanup; Anything added is underlined and anything removed is strickenthrough. -- 00:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)]

(reindent, what's the template for this?) So let's look at the image he tagged - File:The black hammer.gif. That's a a highly racist cover on a well known book with a foreword by a Mormon preacher. Now you could try to describe it, but to fully understand that first edition cover is to see the image of a decapitated black man's head dripping with blood behind a Soviet style sickle, with the text "A study of black power, red influence and white alternatives". It should at the least have been taken to FFD. There is no way he can justify that it fails NFCC#8. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you in that this particular cover is offensive, but at the same time my personal feelings about it don't really matter when it comes to Wikipedia. The only thing that matters are what reliable sources are saying about that cover and any controversy not only associated with it, but also associated with Ezra Taft Benson. Any content related to the book cover not properly supported by citations or otherwise properly attributed is going to be in Wikipedia's voice, which means it can be removed at anytime. Moreover, Benson seems to have written only the forward for the book, not the book itself. There's nothing about whether he had any input in the selection or designing of the book's cover or that he even stated any opinion on it later on. We might guess that he knew about it or perhaps even approved iof it, but we can't really say as much without citing some reliable sources in support. If he designed the cover and this could be verified, then sure it might make sense to show it. Just because he wrote the book's forward, on the other hand, isn't in and of itself sufficient justification for using the file. So, I don't think tagging the file was inappropriate and I don't think you removing the tag was inappropriate; the file is now at FFD where it will be discussed and a consensus about its use established, but there was no reason why it needed to immediately go to FFD from the beginning.

The template you're looking for is Template:Outdent. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly for some minor copyediting and other cleanup; Anything added is underlined and anything removed is strickenthrough. -- 00:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)]

So what about my Ashby image then? How was that justified? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

That file is currently being discussed at FFD just as the file about above-mentioned book cover is being discussed at FFD. FFD is where any discussion specific to these files should take place because that's where the consensus on there respective uses is going to be established. Some others have already commented in good faith at FFD and anyone else is also welcomed to do so. However, whatever the consensus in either case turns out to be, I don't see that as any indication that JJMC89 acted out of process or otherwise did something else inappropriate. What happened is kind of the way lots of things happen on Wikipedia: an editor acting in good faith is bold because they that their edit is WP:HERE, another editor comes along and challenges the edit in good faith because they disagree with that assessment, discussion/review takes place and some kind of consensus is established.

As I posted in my original post above, you uploaded a file in good faith because you think is complied with relevant policy. JJMC89 challenged that use because he disagreed with your assessment. You challenged the speedy deletion tag which JJMC89 added because you didn't agree with his assessment of your assessment. So, that seems how the "process" is intended to work, at least in my opinion.

You apparently were frustrated about having an image you spent a lot of time being challenge by someone else in apparently such a quick and casual manner; so, you then started looking at other files JJMC89 tagged perhaps to find some examples of inappropriate tagging which might establish a pattern which could in turn might perhaps support your claim that the file you uploaded shouldn't have been tagged for deletion to begin with. You found some that you believed supported your feeling that something wasn't right and challenged their tags. You then posted on JJMC89's user talk expressing your concerns and providing some specific examples in support. Your tone was a bit confrontational in that you seemed to be implying that he done something wrong rather than simply asking for clarification. JJMC89 responded in kind disagreeing with you; so, you started this ANI thread seeking input/action from others. I apologize if I'm got the exact timeline a bit wrong and anyone is free to correct me.

I've already posted enough in this thread and the wall of text I left in my wake hopefully won't deter others from commenting as well so this will be my final post for the time being. Tagging a file for speedy deletion can be done by any editor who feels the relevant criteria are met; they are not required to go to FFD first or be expected to "know better" with respect to a certain file unless perhaps they're aware that there has been prior discussion or the file was previously tagged and that tag was disputed. There is a review process in place which means that any tagging is going to be reviewed/assessed by someone else before anything ends up deleted, and there's a grace period before anything is deleted which gives others a chance to disagree. There are even ways to request a review of anything that ends up deleted. You could search through every file JJMC89 ever tagged for speedy deletion and find some where the tag was declined by the reviewing admin or further discussion at FFD resulted in a consensus in favor of the file's use. You could also probably find examples of files being deleted because the tag wasn't disputed, but finding something "out of process" would require you finding examples where JJMC89 deleted files that he had tagged. If you are aware of any such cases, then feel free to bring them up for discussion here. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

That’a lot of assumptions in a lot of words... that file is being properly discussed... because I placed it there. Where it should have been in the first place. I find it slightly odd that he has not commented here. Can I ask if you have any prior relationship to him? Genuinely curious. -Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by prior relationship, but you seem to be implying some kind of inappropriate behavior on my part. All of my edits are in my contribution’s history which are there for you or anyone else to check as much as and as often as you/they like. You’ll find edits for MCQ, FFD, the old PUF and NFCR as well as other pages where images tend to be discussed. You’ll also find lots of edits made to files. Furthermore, if you check my global contributions, you’ll also find me active on Commons in discussions about images. If you’re seeking some kind of smoking gun, you can check JJMC89’s user talk page history and you’ll find that l’ve posted there numerous times as well. If you think any of that information is going to help support your claim of JJMC89 acting “out of process”, feel free to bring anything you believe to be relevant to the attention of others. If you want to add some claim of inappropriate behavior on my part to this discussion, feel free to do so. I saw your post on JJMC89’s user talk and looked at some of the files whose tags you challenged/removed and came to the conclusion that you were wrong and he was right. If you believe there’s just got to be something more to my involvement in this matter than that, you’re free to dig as deep as you like and post whatever diffs you like. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me a lot of the discussion below about draftifying a single article. Maybe tagging that one file was inappropriate, maybe not. ANI discussions about a single non admin action are rarely useful unless they are severe enough to warrant it. I don't see how this can be. If you engage with another editor on a minor mistake you feel they made, and they disagree with your view, you either need to find compelling evidence there is a widespread problem or just let it go. The attempts to find evidence of a widespread problem seems to have been unsuccessful this far. Therefore it makes sense to let this go until and unless evidence of a widespread problem is found. BTW, I have no connection to anyone involved that I'm aware of other than commenting on or maybe it was disagreeing with Chris.sherlock's unblock or unban request a few months ago. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That may well be. However, I highlighted a number of images I felt were tagged problematically, unfortunately the mountain of text that has subsequently been posted largely obscures the problem I was highlighting.

Could you clarify what you mean by “disagreeing with Chris.sherlock’s unblock request”? I hold no ill will to anyone who opposed it, I’m not sure I have shown any such malice in my behaviour. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

If you feel that what I’ve posted is somehow preventing others from properly understanding and assessing a problem you strongly believe exists, then I don’t mind if you or anyone else collapses my posts. They will still be there to read if anyone wants to, but they won’t really break the flow of whatever you’re trying to get people to read. —- Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

My article on Meenakari

Originally the link meenakari linked to Kundan which had nothing about meenakari. I had added an entire article on meenakari which GSS reversed to linking to Kundan. I had also included my own images which I uploaded to wiki commons. Then GSS put a copyright notice after deleting my content and putting the link Kundan at the bottom. I had never included images from the site he has included in his copyright statement. Then I was told to submit an article instead of editing that one which I have under the title: Mīnākārī. But I am of firm belief that GSS has ulterior motives. I request an administrator to investigate please and rectify the situation. Thank you. (Interesting009 (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)) :@NonsensicalSystem:

@Kleuske:

I think GSS made a mistake in tagging. Their concerns seem to relate to the redirect target Kundan not the Meenakari article. This also means if there is a copyvio you are not responsible. I'm not sure if there is a copyvio anyway, I strongly suspect it may be a backwards copyvio e.g. [159] vs [160] and [161] vs [162] ("Uploaded January 2nd, 2015") Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, ECD acts crazy sometimes and in this case, instead of checking Meenakari it went to check Kundan. I have reverted my request to delete the revision. Thanks for pointing it out. GSS ^💬 11:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Thanks for the reply. But there are a lot that have been deleted on the meenakari page before as well. Anyway, why was my addition deleted without having a look through it? The Meenakari article links to Kundan whereas I wrote a whole new article. So why delete my additions and leave an empty page that refers to Kundan that does not have any information on Meenakari. I submitted a whole new topic for consideration in the draft submissions but I should not have had to since the Meenakari article was empty. Why not revert my changes back? Could you help please and if necessary revert back to my changes. I spent a long time writing and referencing that artilce and I see no point in continuing to edit on wikipedia if it is going to be like this. Does GSS prefer an empty page that links back to Kundan rather than an entire article describing Meenakari? I would like to know exactly how it works on wikipedia to reassess whether I want to continue because as I see it from this experience it seems that people are using wikipedia not to propagate knowledge but a specific idea of their own. GSS has literally decided for anyone referring to wikipedia that they should be going to Kundan for Meenakari! (Interesting009 (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC))

Can anybody please explain how I got involved in this? I did not reply to anybody in this affair. Am I missing the obvious, here? Kleuske (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Sorry, I was looking for an admin, I thought you were an admin so I wanted to get your help. My mistake. Apologies.(Interesting009 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC))

Is there any admins that could help?(Interesting009 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC))

(Non-administrator comment) You came to the right place. This noticeboard is usually swarming with admins. However, judging from the above, there’s nothing actionable, here. Kleuske (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Complaint about Jasper Deng

• Moved from WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have a complaint regarding the edits of Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) at Talk:0.999.../Arguments. This user has repeatedly been removing my last comment because he believes further comments by me should not be seen by anyone. Also, in order to hide all my previous comments from view (simply because they dislike my opinion) Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) keeps inserting a malicious collapse command together with a derogatory note telling the world "PenyKarma keeps blinding themselves while pretending to understand real analysis. Their further comments are to be ignored.". As I am writing this complaint I can see that Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) has decided to declare this discussion closed to prevent further contributions! Despite my polite requests on this user's talk page to desist from this action (which the user has also deleted). Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) has caused talk page disruption on several occasions on this talk page alone, with personal attacks and insults, and not just against me. I suspect he has removed other users comments as well because one day I saw a comment by Algr (talk · contribs) and the next day it was gone. Please can an administrator tell this user to desist? PenyKarma (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe my closure wasn't civil or neutral, but @Deacon Vorbis: agrees it's necessary. @PenyKarma: refuses to drop the WP:STICK and consistently WP:IDHT. This really should be closed as a WP:BOOMERANG since looking over PenyKarma's other edits, it almost seems as if they aren't actually WP:HERE to contribute to the encyclopedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We all agree that it wasn't civil or neutral, and I agree with @PenyKarma: that it WASN'T necessary. If you have to resort to deleting other people's arguments in order to "finish debate" then you are wrong. I asked you a reasonable question and you made no attempt to answer it. Your use of "not even wrong" is just fancy name calling, no better then what "Dunning–Kruger" has become.

This kind of behavior only makes higher mathematics itself look bad. @Deacon Vorbis: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs). Algr (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Algr: Considering your history at that page, you would be well-advised to stay out of this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Is this how you think consensus is achieved? Algr (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No. It's a curt way to say that your involvement is considered unhelpful.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Is considered" by whom? Passive voice does not invent consensus. The reason these discussions never end is that people who support the equality keep falling back on invalid forms of persuasion. Argument from authority and circular logic are the main tools. If you are getting frustrated and find it hard to be civil, just stop. Walk away. Or at least make a good faith effort to understand what people are trying to ask you before "refuting" them incorrectly. It doesn't matter if you are "right" if you argue so badly that you drive people away from the "truth". Algr (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Algr and PenyKarma. Our math articles should be edited by people who are willing to defer to what is written in the literature. Our intention is to accept as given the "modern definitions and wording that is currently accepted as real analysis". It looks like you guys are re-fighting the 19th century. We don't have to be able to answer your objections. Perhaps there is an online forum where you can pursue this. (Articles have to be based on sources anyway, not on editor's personal opinions as to which theorems are true). If the argument continues, blocks are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Then what is Talk:0.999.../Arguments for? This isn't a question of who is right, but of disruptive conduct that violates wikipedia's guidelines. Deleting other user's questions and rude conduct is not excusable just because you are "right". Everyone is "right" in their own mind. Algr (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The space at Talk:0.999.../Arguments is not to be used for taking a vote on theorems. If something is sourced, then we follow what the source says. Even if you personally find what the theorem says to be unbelievable. It is common to see editors deleting others' comments under WP:FORUM, when they perceive a problem. Such deletions can be taken to an admin board (like this one) if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Talk:0.999.../Arguments is for discussion of the issue, it isn't there for someone to go banging on and on about their pet theories despite it having been explained many times to them what the problem is. Obviously, the page was created as a space to expand on the theorem without clogging up the main talkpage, but there are limits to it. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, but it's also a reasonable question why JD thinks that repeating the same argument to a crank for a 3rd time is a sensible or useful thing to do. There are easier and less confrontational ways to disengage, like not responding. --JBL (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

irrelevant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jasper Deng—in this instance you are hatting a post that I made. That is from August 2019. That dispute made it to AN/I. Is this not similar? Someone is complaining that "This user has repeatedly been removing my last comment because he believes further comments by me should not be seen by anyone." We have disagreements here at Wikipedia. There is nothing out-of-the-ordinary about that. When a person takes time to compose a statement that they think constitutes reasonable input to a discussion that they feel should take place—under such circumstances it is unreasonable to hat that person's comment. Either don't respond or take your time to compose an appropriate response. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• The arguments page is well outside normal WP practice and exists because of IAR. It's a container for stuff that shouldn't even be on the talk page. If we aren't going to allow people to use it, then it's time for MFD #5.—S Marshall T/C 11:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• I thought Talk:0.999.../Arguments was created so "enthusiasts" on the subject could argue to their heart's content, without disrupting the article or article talk page. Doesn't hatting discussions on this page completely defeat that purpose? If someone just isn't getting it, and won't stop talking when you think they should stop talking, then yay; they're on the right page. Just walk away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Okkar2018

user:Okkar2018 just removed a speedy deletion tag from an article that she wrote after a level 4 warning not to do that. CLCStudent (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The artile itself is Aww Bazin Buu, a somewhat obvious hoax article. Michepman (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

How is it a hoax article? Have you any evidence to support your claim? Just because you have not heard of it, does not make it a hoax. It is a well known traditional medicine in Myanmar. The fact that you all seems to gang up without a shred of proof amounts to cyberbullying. Okkar2018 (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that you deleted a CSD tag after being instructed not to. Even if the CSD tag was wrong, you cannot remove it from an article you created yourself. CLCStudent (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed the CSD tag after reading the instruction where it said I could dispute this on talk page, which I followed and put my case across. Yet, it seems no one wants to discuss and instead accuse the article of being a hoax without any supporting evidence or proof. Okkar2018 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Well you could look at the lack of hits when Googling for the phrase "Aww Bazin Buu" and take that as proof. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Just because it didn't get hits on Google does not prove that its a hoax. It just goes to show that you clearly have no idea about the subject of the article and you lack general and cultural knowledge of the part of the world you have never set foot in. This is just pathetic excuse. The fact that you offer that as proof is astonishing!Okkar2018 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not proof, because transliteration inconsistencies can get in the way, but the fact that this article said that its subject was invented in the reign of a particular king, but the date given was half a century before that king came to the throne, is pretty damning. More to the point, the instructions say to dispute deletion on the talk page, but not to remove the tag if you are the article creator. There is no guarantee that any such disputation will be accepted by the reviewing admin. You could, of course, fix the issue once and for all simply by citing a reliable source. The article had none. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It was "launched" in 1809. You should read Wikipedia's own article on King Mindon Min before offering this as "pretty damning" proof as it was not half a century before. How did you even come to conclusion that it was "half a century" before when the king was born in 1808 and the medicine was launched in 1809??? And how could i fix the issue when the article was deleted without offering or citing any proof of it being a hoax? Just as the article didn't have any source, Admins does not have any proof of it being a hoax either! So it is clear that this is a case of cyberbullying and abuse of admin privileges?Okkar2018 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

He might have been born then, but his reign didn't start until the 1850s. Just cite a reliable source and have done with it. Or someone block this editor who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"Aww Bazin Buu" literally means "Balls (Testicles) of Monk" in Burmese. The other words which included in the article are also vulgar terms. The article is obviously hoax. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 18:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Need assistance with an edit to a protected page, can't post it on RFPP or file talk 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.

---

I need an admin to assist with the file File:Flag of India.svg

Please replace:

==License==
:''(Automatically detected from file categories on Commons at 04:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC))''
{{PD-author}}
{{PD-India}}
{{insignia}}

with:

==License==
===Flag===
{{PD-India|commons}}
{{insignia}}
===SVG Conversion===
{{PD-author}}

This will drop the file out of Category:Wikipedia files with disputed copyright information. While it will move the file into Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons, the former is more important to clear, and the new template is a better reflection of the file's legal status.

I know this isn't the right forum, but I tried posting this on RFPP but Cyberbot couldn't parse it, tried to remove it, and created a mess, which user:Favonian, likely not realizing what happened, cleared out. I also can't post the request on the talk page for the file because it was salted.

Thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• This image is hosted at Commons rather than here. The protection log says to post any inquiries about this image at commons:Image talk:Flag of India.svg. Please click the link and re-post there. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:54, 19 March 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 on standard offer

This ANI, a very long one, highlighted Krish!, who promotes Priyanka Chopra over various articles. After being back on the standard offer he is back to the same. He was warned by many users, including Hell in a Bucket to not revert, when his edits have been questioned. Since the previous unproductive ANI, he continued his agenda by removing more information even minutely critical of Chopra, here and here. In another article, Andaaz, a film starring Chopra and Lara Dutta, he is repeatedly removing (sometimes sneakily) a win for Chopra's co-star Dutta in favour of a nomination for Chopra. This aligns with his continued attempt to highlight Chopra at the cost of her co-star. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This user has been trying to get me into WP: edit warring Andaaz, an article I have been working since yesterday. He has reverted removed several of my edits. Also it should be noted that this editor has been stalking my every edit in order to get me into edit warring and get me blocked. This editor has WP: I don't like it problem. He reverts my edits just because what he thinks is a bias. He called my expanding of lead as sneakily editing out something to show bias against another actress". Wow. This editor has been trying to get me blocked. So now I have to ask this editor's permission to add even a comma in an article? I have written over a dozen of film articles and I have been highlighting few awards in every single one of them yet I was never questioned but suddenly my every edit is been questioned by this editor.Krish | Talk To Me 07:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: Another prominent Indian film editor agrees with my edit . Plus I think Krimuk 2.0 would be reporting me to ANI every time I don't comply with his orders.Krish | Talk To Me 07:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Krish!, I support both your and Krimuk's views but in different ways; Krish's view that the lead shouldn't be bloated with awards; and Krimuk's view that awards should be listed if there's anything important to it. For this reason, I do not want to face charges or be blocked again. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that this editor reported me here just because he thought my edits on biased which none of the editors think of my edits as biased.Krish | Talk To Me 10:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This editor has been hurling WP: Personal Attack towards me by calling me biased and white washer which nobody has called me on wikipedia. BUT look at what he did in 2018. He removed the criticism of Padukone'a and Singh's performance (the Anupama Chopra review used in the article criticised him a little but you won't see now; just praise) in Bajirao Mastani article and removed Chopra's quotes, image, mention from the lead etc. Note that the version he completely changed was a version that was reached after a CONSENSUS on that talk page. Yet that editor changed it without any discussion. How can anyone remove consensus reached version of any article? Yet I am biased?Krish | Talk To Me 10:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• (1) Please quit with the boldface and other non-standard formatting. You were warned about this at the last ANI. (2) Why are you continuing to remove critical material from the article without any reasoning? This material had been in the article for years, for example. I am strongly minded to at least block you from the Chopra article at this point. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I think that could well just be best. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite and Canterbury Tail I am really sorry. I thought the colored texts were allowed but it's not. So I won't be using it. Also, coming to the removal of that casting withdrawal, as I mentioned in the summary I thought that it suited in the film article instead of Chopra's article. After Krimuk 2.0 reverted it, I realised he had a point. I myself am the biggest contributor to Chopra's article and one of the people who nominated it for FA and it passed. My edit was not in a bad faith. He reported me here beacuse of Andaaz, an article I have been expanding since yesterday. In fact those edits were not controversial yet he reported me here. You see what another editor thinks on that talk page. Krish | Talk To Me 11:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite and Canterbury Tail Krimuk 2.0 accuses me of removing things from article without any reasons but he himself majorly restructured the article in 2018 without discussions. Yes, that version was there in the article for over 6 years yet he did not hesitate to change it without any discussion but I see no ANI reporting for him. Yet I have to ask for permission to add even commas otherwise Krimuk 2.0 would revert me and report me at ANI. This is the thing that I cannot understand. When he does it it's okay but when I do it with reasons in summaries, I am reported to ANI? Why is it like that? Because of the concerns with the changes he made in that article that violates WP: NPOV, I had started a discussion on here on the talk page. Also, this editor is not ready to discuss any of the things and directly reports me here. I had asked Cyphoidbomb to look into the matter yesterday and he askedKrimuk 2.0 to discuss saying "Communication is a two-way street". Krimuk 2.0 does not want to discuss things as he had yet to reply to my last posts on two others discussions on Chopra's article. You can check there. If this editor is not ready to discuss how am I supposed to edit? He just wants to revert my edits without any discussion. Isn't this WP: OWN? Plus he is the only editor on wikipedia who has a problem with my edits.Krish | Talk To Me 12:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you stop wasting our time and answer the question, please, without mentioning any other editor? Why are you persisting on removing criticism of Chopra and adding puffery to her article (see previous ANI), after you were previously blocked for sub-par editing in exactly the same area? Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite I was never blocked for my "sub-par editing". You need to see the Barnstars I have recieved for my work on wikipedia. I have written 1 FT, 2 FAs, 20 FLs and 22 GAs. How is that sub-par? I am not removing negative stuff from Chopra's article. I had few concerns with Krimuk 2.0's addition to the article which I was discussing it on that article's talk page but he has yet to talk back on it. You can see there what my concerns are about the article. It is as simple as that. It's Krimuk 2.0 who is wasting everybody's time not me by reporting me here for small thing which can be fixed by a discussion like this, the reason he reported me here today. He refused to discuss with me yesterday when I went to his talk page to discuss. Now you tell me? I have been busy writing a article which I expanded 3x in last 12 hours.Krish | Talk To Me 12:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"I was never blocked for my sub-par editing" - Krish, you were blocked multiple times for edit-warring, personal attacks and sockpuppetry! Meanwhile, you still can't give a straight answer without mentioning Krimuk, and you still claim not to be removing negative stuff / adding puffery despite diffs here and at the last ANI showing you doing exactly that. I really don't see an option other than that I mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) This was your indefinite block reason "(WP:CIR. History of personal attacks and edit warring, couldn't even follow "don't even talk about the other user.")" So yes, sub-par editing. Your behaviour and your edits since you returned are suggestive that you may not be have the competence to edit this encyclopaedia in a collaborative fashion. Given the fact that you were asked specifically above by Black Kite to respond WITHOUT mentioning the other editor, and you launch straight back into talking about them and not your edits, suggests to me that you may in fact lack that competence. Now please respond to Black Kite's question without mentioning Krimuk 2.0. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: "If there would be no substantive dispute if the editor was not behaving in a disruptive or unprofessional way, then it is a conduct dispute; if the primary issue is that two editors cannot agree on what the content of an article should be, then it is a content dispute." This is a content dispute and shouldn't be here - there are Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Peter James (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite and Canterbury Tail: I would like to apologise for not properly reading "without mentioning the other editor". I thought you were talking about Cyphoidbomb and Kailash whom I have mentioned above. I am really sorry for not properly reading Black Lite's post. Now coming to my answer to your question, few things were added in Chopra's article which should be fixed like her positively reviewed performances have been shown as mixed and mixed/generally positive as negatives so I tried to fix that and started two discussions on the talk page. Also, I removed this which you questioned above because I felt like casting controversy/criticism should be in a film article (I write a lot of film articles). It was not for the purpose of "removing negatives". I had given my reasons in the summary as well because a film from which Chopra was kicked out at last minute is not discussed either in her article, only in that film's article so I thought this should also stay in the film's article and not in her article. That's all I have to say. And I am really sorry for not properly reading your above post about "not mentioning the other editor". I am ashamed.Krish | Talk To Me 13:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Peter James, not really, no. Krish is impossible. Guy (help!) 23:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• A partial block looks like the best way forward here. Guy (help!) 23:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG Forgive me please tell what rules I have broken that I should be partially blocked? I have raised questions on the talk page of the article and I am yet to receive response there regarding my issues with violation of NPOV in the article. This is clearly Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard issue as Peter James said. The problem is regarding the content of an article which can be only resolved through discussions. The editor who reported me here has refused to discuss any of the disputes so what am I supposed to? Plus, the reason I was reported here was resolved after a discussion, with the editors agreeing with my edit and also the other editor's edit. It is clearly dispute issue. But as an administrator you know the best. What can I say. I only wanted to tell you that I am being misunderstood here and may have not been able to express it properly. After coming back to wikipedia, all I have tried is to contribute here, expanded one whole article, updated another article, working on another and has planned to work on a dozen more in the next 15 days. I have also been suffering from a life threatening disease in real life and all I have done here on wikipedia in last 15 days is defend myself yet no one has questioned the other editor for significantly changing articles without discussions, removing Consensus-reached version of articles without discussions and constantly reverting me even for non-controversial edits. What am I supposed to do? Am I only to be blamed here?Krish | Talk To Me 01:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I don't think a full block is warranted here but I do think a temporary (6 month or so) partial block would be justified. Another thing I would support is a 2-way IBan between Krish! and Krimuk2.0. Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 01:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0 None of my edits have caused the disruption to Wikipedia. So why should be partially blocked? This is clearly a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution case as which says This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor. A Wikipedia rule says "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." And this is what exactly I did. I first tried to fix the few NPOV-violation of the article by adding neutral worded edits. All of which were reverted. Then I went to the editor's page to discuss but he reverted. Then I asked several administrators to intervene (here, here and here) because the said editor was not ready to discuss. Then an administrator advised him to discuss with me but he did not. He had also not replied to the the two discussions about NPOV violations in the same article. I have given all the evidences/sources for the NPOV violations on the talk page which you can see there. I had opened another discussion at the same talk page of the article yesterday to resolve the dispute. Then that editor started accusing me of bias at Andaaz, an article I expanded 2 folds in 12 hours. Then he accused me of bias towards another actress but I had only added whatever that source said. You can check the source. Note I did not revert any of his edits and continued expanding it then he removed a major acting nomination such as Best Supporting Actress by saying that nomination is not noteworthy enough. I re added the supporting nominationsaying "supporting actress category is a big one and major awards are added in lead like other films. Wikipedia does not work according my rules." Then he reverted me and started a discussion. I took part in that discussion and gave my thoughts which were exactly as my summary. Then without replying. He immediately reported me here. During all this, I did not engage in edit warring or personal attack or anything. I dealt with it calmly. I did not engage in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing yet I was reported here. And the reason I was reported here was RESOLVED on the talk page with the help of other editors through a discussion. Yes, a discussion which that editor refused in the case of that other article. So how am I eligible for partial block?Krish | Talk To Me 04:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krish!: Thanks for this. Are you familiar with what a partial block is? I don't mean this at all to offend -- I'm just curious. Perhaps your right about a partial block, I'll have to think about this some more, but I still do think a two way IBan between you and Krimuk2.0 would be a vastly beneficial outcome for the community. Would you be amenable to that? Thank you for bearing through this thread; I know how stressful it can get. =) Thanks, Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 04:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0 I think partial ban means I won't be able to edit some section of article. This is a clear case of content dispute which is very much solvable by discussion and I have been asking to discuss this whole time. I tried extending an olive branch several times to the editor but no luck. And, yes, I would support an interaction ban if necessary but I still think the matter can be resolved by a discussion. I have given all the sources and evidences on the talk page as you can see. And, I have not violated any rules. It's a content dispute that should be resolved by a discussion(s).Krish | Talk To Me 04:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks... I think personally that the best option would be a temporary cooldown partial block, and an indefinite IBan between these two editors. Thanks, Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 16:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

How does one enforce an interaction ban when both the editors have overlapping areas of interest? And if one makes an edit and is reverted by the other, what then? Do they not discuss? If Krish! isn't willing to voluntarily walk away from the Priyanka Chopra article for a while, then perhaps another admin might consider an article block. In my personal experience, there is no article so precious to me that I wouldn't be willing to unwatchlist it and walk away if there were a major dispute. So both of them should consider that option. Although I don't understand Krimuk's objection to having discussions on their own talk page, Krish should avoid posting comments on Krimuk's talk page and should post them on the relevant article's talk page. If Krimuk opts not to participate in those discussions, then they will not be able to assert consensus. And for both parties involved, if there's any inkling of reverting out of spite, that's not going to fly. Both parties need to be behaving in a civil fashion, and that means assuming good faith and not accusing each other of X or Y. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It really isn't a simple content dispute that can be resolved by two editors talking it out. It's about one editor's continued process of removing negative information from articles related to Chopra. To rewind, these are the things that Krish! removed from Chopra's article in less than a month:

• 1) Removal of negative critical and commercial notice to two of her films.
• 2) Renaming a section to "widespread success" when there is no such reference in that section that states that. Twice.
• 3) Deliberately Removing an informative source from Moneycontrol.com (an RS) for another one that does not mention "box office flop" in its title.
• 4) Removing Chopra's decision to walk out of a project days before filming begins, on which the film's producer called her out.
• 5) Removing a review which is critical of her film's screenplay.
• 6) Removing a win by Chopra's co-star. Twice.
• Plus, adding unsourced puffery.Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Under normal cases, this wouldn't have been an ANI issue, and the editor could possibly have been reasoned with. But in this case, the editor is back on the WP:Standard offer, and these repeated infractions should not be ignored. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

My Answers:

It is very much a content dispute and you refused to discuss. You added negative stuff in 2018 without discussions which violated WP: NPOV rule of Wikipedia. I tried to fix it by adding neutral worded edits and I have given all the evidences and sources on the talk page of the article. A Wikipedia rule says "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add."

• 1) These two negative reviews were added by you. You added negative reviews for her largely positively reviewed role in Jai Gangaajal and her largely acclaimed performance in Dil Dhdadkne Do as proven on the talk page. I first tried to fix this non-controversial edit but then you reverted it and I moved on and started a discussion which you are yet to reply.
• 2) "Widespread success", is what that section (her most successful phase in terms of BOX OFFICE) was called for a very long time till you changed it in 2018 without discussions. Also I renamed it "Wider recognition" (and not widespread success which you claim) as per the lead that says " Chopra subsequently gained wider recognition...." There are two mentions of her starring in "highest-grossing films of all time" with sources. The section also says "Chopra starred in four biggest Bollywood grossers of all time in two years" in the section itself.
• 3) Again, I fixed a biased edit that called the film was Box Office Bomb but there is no mention of that word anywhere in the source which means you violated a rule by adding WP: UNSOURCED text. I had explained this while fixing it as my summary says "I replaced with a better source from Box Office India" which is widely accepted on Wikipedia. The source I gave mentions "the film is doing poor business" which means a failure or "the film did not do well" which I added, a more WP: NEUTRAL word. Also Moneycontrol.com is NEVER used to cite box office details.
• 4) As I have said several times which I also said in the summary that "I felt this casting withdrawal controversy suited more in the film's article as opposed to her article since there are no mentions of the films where she was removed by last minute either." You reverted it. I accepted it. What's problem here when I accepted my mistake?
• 5) How is the criticism for the screenplay relevant when describing her performance which is acclaimed and the film overall was positively reviewed and has 83% on Rotten Tomatoes? You had added this negative review in 2018 by replacing a positive review which was there in the article since a very long time. What was the necessity to remove that positive review and add a negative one? Also, I did not remove (as you claim), I replaced it with a more neutral review that was critical of the overall film and not just screenplay. That review said "Chopra rose above the material". So how it that problematic?
• 6) This editor removed a major acting nomination such as Best Supporting Actress by saying that nomination is not noteworthy enough. I re-added the supporting nomination saying "supporting actress category is a big one and major awards are added in lead like other films. Wikipedia does not work according my rules." Then he reverted me and started a discussion and it has been resolved.
• This "unsourced puffery" was in this article since a very long time until you removed it in 2018 without any explanations. You hid this edit by only saying "trim redundant info; add 2 new important lists".] summary so that no one would notice.

NOTE: All the five points he raised above was already discussed in the last ANI. So what did I really do that the editor reported me again? The reason he reported me has already been resolved on the article's talk page with the help of other editors. He keeps saying "Standard offer" but none of my edits are disruptive and all this time, I did not engage in edit warring or personal attack or anything. I dealt with it calmly.Krish | Talk To Me 09:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Also Cyphoidbomb I am ready to walk away from Chopra's article for some time. I have not touched that article since few days. I won't be editing Chopra's article from now on without any discussion on the talk page. There are 3 open discussions on the talk page and from now and I have been waiting for the response.Krish | Talk To Me 09:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal and Shyam

Here we go again. Shyam (talk · contribs) has interpreted this vague comment from Jimbo as it they have been given a mandate to begin blanking content that is unfavorable to the subject. After asking if they could "take this", Shyam began removing content without waiting for an answer [163], [164], [165], [166]. After I reverted these blankings and advised the editor to take it to the talk page, Shyam demanded an explanation and then reverted me while suggesting that I would be blocked if I reverted them again. This article has an extensive history of whitewashing of Chahal's domestic violence (see here for the ANI thread on the most recent incident) and I request that an admin block Shyam from editing the article until such time as they are willing to discuss their changes rather than enforcing them via edit-warring. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems, the article was not balanced about the subject based on BLP policies and overemphasised on the domestic violence incident. It's not that the domestic violence is completely removed from the page, rather has been balance based on the length of the article. The user has been biased and might have some personal grudges. Please don't consider it as personal attacks. I am expressing here my neutral point of view. Any neutral expert user can have a look over the page and I balanced the article based on Wikipedia standards. I hope this helps. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 14:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not balanced. Chahal is primarily notable for his domestic violence convictions, which you have now reduced to a single paragraph at the bottom of the article. This, of course, is what Chahal has been attempting to accomplish for years through paid editing and intimidation. That said, that's part of the content dispute. The issue for ANI is your insistence on edit-warring to reinstate your preferred version of the article. This is particularly problematic given the contentious history of this page. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you justify he is primarily notable for domestic violence, not notable because of entrepreneurship. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Certainly. The majority of significant coverage related to this individual has focused on his history of domestic violence. This has been documented on the talk page and, as a content issue, is not an important part of this thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• I am suspicious when any account comes back from the dead, but more so when it's a highly controversial topic (especially one that's been heavily canvassed on social media). Their non-consensus forming edit should be reverted and they should be required to make changes via the talk page, if not outright blocked from editing the article directly. Praxidicae (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, the idea that Jimbo weighing in is at all relevant to consensus is, well, irrelevant and absurd. He is no more an authority as an editor in a dispute than you or me. Praxidicae (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, Jimbo took great pains to avoid expressing an opinion on the content and merely called for a fresh discussion. Blanking is not discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The actions are somewhat odd - a message left and not even an hour later made an edit they had to know would be controversial and the subject of extensive discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I was watching the article page and looked me quite odd when I read from other external sources. It pushed me to go through the talk page, and hence i decided to take it up. If you want me to refrain, I shall not make any edits. I thought I am a neutral editor. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Shyam, then please respect WP:BRD and not edit-war as you're doing. Ravensfire (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a BLP, so it's possible to invoke discretionary sanctions, such as putting the page under 1RR. I don't know if that would help or just make things worse. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sanctions might be sensible, especially given that the article's subject is known to have employed a number of freelancers to whitewash the article, not all of whom we've yet detected. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

My only concern is that such sanctions might be gamed against editors like myself who oppose the whitewashing. While Shyam was reverting my revert, in the same breath he hinted that I might be blocked if I undid his revert again. While that probably would not have happened, it should be noted that prior POV-pushers have attempted to lawyer the snot out of any angle they can find. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• I just noticed that Shyam doubled-down on their edit-warring here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) Note that the editor has continued edit-warring even after engaging in discussion here, forcing their preferred version of the article, and even trying to use this discussion as their reason for doing so. Thankfully, several editors have reverted to the stable status ante quem, which is the version one is supposed to revert to, unless there’s a serious BLP violation (which there isn’t, in this case). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know Wikipedia has become a battle field with hired editors (may be from both sides) with the parties which are so proactive in edit wars. I am on Wikipedia since 2005 and I just bumped to that article. I don't want any edit wars with hired editors. i wanted to put my neutral point of view. Google or other search engine results may be more unbiased about how much weight should put to his domestic violence. I shall refrain myself from edit wars on the article, let it be battle field from both the sides. Thanks Shyam ^(T/C)

• The answer is obvious—and as the disruption continues throughout this discussion—a preventative block of Shyam's account until they can demonstrate they understand one of our most important policies. ——SN54129 15:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• I leave the decision to the ANI or ArbCom to take the further decision. I would like to keep myself neutral. I hope this helps. Shyam ^(T/C) 15:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I prefer you simply be kept out of the article, period. NinjaRobotPirate, would you be so kind as to see if a block for User:Shyam on this specific article is warranted? I would do it myself but some Wikilawyer might call me involved, since I made minor edits ot the article. Of course, if Shyam says, explicitly, that they will refrain from editing the article at least for the time being, that might not be necessary. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, everyone involved has committed to stop reverting. I don't know how long this peace will last, of course, but I'm sure someone will loudly complain if it starts up again any time soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Had I come across this two hours ago, I would have blocked Shyam for disruptive editing. Given that they've stopped reverting for the moment, I'm disinclined to sully a clean block log, but they should take this as a clear-cut warning that if they make any further reverts in the absence of strong consensus, or even if they continue to post boilerplate on the talk page, they will likely recieve a page-level indefinite block. For the record, I'm uninvolved here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

IP editor using multiple IPs for vandalism

IP from Hungary keeps removing "present" from people's current relationships on the infobox in several articles without any explanation. They get reverted, warned and come back with a new IP the next day. I've found 21 IPs so far. They're also removing sourced portions of the article[167] and adding past boyfriends to the infobox, which is not allowed.[168][169][170]

In December, another editor warned one of the IPs (2A02:2F07:D60D:7300:8CE7:8E3C:4941:8907) to not use multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia,[171] and they got blocked for 72 hours for persistent vandalism on December 22, 2019,[172] so they may be using more IPs than these 21 listed below.

IPs:

• 178.164.217.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 37.76.111.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 37.76.45.94 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A02:2F07:D60D:7300:8CE7:8E3C:4941:8907 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:E38:6D79:9025:D012:AA04 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:8820:A155:D4A0:E784:B075 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2A38:B1C6:F75B:95AF:5C4C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:49B:191F:BAA6:3238:D772 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:879D:B485:7AC5:8221:73D4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2A38:4CDA:3856:AB7E:6422 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2031:95CB:93E4:73F2:9D69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2031:B1A6:A3ED:9764:438E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2037:640C:AA56:98CB:2C45 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2037:3C97:EDD:4ABD:FD2E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:E38:F84D:FD37:F670:DE7E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:879D:288B:E1E3:E141:2CA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:879D:893E:2073:9FA:3B43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 37.76.2.69/20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 37.76.89.110 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 37.76.64.0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 37.76.125.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Diffs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Johnuniq: They came back today.[173] [174][175] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoolver (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

• @Johnuniq: They keep removing "present" with a new IP: Special:Contributions/37.76.2.69/20: [176], [177], [178]. Zoolver (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The IP's edits are strongly opposed by MOS:TOPRESENT. I requested a temporary filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_15#MOS:TOPRESENT but blocking the IP might be needed if that doesn't work. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• I checked all the IP's contribs listed by the OP. They're all tagged "mobile web edit". The reason this user is unresponsive to warnings is possibly because mobile IP editors are not given the slightest hint that they have new messages. So blocking might be the only way to get this user's attention. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Man, fixing that should be an absolutely top priority. EEng 13:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed, it's amazing how dumb the WMF and some of the people at phab:T240889 are. Maybe an indignant demand at User talk:Jimbo Wales? Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• New IPs: Special:Contributions/37.76.89.110 and Special:Contributions/37.76.64.0, and the range Special:Contributions/37.76.64.0/18 has some questionable and unsourced edits and obvious trolling such as this. Zoolver (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Johnuniq: So are they going to get blocked? It's really tiring having to revert and warn them everyday. At this point I don't believe they're doing this only because they can't see the warnings on their mobile device. They can see the history of the articles they edit everyday and know they have been reverted and asked to stop. They're trolling, plain and simple. This is their new IP: Special:Contributions/37.76.117.84 with the same type of edits. [179], [180], [181]. Zoolver (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Zoolver: Sorry it's such a mess but it is now 42 hours since the IP's last edit. When you next notice "present" being removed by this user, please revert them and put per [[User:Johnuniq]] at ANI in the edit summary. That will alert me and I will block. I put some notes here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    • 2A01:36D:119:0:0:0:0:0/48 blocked for one week, please check their recent edits. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Believe the originator can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depay11.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process

More input would be welcome at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process, where I am proposing a more robust process for blacklisting and deprecating sites that have significant usage in articles. Guy (help!) 08:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

2607:fb90::/32 unblocked

Just saw that this range got globally unblocked by Martin Urbanec. I'm gonna be worried if there's a lot more activity by other vandals/LTAs. Please block this dude, almost more than 50% of their contributions were undone because of vandalism. I just saw that some blocks were already put in place. 2607:FB90:5E94:B1BD:D855:70C:5FE1:F35 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a huge T-Mobile data network range. We need to have good cause in order to even consider such an action (and even if there was, applying blocks onto smaller ranges first would be the recommended action)... especially given the fact that the range was unblocked due to participation in an edit-a-thon... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that global block was also weird, too. 2607:FB90:5E94:B1BD:D855:70C:5FE1:F35 (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I also saw that this topic's been Googled by many, too. 2607:FB90:5E94:B1BD:D855:70C:5FE1:F35 (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The way IPv6 is supposed to work, a /64 will be assigned to the usual home network, assuming a router that knows how to do it. Comcast, and maybe others, will assign a /60 in case someone needs a more complicated home network, which allows for 16 subnets. I would expect that a /60 is the most you would block for an individual user. Even at that, you are blocking everyone else in the same house. Gah4 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocking a /32 range that is so active is overkill. If we need to block "individual users", we can do the /64 range instead (WP:IPV6) . I see no reason to just outright block 79x10^27 IPv6 addresses. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

To the last two editors, perhaps you don't appreciate the peculiarities of how T-Mobile USA works. Users, rather notoriously, jump all over the whole range (well, at least a /33). A /64 block is entirely useless. I'm not saying we should block the /32, but that is generally the only solution. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I did not know that! Well that sucks for us. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

BLP violation

User:IVFC14 has repeatedly added Gregory R. Johnson as a student of Richard Velkley. Professor Velkley does not consider Johnson as his legitimate student and even deleted his name once. I think it is a BLP violation. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

That's why I added two official sources.--IVFC14 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No you did not. You added one archived version of some sort of spreadsheet whose authenticity cannot be verified, and one Scribd thing that I can't read but comes from the subject himself. You need better sourcing, reliable secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think IVFC's whitewashing edits deserve closer scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? Its located at the official page of the Catholic Univeristy of America. This is not archived

Drmies, Another official source, p. 5 (or 228): The Review of Metaphysics, 56(1), pp. 225-244 (you can use sci-hub to see it)

Drmies, Pirhayati: I added an official source. Richard Velkley is lying.--IVFC14 (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

IVFC14, don't use that kind of language: it is a violation of the BLP and of AGF. Do not re-add until we have heard from other parties, including User:Rvelkley. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Richard Velkley's objection is that he essentially took over for a another professor who retired; he thus had very little to do with Johnson as a student, and even less with his later career. It's in that sense that he said "not legitimate"--he was not really his student. Of course, on Wikipedia we only look at the formalities: whose name is on the title page. I have restored the name, with the provided secondary source. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Drmies, thanks for your inquiry. IVFC14's edits are focused on some racist issues and some of them have been reverted. I think mentioning Johnson on Velkley's page means provoking some kind of controversy. Don't you think it's a BLP violation? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to see it that way but I can't. Velkley wants nothing to do with this guy, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. In fact, Velkley wants his entire article removed just because of that; he has another former student with a Wikipedia article that he doesn't want added. Ali Pirhayati, I don't really know what to do. I can invoke IAR but I don't know that that would be valid here. I wish we had more admins weighing in here. Randykitty? DGG? NinjaRobotPirate? GorillaWarfare? Bbb23? Johnuniq? Doug Weller? Although Doug is probably a bit not neutral here since inexplicably HE DOES NOT LIKE NAZIS. Wait. That's all of us, I hope.

BTW I mentioned earlier that all of IVFC's edit warrant scrutiny, and I still believe they do. Drmies (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand academic politics. Trying to understand academic politics confuses me more than trying to read French video game websites. But WP:ONUS gives a means for removing verifiable content: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article." And that's direct from policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, let's see. IVFC stops editing in June 2018, comes back 13 months later with this edit[182] making a Nazi political party, the Popular Socialist Vanguard, look far-left. Next he goes to Greg Johnson adding Velkley as his doctoral advisor and Johnson to Velkley's article. I see I reverted their change of Johnson's infobox from person to philosopher, but I don't see that as involving me in any serious way and at that point didn't see any problems with their editing, only a mistaken infobox change. Then we have an edit to Glenn Danzig[183] where the article says "He commented about the book Occult Roots Of Nazism that "every school kid should have this book" and IVFC adds "as an obvious joke". Now there's only one source for that (on two sites it seems so two references) and that's a video, so the obvious joke bit is obviously original research and if I don't agf I see that as whitewashing Danzig. They go through a number of edits doing something that they seem to do quite a bit, editing qualifications. The next problematic edit is to Alejandro Rojas Wainer an academic who was at one time a left-wing politician in Chile, and changes his description from "Chilean-Canadian" to "Jewish-Chilean"[184]. That's not sourced and I think we can be fairly certain, given their other edits, of the reason, and I've just reverted it. More edits of academic details (to right wing people I see} and then a return to Popular Socialist Vanguard. Interesting thing, an IP has restored the left-wing label after Docktuh and Grayfell had cleaned it up, and IVFC later adds "anti-fascist" and removes Miguel Serrano with the edit summary "Serrano kept praising European nazism and fascism".[185] Well that's true, he did praise them, not surprising that he was a member of a right wing party (remember it had been edited to represent it as left-wing). IVFC made quite a few edits[186] to Alberto Edwards, mainly adding OR and again changing an infobox to philosopher although I see no evidence for that.

My conclusion from this is that if all IVFC was doing was making unwarranted infobox changes and adding OR all that should happen is standard warnings, and of course if those are ignored than probably a block of some sort, perhaps a short one. But obviously IVFC has an unacceptable agenda as well and that's not acceptable at all. I can't see any evidence that Wikipedia would be worse off without IVFC and to me the evidence is clear that it would be better off without this editor - Drmies is right about my views. Let's see if there are any objections to an indefinite block. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC) @Drmies:, failed ping the first time. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Danzig is... well... difficult to explain to non-metalheads. The Spanish Wikipedia article on Popular Socialist Vanguard is written from the perspective that the party is leftist and anti-fascist. I don't really know if that's true, but there seem to be some credible sources on Google Books that list it among other fascist parties. My hope is some day we'll have a noticeboard dedicated to politics where we can ask "is X fascist?" and someone who knows what they're talking about says, "Yes, if you check this book published by Oxford University Press, it's clearly labeled as such." And, also a noticeboard dedicated to heavy metal, so that we can talk about Glenn Danzig. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You'll never guess who edited the Spanish article. Before IVFC edited it it said [187] "Vanguardia Popular Socialista (VPS) was a Chilean political party with a nationalist and socialist ideology that existed between 1939 and 1942." And our article on the party has been changed today since I edited by IVFC.[188]

"The 'Vanguardia Popular Socialista' (VPS, Popular Socialist Vanguard) was a left-wingand anti-fascist

But it also says that in 1942 most of its members joined " Juan Gómez Millas ' Partido Unión Nacionalista de Chile [ es ]." and his article says "Gómez Millas was founder of the far-right political party Partido Unión Nacionalista de Chile [es], which existed from 1943 until 1945. Gómez Millas aligned the party with Nazism and Fascist Italy." - so all these left-wingers joined a right wing pro-Nazi party? I've just read the JSTOR source for Millas's article, and that says "of the political system. Vanguardia Popular Socialista (the name of the MNS since January fascist roots in the (Chilean) autumn of I940 did not revive the of the radical right. The Vanguardia, the Movimiento Nacionalista of smaller groups that followed the former dictator Carlos Ibafiez Uni6n Nacionalista in March 1942, but this was a last desperate breathe new life into a dying cause." I'm saving this now and looking further. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Another and telling quote:"In July 1941, members of the Vanguardia, together with militants of the MNCh, assaulted the Circulo Israe/ita in Santiago, breaking the furniture of the institution and beating up three employees.132 Following an earlier statement by Trabajo, which had denounced the threat of the ‘Fifth Column’ as ‘a ghost created by the British “Intelligence Service”’,133 Gonzalez now openly embraced the cause of the Axis and emerged as an ardent defender of the Third Reich in the Chamber of Deputies. In August 1941 he voiced the hope that Germany would win the war." and also "The factions that followed in the footsteps of the MNS after its transformation into the VPS - the Partido Nacional Fascista and the Movimiento Nacionalista de Chile - bore all the hallmarks of fascist movements. Their programmatic declarations demonstrate that both were genuinely fascist factions ; the same interference applies to the Vanguardia after the return to its nacista roots in 1940. They all preached the imminent revival of the Chilean nation on the basis of a revolutionary from of ultranationalism, and promised to establish a regime that would transcend liberal democracy and frcc-markct capitalism on the one hand and communism on the other" The source I'm using is "The New Voices of Chilean Fascism and the Popular Front, 1938-1942 " by Marcus Klein Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2 (May, 2001), pp. 347-375 Published by: Cambridge University Press. In other words, the party represented itself as a party of the left for a short time, but that's all, and IVFC's edits are deceitful. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IVFC14 has once again changed the article to remove the far-right label. I have reverted the edit and invited them to start a discussion at the article's talk page, because the far-right/fascist label seems to be supported by reliable sources based on my Google search. I have some sort of feeling that IVFC is on a (apparently cross-wiki?) effort to push their POV. --MrClog (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Doug Weller, right now I'm more interested in whether Johnson should be listed in the article or not; Velkley says he has nothing to do with the dude's (current) line of work and suggested in so many words that his input for that dissertation was minimal. NinjaRobotPirate, it is absolutely true that we don't have to include information if it is deemed not relevant or whatever--a matter of editorial judgment, and a matter of the BLP of course: who wants to be associated with that person? So that is really my questions: are these concerns serious enough to remove the information? And I really need that matter to be addressed ASAP since Dr. Velkley is trying to rip me a new asshole: I contacted him for the basic facts, and now, to him, I have come to represent all of Wikipedia, including IVFC's work. Thanks... Drmies (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: apologies. Definitely not. In no way does it benefit the article to include someone with whom Velkley had so little involvement, and the inclusion is, in my judgement after reviewing IVFC14's edits, meant to attack Velkley. I'm not sure why. There's no need to include any of his graduate students, that one hasn't an article isn't a good reason. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It does seem pointlessly inflammatory to include this, as if we're trying to connect the two men's philosophical positions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Adding (diff) a highly controversial figure as a doctoral student (and the only listed doctoral student) of a living person is very inadvisable unless a secondary reliable source has indicated the significance of the connection (how did the connection arise? was the advisor aware of the student's background?). That point might be argued. What will not be argued is basing such an addition on two dubious sources and I will block IVFC14 if they push the point against consensus, after a final warning. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Redacting edits

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

---

Hi, could you please make the external link on this article Greg Alyn Carlson that I added as a 2019 murder in the United States unviewable, since I have been told him being shot dead was not unlawful. Thanks. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: I'm a bit confused. If there was an edit with erroneous information that you have undone, that is good enough. Unless the edit contained defamatory or libelous information or was extremely insulting, we do not need to make it unviewable. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:14, 17 March 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.

Ymblanter offends my feelings

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.

---

Yesterday there was an unpleasant incident (primarily for me) with Ymblanter user. This user misinforms people by adding false data to articles. After I was banned from editing articles, I decided to write this in the "talk" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atyrau_Region) . In response, this user left a link to "I can not hear you" page (It depicts a person with a hearing impairment.) I don’t know how he realized that I was really deaf in real life (yes, this is very funny in his opinion), but nevertheless, he did it. He decided to make fun of this defect, and decided to humiliate me with his statement. I understand that this could be a coincidence, but in any case, he did it, he insulted my feelings. And I perfectly understand what this page is, but nevertheless, I think it’s on Wikipedia forbidden to insult users with any defect even using such subtle humor. In addition, he repeatedly threatened to ban me, but for some reason did not do it, respectively, they were baseless (you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JackAtkinson22#Kazakh_names ) I want him to at least receive a warning and stop humiliating other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@JackAtkinson22: - (1) you failed to notify Ymblanter about this ANI posting and (2) Ymblanter's linking to WP:IDHT is not offensive. Pinging Materialscientist as they have comments on Ymblanter's talk page about this matter. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Materialscientist has turned off notifications, and "therefore can't see pings, sorry"... ——SN54129 12:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• There may be some merit to JackAtkinson22's content-related point, but the way to find out whether that is true or not is to calmly and politely discuss the matter on the article talk page, referencing reliable sources. The "calmly and politely" part is very important; you can't be rude on the talk page, but expect other editors to be sweet to you in response. Both of you, reboot your interactions, start from scratch, discuss the merits and only the merits, and respect the possibility that the other person is correct. It is not possible that the link to WP:IDHT was intended to mock your hearing impairment, Jack, and honestly, you know that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam But after all, I was always as polite as possible (in contrast to him, he immediately started with the threats of a ban), I even apologized to him for having spoken incorrectly about him. In response, he subtle humor hints at my defect, this is not funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  That is demonstrably false. You called him a vandal multiple times. You reported him to AIV. Your talk page message is dripping with sarcasm and a refusal to discuss. How can that possibly be "as polite as possible"? Please tell me that it is possible for you to be more polite than that. Also, as I type this response, I realize that you are in need of a ProTip: when you are pretending to be deaf, don't call it a defect. People who are actually deaf do not think about it that way, nor do they assume everyone else knows that automatically. Also, just don't pretend to be deaf in the first place, that kind of gamesmanship is insulting. The trolling will stop right this very second or you will be blocked indef. Saying something like "no, I am actually really deaf and not just pretending in order to get Ymblanter in trouble" will count as trolling. Hopefully this is very clear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter is a good egg, how could he have possibly known you were deaf??♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Dr._Blofeld Even if it was a coincidence, let it serve as a lesson for him (unless of course at least one of the adequate administrators gives him a warning) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  JackAtkinson22: WP:IDHT is part of a well established guideline. (S)he linked you to it and that is not insulting -- you very well know (s)he didn't and couldn't have known you were deaf. I suggest you stop casting aspersions and apologise to Ymblanter. It's clear that continuing your behaviour can only get the situation worse for you at this point. Best, MrClog (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• I believe this reference, #JackAtkinson22 keeps calling me a vandal, would be essential for the thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  I obviously could not know the user is deaf.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

. ―cobaltcigs 21:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Being deaf doesn't mean blindness. It's obvious JackAtkinson22 can read clearly. Besides, typing in the discussion doesn't require hearing. And based on the responses of editors on this discussion, I get the feeling JackAtkinson22 is more like WP:NOTHERE. Jerm (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Like NOTHERE? His contribution history is crystal clear. We've got a nationalistic POV pusher. Other than make drama at the drama boards, his only edits have been to add and push his considerably idiosyncratic viewpoint of where in the world language exists. Clearly IDHT/STICK/NOTHERE. John from Idegon (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree OP is clearly NOTHERE and trolling. That said, WP:IDHT does, in fact, use a physical disability (hearing impairment), together with a picture of someone using a hearing aid, as a metaphor for stubbornness. Not exactly politically correct, but then no one really complains. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe an indef block will solve the problem. Jerm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: The image is of Louise Elisabeth de Meuron, and judging by our article on her she was known for her eccentric behaviour and used the device in question "so that [she] only hear[d] what [she] want[ed] to hear" -- we don't imply she was a member of the deaf community or that she otherwise suffered hearing loss, although that may be the case. Moreover, despite the apparent age of the photo (deliberately made to appear much older than it is?), she was born in 1882 and looks to be at least in her seventies when the photo was taken, when such ear trumpets had long since fallen out of favour as hearing aids. The intent, therefore, is obviously to convey the idea of someone deliberately and stubbornly refusing to listen, not to make fun of people with disabilities or members of marginalized linguistic communities. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Levivich—"Not exactly politically correct". It is not a good idea. It is offensive to a segment of the society. Fortunately someone has changed it. Bus stop (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: NOTHERE

Per the above discussion, I propose to block JackAtkinson22 (talk · contribs) indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. --MrClog (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a new user - February 2020 start date. unfair to call the editor WP:NOTTHERE. It is difficult to find your way around the written and unwritten rules on WP. the editor came here wrongly thinking that the community would have sympathy for a new user. I propose we handle this another way which does not result in sanction for someone who just started on WP. WP:BITE applies. WP:COMPETENCY cannot be gained in 30 days. Lightburst (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  New editor? JackAtkinson22 [189] "been registered here for a long time" don't you know? :-P Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

What am I missing? The user has a total of 56 edits and joined less that 30 days ago. Lightburst (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Lightburst: The user's contributions show that he has been here with the sole purpose of POV pushing. When called out on this, he starts attacking Ymblanter. Even though he has been told at WP:ANI#JackAtkinson22 keeps calling me a vandal that his behaviour is wrong, he continues it and even doubles down with this trolling here. Of course, this block is not infinite. If he shows that he is genuinely understanding of the issues we have with his editing behaviour, he could file an unblock request and subsequently get unblocked. But based on his editing, essentially all of his edits indicate he is WP:NOTHERE. MrClog (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• LightburstLol, name at least one good reason for my ban. What is above is an empty discussion, in which all moderators stand on one side, and literally "agree" with each other. Understand that nobody needs your "respect." You just need to follow the rules. I don’t understand why you constantly repeat about the age of my account, is this the most important thing? New users can not write complaints? I do not troll anyone and do not break the rules, I wrote my complaint where it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  @JackAtkinson22: Lightburst opposed blocking you. Anyways, you say that the above discussion is empty. My question then is, do you intend to change your behaviour based on the advice that has been given to you here? Or do you plan to continue your current behaviour? --MrClog (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  @MrClog:In such an unfair and inadequate community structure, it makes no sense to try to challenge something. I do not refuse my words. I'd rather delete my account myself, and I will no longer participate in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

JackAtkinson22—a step in the right direction might be signing your posts. That is done with 4 "tildes". See WP:SIGN. Do you notice that your "signature" does not look like the signatures of most of the other participants here? That is because a "bot" is "signing" your posts for you. But you can and should do it yourself. Just type 4 tildes at the end of your post, as explained at WP:SIGN. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, this goes to my point, apparently the user does not know how to sign. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst—I also oppose sanctions against JackAtkinson22, a new participant. But they have to demonstrate an inclination to try to observe the practices of the project they are trying to participate in. A start might be "signing" their posts. I want to see some effort expended. Pigheadedness is not in short supply around here. We already have a sufficient quantity on hand to meet our present needs. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per JackAtkinson22, who would rather delete their account, and whose continued trolling after Floquenbeam's substantial warning above indicates that, deaf or no, there are none so blind as those that will not see. ——SN54129 13:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support They are here on a personal mission that conflicts with our mission and the Wikipedia community doesn't have time for their disruptive behavior. These boards are busy enough and the gnomes are overworked.Slywriter (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Just block - now! I don't see anything controversial. Deb (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per SN and Deb. I wouldn’t even think we’d need a proposal for this, it’s so obvious. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• I don't understand why everything at ANI devolves into a Votes for Banning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam: Any admin is of course free to go ahead and ban the user in question and then close the discussion. --MrClog (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, everything at ANI doesn't devolve into votes for banning. Actually, that happens in like less than 5% of threads. Just look at the threads on this page now, or the in the most recent archives–votes for banning are rare. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, probably because we nuked WP:RFC/U Guy (help!) 23:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - He's a partisan who's using AN/I against anyone who opposes them. This is also fairly illuminating. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 19:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano I think rather than exposing chicanery...you have highlighted more inexperience by the OP. Lightburst (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support This seems like a no-brainer: new editors sometimes jump straight into pushing their particular POV in semi-controversial (read: not necessarily controversial in the real world, but controversial on Wikipedia because some editors say so) topic areas, but when they start abusing the system to harass other editors with frivolous ANI threads, and engaging in the kind of extreme IDHT seen here (and probably no one on English Wikipedia understands IDHT behaviour from personal experience better than me[190][191]), is a sign that the editor needs to be blocked; they can always appeal their block and, if they can convince the community that they have learned their lesson, they may be allowed to edit again (with a shorter leash than last time, of course). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:BITE. I don't think the user really has had time to understand Wikipedia policies. I particularly don't blame him for getting offended either. Maybe an interaction ban would be better? Foxnpichu (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support JackAtkinson22 clearly has unconstructive behavior and even stated to having no regrets for it. So this whole "biting a new editor" is completely bogus when JackAtkinson22 could've asked for guidance or express some form of willingness to improve their own behavior but that hasn't happen. And I doubt that will ever happen. Jerm (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per Jerm. Also for the sheer fact that they are resorting to this noticeboard as a first resort barely 100 edits in. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:13, 20 March 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.

Wilkn's behavior at Talk:Men's rights movement

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.

---

Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we get some admins here to review Wilkn (talk · contribs)'s behavior at Talk:Men's rights movement#"A Review of Parental Alienation, DSM-5 and ICD-11 by William Bernet"? Focusing on my sex/gender, Wilkn has, for example, quoted the following excerpt from the Bible: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." He recently stated in regard to me, "It is clear that that woman does not have the most basic civility that any human should have to be called a human let alone AGF or NPA." And he somehow wonders why the men's rights movement has the negative reputation it has and why my user page/talk page currently states some of what it states? Sighs. He has also repeatedly attacked another editor at the talk page; he believes this editor to be a biased admin. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Why do we always take so long to get rid of these disruptive editors? Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out that 1 Timothy is a forgery that was included in the New Testament because of a widespread belief that it was written by the apostle Paul (no book got into the NT unless someone was saying it was written by one of Jesus's apostles or someone close to them)[192] despite the fact that it was probably written close to a century after Paul's death.[193]

Also, the diff of the "Flyer22 is subhuman" comment quoted above is here. I'm not expressing skepticism that he said it or that (like a number of quotes given in a different thread further up this page) it doesn't look as bad in context -- I'm saying that he definitely did say it, it is as bad as it looks, and he should probably be blocked at least until he apologizes for it (and probably longer if he's made similar remarks elsewhere).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I've stricken my second paragraph as redundant now that NinjaRobotPirate has blocked. I have a number of opinions regarding the answer to his question. However, a more serious issue is actually the editors who hold similar (or worse) views and engage in behaviour that is equally disruptive to the project, but evade blocks for months or even years because they haven't ever done anything as obviously blockworthy as saying "User X is less than human". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that Wilkn was editing as early as 2009, so it could theoretically be said that he "evaded a block" for more than a decade. Egg on my face, I guess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

BLP and Wilkn's user page

I know this isn't MfD, but since this thread is here I thought I'd ask before nominating. Do others also feel that Wilkn's user page cross the BLP line? While the editor has not named any other person, they've provided enough information about themselves that they other people referred to can surely be identified. While we generally allow some latitude for people to refer to their family and friends, I think the sort of commentary on Wilkn's page crosses the line. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

non-admin Wilkn's User page contains far too much information. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

non-admin Also includes a sale link for his book and announces he's seeking funding for research. Quite inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. A lot has now been removed. Whether it needs revdelling is a different question, but it surely didn't need to be present. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 20:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted it per WP:U5, but it was unfit for Wikipedia in so many ways. Favonian (talk) 18:07, 19 March 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.

Sons of Lucifer

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:Sons of Lucifer (talk) is repeatedly adding incorrect information to the page Battle of Karbala.

• 15:23, 17 March 2020
• 05:19, 18 March 2020 reverting User:HistoryofIran
• 19:43, 18 March 2020 reverting User:Toddy1
• 05:44, 19 March 2020 reverting User:HistoryofIran
• 08:58, 19 March 2020 reverting User:AhmadLX

Toddy1 (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like he logged out [194] --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: (Non-administrator comment) Final warning given, Username against policy (plural), and given the last edit summary, quacking like crazy. Why not just report him at WP:AIV? Kleuske (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I've indeffed this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:01, 19 March 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 vandalism (recent) at the page of "M. Night Shyamalan"

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 take a look. There is a user (not logged in) who is deleting large swaths of sourced and referenced information without reasoning and refused to listen to my revert explanations and warnings to stop. Please help. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: offending user seems to have perhaps temporarily stopped. I hope they do not continue to do this. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Apoorva Iyer, I've blocked the IP. In the future, you can report these cases to WP:AIV, which (usually has a quicker turnaround time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thank you so much! Apoorva Iyer (talk) 01:16, 20 March 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.

ARIZONAUSA and USA123AZ

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.

---

ARIZONAUSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for persistent vandalism earlier today, they appear to have returned with USA123AZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can we get an administrator to both block the sockpuppet and semi-protect the article they're vandalizing, 2020 United States Senate special election in Arizona? Thanks!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Working on it. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Finished now. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you much!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:54, 20 March 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 for 75 minutes and counting

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.

---

• 2600:1700:F190:CCD0:8C7E:FCD0:ADE3:98C7 (talk · contribs)

And no acknowledgment at AIV. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, thank you. Now I'm off to write an article. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, Bob! Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a 550 word piece for publication. I do two or three a month on average. Pays the rent and it's more fun that reverting vandalism. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:27, 21 March 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 WP:BLP violations by IP user 2A00:23C4:48E:5801:7489:3BDC:DB94:911E

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 block IP user 2A00:23C4:48E:5801:7489:3BDC:DB94:911E, who has persistently violated WP:BLP policy at Tim Martin (businessman) page. Also WP:REVDEL his vulgar edit summaries. NedFausa (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• NedFausa, please just report this at AIV next time. Better yet: don't just revert, but also warn and then report; if you had given them, say, a level-2 warning the first time, they could have been blocked two or three edits ago. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Drmies: Two weeks ago, administrator Bishonen chastised me for using the word vandalism in my edit summary when reverting what I believed was obvious vandalism. I determined then that I shall no longer identify vandalism at Wikipedia even though, as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Potter Stewart famously said about hard-core pornography, "I know it when I see it." I'm not an administrator and have no authority to issue warnings of any level to another editor. I plan to avoid WP:AIV like the coronavirus . NedFausa (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, By looking into your contributions I think you have never used Wikipedia:Twinkle. You can activate that tool from here. It is really useful because it allows you to send different types of warnings. Like if you saw an edit that looks like a test edit (not obvious vandalism) you can find a warning template for that. You can easily report editors to AIV or any type of noticeboard, rollback vandalism etc etc. It is an extremely useful and almost essential tool in wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam: That's not going to happen. If I am out of line reporting serious BLP violations and other persistent disruptive editing here at WP:ANI, the admins can sanction me accordingly. But I will not be drawn into disputes about what constitutes vandalism. NedFausa (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No. I am not talking about what constitutes as vandalism. I am just saying that there is a helpful tool that you can use to make things easier for you. Drmies said that you didnt warn the editor in their talk page. That tool will help you.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, I think I disagree with Bishonen there, but reasonable disagreement is fine. I do not see where she "chastised" you, and I also don't think that edit (while yes, I think it's vandalism) is a serious BLP violation. But what we were talking about here was pretty obvious, and to not report that as soon as you can defeats, to some extent, the whole purpose. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Drmies: When I first reverted IP user 2A00:23C4:48E:5801:7489:3BDC:DB94:911E, I had no idea he'd continue violating WP:BLP. So 18 minutes elapsed, during which time he did persist, until I reported him. You then determined that his edits were so egregious, so utterly and flagrantly unacceptable, so beyond the pale of civilized conduct, that you blocked him—FOR ALL OF 31 HOURS!!! And now I'm the bad guy for not reporting him sooner. What a place. NedFausa (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say you were "the bad guy", but don't go patting yourself on the back. That first edit was bad enough, and letting it go for 18 more minutes, during which time the editor did it five more times, that's not something to be proud of. I don't know if you were trying to make a point out of some grievance, but it's not helpful. Neither is your rhetorical overload. "For all of 31 hours"--sheesh, you should know by now that we don't block IPs for much longer, and if you looked carefully you'd see that the IP address was switched and the vandalism continued (so a longer block would have been totally useless). And again, if you looked carefully you would have seen that I blocked the range, not just that one already outdated IP address. Anyway, I'm done with you; please don't ping me again in this discussion. If there's some vandal that needs blocking, that's a different matter. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Having been properly rebuked, I am contrite. I've learned my lesson. I shall not report BLP violations here at ANI or anywhere else. But I will continue reverting them, and rely on the WP:3RRBLP exemption should the offender persist. If administrators deem that my approach is noncompliant with Wikipedia rules, you are duty-bound to sanction me as you see fit. I'm sorry to have bothered you. NedFausa (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

When you see a BLP violation revert, then warn the editor on his talk page. Here are some templates that we usually use if, lets say, the content added was defamatory, first level warning we use Template:Uw-defamatory1, start a discussion in the user talk's page titled with the month and the years (e.g == March 2020 ==) then add this text under the section header {{subst:Uw-defamatory1}}. If the user added the content again then revert again and send a level 2 template, if the edit was in the same month then add it under the original section. The level 2 template is {{subst:Uw-defamatory2}}. The same thing with the level 3 and so on. I dont remember any of these templates but I use Wikipedia:Twinkle. You can activate that tool from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets scroll down and you see "Twinkle: add menu buttons to automate common tasks..." click check. You will see a new button called "TW" and there you go, it will give you a list of useful options.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam: Would it be agreeable for me to advise you privately by email each time I revert a BLP violation? You could then apply your Twinkie tool at the offender's talk page without publicly implicating me, and I would not run afoul of disapproving admins. NedFausa (talk) 18:47, 21 March 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.

Macy jannah

I've filed an SPI report about Macy jannah. Meanwhile, they continue to make unsourced and obviously false changes to Algerian population statistics after their fourth warning. Could someone maybe block them while we wait for the SPI case? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, per DUCK. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Levivich at DRV for List of people with coronavirus disease 2019

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 DRV for list of people with coronavirus disease 2019 has proven controversial and well-attended. Levivich (talk · contribs) has made abrasive comments and personal attacks on those who advocate for keeping the article, and doubled down when challenged. He began by claiming pretty much anyone with a brain knows the correct result here and continued by saying anyone who thinks Wikipedia should have lists of BLPs by disease should not only be site banned but also jailed ... this really is evil. It's Nazi-esque. It's slightly ambiguous whether he is referring to keep/overturn !voters or the list with that description of Nazi-esque, but the distinction is not important here; if you claim the list is Nazi-esque, that immediately taints anyone advocating to keep the list. Comparing other editors to Nazis is a textbook personal attack (by which I mean it is literally listed in the policy as an example). He was independently challenged by three editors (1 Smartyllama, 2 myself, and 3 Bradv) and asked to withdraw his attacks. However, he instead doubled down on his comments and repeated his comparisons of the list to Nazi sciences such as eugenics. Hundreds of thousands of people were murdered because of eugenics; it's not something to invoke over something as trivial as a Wikipedia deletion debate.

It is fine to disagree with other editors as to whether a list complies with certain policies and whether it should be kept or deleted. What is not fine is using this disagreement as a basis to belittle other editors, call for their imprisonment and compare them to Nazis. Both Levivich's comments at DRV have now been hatted, but without administrative intervention, I fear his complete lack of remorse indicates he will continue such attacks in future. – Teratix ₵ 01:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's standard for tempers to flare at AfD and review, particularly when dealing with ILIKEIT commentary. How about seriously considering what Levivich and others have said (before irritation set in)? Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree @Johnuniq:, Impossible to see this as anything other than a PA. An administrator called him on the PA and he doubled down with a tedious reply. We should be able to call out a PA even if you do like the editor. Lightburst (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I do think that it would be a good idea to encourage users to try and tone down the personal attacks. The fact that tempers often flare at AfD doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing to run around calling people Nazi-esque; indeed, I think the reason why tempers flare at AfD is because of the general gutter standards of discussion that prevail there. Levivich is a great editor and he almost always has something helpful and constructive to say, so I don't think this needs to be a big deal; just a general admonishment to all editors to rise above that kind of rhetoric and focus on content and policy. Michepman (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, so long as everyone is nice to each other, who cares about the underlying issue? Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I read thru Levivich's comments and saw a sound, policy-backed argument that others were having trouble disassembling. Levivich then went overboard with some hypothetical comparisons (confusingly using the word "you" instead of "one") and it offended those attempting the disassembling and an opening was presented allowing for some WP:SEALIONing. This is ridiculous. Please close. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

+1 on the close. Agree with Bison and Johnu - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no wish to further debate on the merits of the list; I have said my piece at AfD and DRV. All I ask is that Levivich recognise that he did indeed, as you say, go overboard with his rhetoric. I will be quite happy to withdraw my report once that happens. – Teratix ₵ 05:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Judging from their talk page comments, it appears they would appreciate recognition that BLP trumps (my words, not theirs) "going overboard". I understand your frustration, and others have been made aware of the breach of civility, but if you consider this a draw would that be acceptable? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

BLP and civility are not mutually exclusive; there is no need for one to trump the other. It's quite possible to argue an article is a BLP violation without the need for disproportionate rhetoric. – Teratix ₵ 10:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich hasn’t edited since yesterday so I’m not really sure any admin action is warranted here at this time since it would be punitive rather than preventative, but using a historical picture of Nazis to illustrate a point after calling something nazi-esque and being warned about it is quite frankly disgusting. Either he was comparing those who think we should have the list to those making the nazi salute, or he was comparing himself getting into fights on Wikipedia to the person refusing to salute. Maybe both. I’m sorry, but that’s just not okay.
  Yes, frustrations can run high, and I certainly get the desire to have people follow the BLP policy, but people of goodwill can and do disagree in good faith. Painting your position as the only morally defensible one in the starkest tone, calling your opponents evil, and then posting that picture in response when challenged pretty clearly crosses into the not acceptable behaviour realm.
  Finally, Levivich is gifted at rhetoric and probably one of the most well-spoken newer editors we’ve had in a while. He knows what he’s doing with his language and I don’t think this can be dismissed as just tempers running high. I think this should be closed with a formal warning to him that similar incidents cannot occur in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Another approach would be a 2-3 day block retroactive to the opening of this ANI. I think that would underscore the gravity of this offense. It is an offense. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - My understanding is that blocks are not supposed to be used as punishments. Blocking Levivich just to send a message would be wrong, and I think a simple warning would be enough in this case. (Though based on some of the comments above, it sounds as if there is a subset of the editor population that views accusations of Nazism as appropriate rhetorical tools, so maybe a warning is not forthcoming here anyway). There are times where I do wonder of having a civility policy even makes sense for Wikipedia, given how reluctant the community is to even informally encourage civility in heated debates. Michepman (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive. But as presented above, one argument for closing w/o a sanction is that he's taken half a day away from WP. Well, 2-3 days is a more effective interval for cooling off and reflection, given that he's already been warned. Civility is one aspect of it, but this user has a history of intermittent aggressive behavior, some of it passive-aggressive, some apparently overt. See, e.g. this BLPN thread. A brief pause for reflection is not pointless punishment. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yuck. I didn't !vote in the AFD. I haven't yet !voted in the DRV, and didn't see the inflammatory comments by User:Levivich, because they were wisely collapsed. User:Teratix is right and User:Levivich was wrong in engaging in what is an "impersonal attack" on a large segment of Wikipedia editors, those who favored Keeping the list. Saying that editors who want the list kept should be jailed is in the same territory as legal threats, and Levivich is fortunate that their remark was collapsed without a block. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 21 March 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.

Diametakomisi and incessant incomprehensibility

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.

---

• Diametakomisi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Armoracia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - disclosed as their previous account

To be frank, I think this user needs to be blocked per competence is required. They have a long term habit of cluttering up articles and talk pages with incomprehensible original research.

• At Non-binary gender, here are their talk page comments, and here and here are their article edits (reverted by DMacks and myself).

• At Social gadfly (which they renamed), it originally looked like this, but now they made it into this. (Page history) You can see that Macrakis reverted their OR, but ultimately to no avail. And look at the mess they made on the talk page (from here on down).

• Take a look at their user talk page. They've created various articles and pages, all with the same issues, that had to be moved to draft space, speedy deleted, RfD'ed, or AfD'ed. See this and this AfD for examples. (More examples at XTools.) They've also been warned for disruptive editing and edit warring.

I'm sure this person means well, but good intentions are not enough. The above shows that they are a net negative to the project. I therefore support an indefinite block on both of their accounts. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried to address the problem at Talk:Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science)#Current_state_of_the_article. I couldn't make much sense from Diametakomisi's reply, but they did at least repair the opening sentence so it wasn't as bad as it was when I posted. I didn't keep pushing because we don't seem to speak the same language (even though all of our words are in English). Schazjmd (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

tbh Crossroads I just feel that you are either just wholly not sympathetic to the edits at Non binary or just: not giving enough attention to concentration to the information I've added at the talk page, or that you are just not intelligent enough to comprehend the addition. For example "incomprehensibility" is an indication of my inability to be comprehensible is not proof of my lack of ability to express my own communication, but on the contrary your lack of ability to comprehend. Both situations might be true, wouldn't you agree? In contradiction to Crossroads I'd like to add "Live edits 1,323 · (78.8%)" doesn't indicate my lack of ability to comprehend subjects - https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science) Authorship Diametakomisi Top Edits · Edit Counter 65,434 96.5% does infact contradict Crossroads "At Social gadfly (which they renamed)" Macrakis is free to revert again if he/she wants to, if it is the case their is a problem with the article, Macrakis didn't proceed to revert the article again, and is active @ 18:59, 19 March 2020 - which is today obviously (and no-one has reverted or made deletions to the article since I stopped making major contributions @ 01:44, 27 February 2020‎) - why additionally Crossroads didn't revert Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science) if he/she feels the article is simply an error... there's no reason because the article shows numerous sources, that << Social gadfly >> existed isn't proof "Gadfly (philosophy_and_social_science)" is a bad article. Crossroad's opinions just seem like a fascistly or bullyingly identifying individual because of either his/her personal inclination, or because their position is intenable in the dialogue of Talk : Non-binary > perhaps @ 19:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (Diametakomisi) response to "Gender (in the context of this article, that means gender identity) is stable and unchanging for the vast majority of people. Gender identity is the topic of a great many sources in psychology and they are clear that it is stable" (Crossroads). Even if Crossroads opinion is true, which it isn't, his/her opinion "indefinite block" - this is entirely unnecessary because of the evidence at least of 78.8%, and I am willing to not make changes in light of being helped by other editors to align my contributions to an acceptable situation. Crossraods effort is just an assault I think that is all, looking at the evidence, and really he/she should just be arrested by the police not adding comments to this section. As an addendum, there is no reason (and I do intend to indicate a lack of reason here) to state "they" since there isn't any way to know if this user (myself) is the only user of the account or there are multiple users - so why add "they" it is a baseless application of thought on the part of Crossroads, because he/she cannot know if there is one or multiple users, which is an indication of the reasonlessness of Crossroads effort in words Diametakomisi (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"At Non-binary gender, here are their talk page comments, and here and here are their article edits (reverted by DMacks and myself)." - I am currently engaging in Talk page dialogue at that article - and have aligned to DMacks to not edit war - so there isn't a serious problem at that article, I think Crossroads is just not able or willing to engage in a dialogue, because I made a great deal of effort to review and assess the comment he/she made and my own changes to the article - in order to stop my own changes making any harm to the article there - in good faith that Crossroads response to my changes reflected a considered reality on his / her part Diametakomisi (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't revert Social gadfly because I felt dealing with your editing should be done first. But anyway, I think stuff like Crossraods effort is just an assault I think that is all, looking at the evidence, and really he/she should just be arrested by the police not adding comments to this section tells the admins all they need really. As for calling you "they", I was using singular they and not assuming gender - which I'd think someone editing a page on Non-binary gender would appreciate, but I guess not. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I dead, because it was a mess. Written like a personal essay. Guy (help!) 22:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

viewing https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Crossroads I see Crossroads is interested in relevant subjects to transexualism & transgender which does indicate he/she is perhaps an informed individual, but that this interest exists does perhaps also indicate the lack of neutrality in the opinions of Crossroads WP:5P2 - Crossroads might have an opinion on the subject that I don't agree with, so Crossroads just would prefer to eliminate my position, looking at the evidence as objectively as possible considering I am one of the disputing users Diametakomisi (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (copy of addition re-added due to "edit-conflict" at the editorial screen Diametakomisi (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC))

Crossroads "is just an assault I think that is all, looking at the evidence, and really he/she should just be arrested by the police not adding comments to this section" is just my opinion, I don't know anything about you, so you can't construe the comment as an offense against you, it is my considered opinion Diametakomisi (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC) that is all, I don't intend to harass you or to have harassed you is what I mean to say Diametakomisi (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

'Crossroads "is just an assault I think that is all, looking at the evidence, and really he/she should just be arrested by the police not adding comments to this section" is just my opinion'. Diametakomisi, would you care to explain in plain English what that is supposed to mean? because I'm a native English speaker, and haven't a clue. Narky Blert (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, Narky Blert, I felt that the opening of this discussion is unnecessary because my intentions at the articles is not to do harm to anyone, and I thought at the time of writing the comment << I have made an effort to comprehend the subject, so there isn't any reason to have disputed my contributions >>, so that the fact Crossroads has begun this disagreement, just felt like an assault against me. Diametakomisi (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (changes after signature 21:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC))

@Diametakomisi: You have not answered my question. I have no idea what, if anything, the sentence which I quoted means. Narky Blert (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Having viewed the contributions page of Crossroads I see he/she is interested in the subject - so I feel more sympathetic towards user:Crossroads - I do feel I attacked Crossroads by identifying << lack of reason >> , but really my response was a reaction to the perceived threat to me by Crossroads - I don't intend to discredit Crossroads, but I just feel Crossroads is perhaps biased to his/her self not neutral on the subject, due to the interest the user has, and the fact I'm looking at sources to only make a contribution. I do have some bias against transgender as a reality, which is maybe how this disagreement began, but I'm not hateful of Crossroads. I really don't want to be blocked because I enjoy making contributions, and seeing that Crossroads is interested primarily in the subject, and considering my lesser interest I would think I must have not understood something fully, but if you would like to look to the source @ 21:21, 13 March 2020 Non-binary gender, you will see the source is a close wording to the addition I made, is why I can't agree so much with Crossroads. Diametakomisi (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Back to Gadfly...

I agree that Diametakomisi's additions to Gadfly (philosophy and social science) have made the article much worse. As I said in my talk page message in January, D does not seem to be able to write a useful encyclopedia article. In fact, sometimes D doesn't seem to be able to write a cogent English sentence. D's contributions are extremely wordy, extremely discursive, very hard to follow, and often only extremely indirectly related to the topic.

D's contributions to other articles are similarly problematic. In Bianchi classification, D writes

Cosmology the concept results from the unification in thought of, theory by cosmological modelling, to datum and knowledge from astronomical and astrophysical observation.

This is not English, but some sort of word salad, as is the rest of the contribution. To the extent I can extract any meaning from it at all, it (and the rest of the paragraph) seems to be a commentary on the philosophy of cosmology, which is completely irrelevant in this technical article about a mathematical result. --Macrakis (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Block I had been watching their interaction with Crossroads at Non-binary gender with confusion, as I had no clue what they were on about or trying to say. Combined with their voluminous and inscrutable response here, I agree with WP:CIR. This isn't about a difference of opinion, it's about being close to incomprehensible. Also, not sure what "I do have some bias against transgender as a reality" is supposed to mean, but it does not fill me with confidence. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Macrakis, Indeed./ I rolled back, he reverted. I think it's time for at least a partial block or TBAN. Guy (help!) 22:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Diametakomisi adds refs to articles, which is useful (if they're reliable). Can you topic ban against "no sentences"? Schazjmd (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that D seems to know a lot of things and a lot of sources, and it would be a pity to lose that. On the other hand, D does not seem to be able to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant things, nor to be able to write comprehensible text. Adding walls of incomprehensible text to Talk pages instead -- even if they include some gems of information -- does not seem helpful, either. --Macrakis (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The shortcut I was looking for was WP:CB. Narky Blert (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked both accounts. I seem to be turning into ANI's hanging judge, which isn't really what I signed up for, but I don't really see any other way to handle this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Ha-harrgh, Cap'n, ye didn't know what ye were a-signin' up for when ye boarded this deathship, did ye? Narky Blert (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it was the only option. I read through the links Crossroads provided to the non-binary gender article and talk page, and the comments there make gadfly look like Dr. Seuss. Schazjmd (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• I just saw this and it may be moot at this point, but if anyone cares, their odd use of English is very reminiscent of Whalestate (or rather, their most recent sock, 23h112e). I could very well be wrong, but thought it might be worth bringing up. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Also late, but just adding my approval about a CIR block. I commented at Talk:Non-binary gender (diff) before noticing this. Mathglot (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks NinjaRobotPirate, your interventions to resolve pointless problems is very helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone for weighing in, and to NinjaRobotPirate for ending the disruption. Note that the user has an unblock request if any admins wish to handle that. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks all, I endorse this block: when I commented to delete the first of their pages at AFD, I got a long rambling response with an odd personal mention that I chose to ignore since they're clearly not worth engaging with. All these discoveries articles are junk. Reywas92^Talk 03:43, 22 March 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.

East Lothian IPs edit warring on childrens TV shows

Somebody in East Lothian has been uncommunicative regarding their repeated re-insertions into childrens television show articles of a section listing international broadcast channels.[195] (The sections are in violation of WP:TVINTL, so they shouldn't exist, and they also carry unnecessary flag icons in violation of WP:FLAGCRUFT.) EvergreenFir has been removing these sections, and myself and others have been reverting the subsequent restorations of them. Several groups of IP ranges have been involved, so I'm wondering if we can set one or more rangeblocks to stop this person. Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• March 2020 – 109.155.183.203 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• March 2020 – 109.145.55.58 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• March 2020 – 109.155.183.150 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• March 2020 – 109.156.52.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• February 2020 – 109.157.44.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• February 2020 – 86.162.213.228 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• February 2020 – 109.157.44.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• February 2020 – 109.145.55.115 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• February 2020 – 86.142.153.25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• December 2019 – 31.52.98.247 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• November 2019 – 109.145.55.45 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August 2019 – 86.162.213.223 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 2019 – 86.173.226.124 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Unfortunately, the ranges are so wide that you'd end up blocking the whole of Edinburgh and the surrounding region (and very possibly many others - the 86's and 109's are in a /12, which isn't technically blockable anyway) from anyone using BT Broadband, the UK's biggest ISP. Could this be done using an edit filter instead? Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet and Black Kite: Yeah this user has been a nuisance. An edit filter would be lovely if possible. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Try posting at WP:EFR. It may be possible to design a filter based on partial IPs and the subject-matter which doesn't cause too much collateral damage. Narky Blert (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That's good info. I didn't know partial IPs could be part of a filter. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Akira CA / Ythlev (two sections merged)

A while ago there was an RfC on maps of China, which concluded that using maps that lump the PRC and Taiwan together violates NPOV. A few users apparently do not agree with the consensus and have been constantly finding ways to circumvent it.

The first is by CaradhrasAiguo, who tried to hide the RfC and make it harder to reference it in the future. The user repeatedly removed the reference from the relevant MOS even though it is fully within scope and most users agreed to add it.

The second is by PE fans, who tried to overrule the consensus. The user asked on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles how Taiwan should be coloured on maps of China. A small number of users expressed Taiwan should be coloured as a lighter shade. The user then concludes that maps of China should include Taiwan and tried to force it into the MOS, in direct contradiction with consensus.

The third is by Akira CA and others, who disregard the consensus by finding excuses on why the RfC results do not apply elsewhere. They've tried to make a distinction between world maps and maps specifically about China. They've argued how such separating Taiwan only makes sense for that map because of the difference in severity. They disregard the core of the issue that including Taiwan on maps of China violates NPOV.

Finally, after an agreement that maps can include Taiwan if a distinction from the mainland is made, Akira CA attempted to circumvent the NPOV policy altogether. Many maps on the site have Taiwan lumped with China without distinction. I have removed Taiwan from such maps accordingly, but Akira CA reverted my edits on the grounds that Commons files do not need to be neutral. With no clear reason, the user wanted me to upload separate versions instead of replacing the existing maps. However the user then replaced the existing maps themselves with a version they agree with. The user also obstructed the removal of non-neutral maps as the MOS describes (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Violation). Clearly the lack of NPOV requirement on Commons is this user's way of pushing their POV on Wikipedia. They selectively reverted a version they do not agree with.

The core issue is these users do not agree with consensus. If they wish to challenge the consensus, they should start new discussions, do close reviews, if all else fails take it to arbitration. They should not disrupt Wikipedia like this. Ythlev (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm Akira CA, the above user utilized canvassing and cherry-picked other user's comments to promote his preferred MoS version over others and the consensus. In the original RfC, the consensus was to replace the Greater China map wtih a mainland China and that a map that lumps the People's Republic of China and Taiwan together violates NPOV. However the user misinterpreted the consensus and claimed that "All content, including every lists, maps, and tables, related to China should not include Taiwan" despite that Taiwan's official name is the Republic of China, with the Constitution of the Republic of China and Kuomingtang claiming the political entity to be the only representative of China. There are also policies on Chinese Wikipedia to ban both "juxtapositioning Taiwan and China" and "including Taiwan as a part of China", because either way violates NPOV and "Wikipedia should keep silence on this matter".

Ythlev then started mass purging maps all over the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, including those shades Taiwan with a different colour and clearly labelled the island as "claimed but not controlled by China", a long-established convention on WikiProject Maps. The user changed and reverted this, this, this, this, this, this, and this 25 times in total to lobby his prefered version despite being reverted by four different editors. PE fans soon noticed his destruction and rose a discussion against his conduct. Many users supported the "controlled/claimed not controlled/grey" colour scheme (with the reason that they remain unresolved for either side, and the map should reflect this for the sake of neutrality, as with other maps on Wikipedia) for geopolitical disputed territories and voiced their concerns against Ythlev's removal of "claimed not controlled" territories. Even Ythlev himself admit that "Taiwan can be included with distinction" is as far as the consensus go.

However, I later found out Ythlev is still mass purging maps, so I posted a concern on his Commons user page to inform his violations of Commons:Overwriting existing files, which states that

Controversial or contested changes

Changes to a file that are likely to be contested should be uploaded to a separate filename. Upload wars (a form of edit war in which contributors repeatedly upload different versions of a file in an effort to have their version be the visible one) are always undesirable. As with other forms of edit warring, users who engage in upload wars may be blocked from editing.

If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change). This is true even if the change is necessary, in one editor's view, to avoid a copyright infringement: in this case, if agreement cannot be reached through discussion, the old file should be nominated for deletion.

The more known uses of a file there are (through transclusions on Wikimedia projects), the more cautious contributors should be in deciding whether a change qualifies as "minor". Widespread usage of a file makes it more likely that even small changes will be controversial. If in doubt, uploading as a separate file avoids potential surprises for reusers. In some cases, prior discussion with previous uploader(s) or in locations where the file is in use may help decide whether a planned change can be considered "minor".

and Commons:Disputed territories, which states that

1. Both versions of any map can be uploaded as separate files, clearly labelled with their POV, and linking one another as Other Versions. Whichever map was first at a certain filename gets to stay there. The Wikipedias can decide which version is appropriate to use in which educational context. Legitimate improvements that are independent of POV can be made with complete consensus, but if anyone objects, they should be reverted and sent to a new filename.

over his 25 reverts.

Nevertheless, Ythlev ignored all these Commons Policies and regarded my messages as a circumvention to Wikipedia Policy through Commons Policy. He then threatened me on his Commons talk page and reverted every compromises he did before. Regarding to his conduct and multiple violations of policies across Wikimedia sites — including the 3RR rules — I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- Akira😼CA 13:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I wish people would stop creating subsections for their comments here. Anyway, the MOS is under discretionary sanctions. If I find people are disrupting MOS pages, I'm going to become irritable and probably block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Ythlev, the only RfC-related notice I even blanked was your blatant canvassing (the ping notifications by that point were likely already sent to each of the targets anyway) which you attempted to deny. In addition to your own disruptive editing, which has appeared on this noticeboard not once, but twice, it is apparent that you are not above telling any lie. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Akira CA: "Taiwan can be included with distinction" is as far as the consensus go To be clear, that sentence means both a map without Taiwan and a map with Taiwan distinguished are acceptable. Yet your actions show you don't agree with the former as acceptable. You would rather have a map with undistinguished Taiwan than no map at all, as demonstrated by your reversions. In that case, the guideline is completely pointless. Ythlev (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The above paragraph make zero sense as I have never add Taiwan to any maps that originally (before any of your edit) don't include the island. All I've been doing is stoping your disruptive editing with respect to the orginal uploaders and their versions. -- Akira😼CA 23:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Even PE fans wrote "However Taiwan should not be included if there is no distinction from the mainland". Ythlev (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"using maps that lump the PRC and Taiwan together violates NPOV" I fully support this. In fact, my opinion is that if there is no distinction from the mainland, inclusion of Taiwan indicates the support of the POV that "Taiwan is part of China" and contradicts NPOV. However, the key point is that excluding Taiwan from China indicates the support of the POV that "Taiwan is not part of China", which also contradicts NPOV. The long time convention stated in WP:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions#Orthographic_maps is to mark disputed territories as disputed territories. I believe in that this long time convention fits best with NPOV principle. After a long discussion in the talk page involving many editors, the current version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles indicates its support on WP:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions#Orthographic_maps. I hope that everyone can follow the current version.PE fans (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• First, stop debating the dispute here. Second, I don't see why we're accusing a user of canvassing when they literally pinged their opponent in a dispute. Canvassing is selective notification that excludes potential opponents. It's not a credible accusation, so quit repeating it, that's a personal attack and WP:ASPERSION. Third, the community's consensus and the corresponding MOS guideline is fairly unambiguous: By default, Taiwan should not be included. Claiming that this is POV is irrelevant, when there is an NPOV dispute, the community can decide on what to do about it, and the community has done so in this case. There should be no attempts to override the MOS per a POV dispute that the community has already ruled on. Fourth, WP:WikiProject Maps/Conventions#Orthographic maps is irrelevant in a situation where it does not apply, per a community mandate. Fifth, we have no jurisdiction at Commons, but edit warring over Commons images that are hosted on Wikipedia with the intent of subverting Wikipedia consensuses, policies or guidelines is disruptive editing on Wikipedia. There is no "catch-22" that we will not block you because the disruption is technically taking place on Commons. And last, the reported users have been formally made aware of the relevant MOS DS, and I agree with NRP that we should issue blocks if disruption continues. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Where do we go from here? Since then, another user has edited according to consensus and could get reverted by the above users. How are you going to prevent these users from disrupting the site? Ythlev (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Stop deceiving the administrators with all your positively loaded lies ignoring even the most basic facts. The "another user" misidentified the map by claiming it is POV on Arunachal Pradesh, however the map doesn't even include Arunachal Pradesh and shades it as Indian territory. The user is indeed damaging the Wikipedia by editing disruptively.

“

@Horse Eye Jack: I don't see Arunachal Pradesh included under PRC / Tibet AR control on the current version from 06:28 UTC 13 Mar either. You wrote your comment at 16:30 UTC 13 Mar. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

”

-- Akira😼CA 07:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing at the text of WP:CANVASS mentions the requirement that all the users pinged are inclined to agree with the OP. Only one of the users Ythlev pinged opposes them; notice I participated at the outbreak article, am a frequent editor on East Asia matters (as opposed to some they pinged), and was not pinged. Ythlev is guilty as charged; no amount of apologism will alter that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Swarm: Also could you give me where the corresponding MOS guideline is fairly unambiguous: By default, Taiwan should not be included. this come from? The current MoS is edited by Ythlev himself one months ago, which he later admitted is a bold changes and doesn't reflect the consensus at the time. After he added his own word the MoS page has been edit warred numerous times, with not only myself but many other editors opposing his bold change to MoS without any discussion. There were no section about Taiwan's political status before his edit, and I didn't find your quote by seaching across the whole MoS space. -- Akira😼CA 05:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:STABLE, by default, the long time version should be kept. On global maps such as File:World_marriage-equality_laws_(up_to_date).svg, the long time convention is to mark only areas controlled by each country. This has been re-confirmed in the discussion in the talk page of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and has been written in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. On country specific maps such like File:Europe-Ukraine_(orthographic_projection;_disputed_territory).svg or File:PRC_Population_Density.svg, the long time convention is to use a third color to indicate claimed uncontrolled territories. This has also been re-confirmed in the discussion in the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles and has been written in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. I don't see any reason to deviate from the long time convention. It does not respect the efforts of various editors such as the editors involved in File:PRC_Population_Density.svg between 2010 and 2013. PE fans (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit the Ythlev is an expert in misleading the topics. By saying "The second is by PE fans, who tried to overrule the consensus. The user asked on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles how Taiwan should be coloured on maps of China. A small number of users expressed Taiwan should be coloured as a lighter shade. The user then concludes that maps of China should include Taiwan and tried to force it into the MOS, in direct contradiction with consensus", he gave other people the impression that our key point of debate is on whether disputed territories should be drawn as the same color of a country or a different color of a country. If these are the only two choices, then a majority of editors including me will choose the second one because this is the current conventions on global maps or other maps when there are only two choices available. I was not surprised that the admin Swarm supported the second one. However, in reality, the main topic is a different one: the main discussion is about the file File:PRC_Population_Density.svg and other similar files. In 2010-2013, many editors have spent lots of efforts to draw the border line and colors on the map File:PRC_Population_Density.svg and in 2018, even the small issue about the border line has been carefully treated. The version of Furfur used a third color to treat disputed territories in a careful manner. Even the small islands were drawn in the map. In 2020, Ythlev removed the disputed territories rudely in the sense that when deleting the claimed but not controlled territories on the map, the sentence "claimed but not controlled by China" was not removed. Moreover, he keeps trying to rewrite the MoS to support his version despite being warned by the admin NinjaRobotPirate that "the MOS is under discretionary sanctions". I requested for comments about File:PRC_Population_Density.svg on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Color_for_disputed_territories_(Taiwan_and_Arunachal_Pradesh) and a majority of editors supported the careful, long time version of Furfur than the version of Ythlev. I don't know why he keeps overruling this consensus by saying that the supporters of Furfur's version are "A small number of users". PE fans (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Akira CA: I'm strictly referring to the "Maps" section, which reflects the community's consensus from that RfC that settled the map issue. No one should be inserting maps that disagree with the consensus. That being said, anything Ythlev added to the MoS because he was "being bold" that aren't directly supported by a community consensus needs to be removed. BOLD does not apply to policies, policies merely reflect the community's consensuses.
• @PE fans: "According to WP:STABLE, by default, the long time version should be kept." Is this a joke? How about you actually read WP:STABLE, and then read WP:STABLE#Inappropriate usage. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Swarm: Thank you for replying, in fact the whole "Maps" section is based on what Ythlev added "boldly", and the current version is some comprimise (though he wants to push further) between his changes and editors oppossing the changes. There were extensive discussion on the talk page and edit wars on the page's history. Since both him, myself, and other editors here are involved more or less, and the discussion has already ceased, hopefully you (or any other admins) could review the page & page talk neutrally and holistically and decide what to do. -- Akira😼CA 05:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Swarm: Thanks for clarifying that Wikipedia does not support the "by default", "stable", "long time" version but only supports a version that is "directly supported by a community consensus". Since the current version has already reflected both the consensus on Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak/Archive 8#RfC on map of infected cases and the consensus on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Color_for_disputed_territories_(Taiwan_and_Arunachal_Pradesh), I see no reason to deviate from it. Have a nice day! PE fans (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Being called "the main problem"

From my point of view Ythlev is calling other editors "problem", not just their edits. I thinks this is inappropriate and uncivil according to WP:BATTLEGROUND, but he thinks such use of word is acceptable on Wikipedia [196]...At the very end describing other editors as "problem" is really derogatory and uncooperative. -- Akira😼CA 05:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me Akira CA. You should probably refrain from invoking WP:BATTLEGROUND, civility, etc while at the same time writing things like "Stop deceiving the administrators with all your positively loaded lies ignoring even the most basic facts.” Whats good for the goose is good for the gander and its important to be the bigger person. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Those are directed to the editor's comments not the editor himself. However "problem" is directed to myself, a substantial difference. -- Akira😼CA 00:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I can't see why I should probably refrain. Shouldn't both his words and mine be examined under Wikipedia policies? -- Akira😼CA 00:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Break

Ythlev has now directly disobeyed an admin's answering of his edit request, and 16 hours after said answering; it is not possible this is a simple mis-step given he himself requested admin closure and was pinged of the request. Given this flagrant violation and inability to abide by even the most basic of Wikipedia norms, I am proposing an indefinite topic ban on all MOS pages and all pages tagged with WP:CHINA, WP:HONGKONG, WP:MACAU, WP:TAIWAN, to include their talk pages as well. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: Now, in a tour de force display of petulance, Ythlev is edit warring to re-open the edit request to which he himself requested admin closure, in violation of WP:ADMINSHOP. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

User:TBJApple

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 really don't think this user is listening or helping, I've asked him not to remove AfD notices yet he keeps removing it from 2019-20 Chesterfield F.C. season page, which is up for deletion, at WP:FOOTBALL project we don't have season pages for non-league teams yet he has created and edits them. The user has been unresponsive and continues to do his own thing. I did give a warning earlier but I feel it's fallen on deaths-ear. Something needs to be done. Govvy (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, I've given the user a personal message, with a warning that I'll block them if they do it again - let me know if the disruption continues. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, although I don't see it being much help. Govvy (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think there's always potential for help in sending a non-templated message. It seems that this editor has only ever received templates before. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 21 March 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.

Viraltux at Spanish flu

Resolved

 – Handled at WP:ANEW, where I did a 24-hour partial block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Viraltux (talk · contribs)

Please could someone block here? Viraltux is well over 3RR and is not listening to any other users' comments.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

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 am not sure what sense to make of this as I can't read the language. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Google Translate gives me a bizarre screed on DMCA and human rights, something about "delete my illegal data" and being misled by Twitter, followed by what appears to be a copy of the FAQ for the Creative Commons license. Given the choice of topics, there might be a legal threat embedded in there, but if so the translation is sufficiently incoherent that I can't say for sure. creffett (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Google translation - FlightTime (open channel) 20:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It may be worth reaching out to the Chinese Wikipedia zh.wikipedia.org for guidance or referring this user to go there instead of here. Michepman (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The edit here has been reverted, and I don't think there's any more that needs to be done. I'm sure the Chinese Wikipedia would not welcome us chucking this over to them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Heh, good point. Fair enough. Michepman (talk) 20:35, 20 March 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.

Spanish flu Lua error messages

Spanish flu is currently throwing up a load of Lua error messages. Can someone with the required knowledge fix this? It doesn't look good in a high traffic article with 400,000 daily views.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Spanish flu is throwing up? EEng 13:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the last revision, which broke everything. I haven't looked into what went wrong. The Moose 13:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

And now it looks fine on my screen on the other revision. So I reverted myself. The Moose 13:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

New GF editor Cwanless needs counselling

I don't have time now and have to quit editing for but Cwanless (talk · contribs) is adding OR, copyvio at Autodesk Inventor, etc. to articles. I'll notify them. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Again personal insult

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 Sadko again uses hate speech. First time he insulted me that I was a Nazi follower and you didn't punish him for that. Now he talk that my contributions to Wikipedia are Serbophobic. Anti-Serbian sentiment is "A distinctive form of Anti-Serbism is Anti-Serbianism which can be defined as a generally-negative view of Serbia as a nation state for Serbs" "The best-known historical proponent of anti-Serb sentiment was the 19th- and 20th-century Croatian Party of Rights. The most extreme elements of this party became the Ustaše in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia".[197] Please stop editor Sadko and his insult of Wikipedia editors. I give my time and contributions here and please do not insult me. This time I expect a harsh punishment. This is spoken word of the editor Sadko I quote: Those are not RS, not at all. Please stop spreading personal opinions which are bordering with Serbophobia - We do not know whether this "Serb" recorded in the school administration at that time is for all Slavs and Catholics as well.[198] I ask that this man is finally punished. Mikola22 (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• I left an ANI notice at Sadko's talk page. Jerm (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Please provide diffs of where Sadko has used hate speech. If you want others to look into edits then you need to be explicit about which edits they are, rather than make people do the work of finding them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• I read the talk page and saw no personal attacks. You used scare quotes around "Serb" and he called you out on it. I did see others disputing your sources. If you believe your sources are reliable sources, then take it to WP:RSN and prove it. Otherwise, this looks like a content dispute that needs to stay on the article talk page. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Utter nonsense (even more so about "Nazi follower") and yet another "boy who cried wolf" story. Please stop abusing "hate speech"; people who are real victims of hate speech will be left out in a cold place due to such actions. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:23, 21 March 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.

JanaMelitzana reported by IceWelder

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

JanaMelitzana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Clearly WP:NOTHERE, adding xenophobic content[199][200][201] and unexplainedly removing content,[202] as well as other disruptive edits. Was previously blocked for similar edits, including adding obvious factual errors by using a petition requesting this fact, a rumour, or no source at all, multiple times.[203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212] Editor refuses to communicate. IceWelder [✉] 18:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: The "too gay" wording appears to come from secondary sources, not JanaMelitzana. [213] [214] [215] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Hungary, which allegedly pulled out in 2020 due to these reasons, is not related to "Skopje" or the 2021 contest. The user tried to degrade North Macedonia with unverified (and obviously made-up) statements, and replacing "North Macedonia" and "Macedonian" with "Skopje" and "Skopjan", respectively. They also replaced "North Macedonia" with "Skopje" in the third linked revision. IceWelder [✉] 21:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I am not seeing vandalism in the diffs. I see content disputes more than I see disruptive editing. The inability or unwillingness to discuss is problematic when there is a content dispute and likely necessitates harsh action. I hesitate because this is a new editor, 285 edits, and 7 months on WP. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:CPHL reported by User:FlightTime

CPHL (talk · contribs · count)

User is running amuck, very disruptive. persistent addition of unsourced POV, OR content, despite a full talk page (with no replies or comments) This user is a net-negative and needs to be addressed. Going behind this user and cleaning up is getting laborsome. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Young user, also has info on their user page that might need revdel. Rgrds. -Bison X (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bison X: Thanx for pointing this out, I hadn't looked at the user page. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime: I'm sorry no one has actioned on this yet. I looked at it but it was too much trouble. Can you provide some good old fashioned diffs? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bison X: Sure, unsourced unexplained/ unsourced unexplained/ unsourced unexplained/ unsourced unexplained/ unsourced date change ect...... Just a few I just went through. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I have issued CPHL with a final warning about adding unsourced content. Hopefully, that will resolve any outstanding issues, precluding the need for sanctions. El_C 01:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Editor refuses to listen/learn, gets abusive

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.

---

Tee wew28 is repeatedly adding (1, 2, 3, 4) a variety of unsourced genre's to I Shot the Sheriff and their modus operandi once reverted is to first revert back to their unsourced version before asking for help on their talk page. Woodroar and I have, besides issuing warnings, attempted to offer help in the form of links and explanations (as can be seen on their talk page) but instead of reading the links and providing reliable sources they prefer to edit war and break the 3RR. Then when given a final personal plea and warning they resort to this sort of abusive behavior. Please could an admin have a look at this. Robvanvee 19:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I was about to start a report myself. I first ran into this editor at Talk:The Movies#Abandonware, which was (ultimately) a futile effort to explain that we need reliable sourcing to label the game as abandonware. They're strangely obsessed with the game, to the point of asking someone to send it to them on their user page. The two "March 2020" sections on their User talk page—mea culpa for duplicating the heading—are more examples of futile explanations. I'm not sure if there's a language issue, but this seemed like a clear case of WP:CIR even before the abuse started. Woodroar (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indef for a complete lack of any clue, ample use of the f-bomb toward other users, and minimal competence. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:25, 21 March 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.

Post-close comment. Tee wew28 discloses their DoB on their User Page - is that TMI which needs revdeling? Narky Blert (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• If they are under 18, then yes. Over 18, more power to 'em. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Over 18. Narky Blert (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible issues with User:Luigi1090

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 is a user by the name of Luigi1090 whose behavior in articles has me concerned:

• [216] - citing an unreliable source
• [217] - use of article talk page for inappropriate discussion, response
• [218] [219] [220] - mislabelling edits as vandalism
• [221] [222] - addition of material not supported by sources, response
• [223] [224] - removal of sources from articles, response 1 response 2
• [225] [226] [227] - poor grammar in edit summaries, such as "for the confirm"

I am tempted to say this might be a WP:CIR issue, but I am not too sure. Going through their talk page, I've seen issues with their edits and that they have made no real improvement in the years following the initial warnings. Thoughts? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 02:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no thoughts! I've always respected the Wikipedia rules since the first day I'd subscribe, and I haven't a poor grammar. I'm the one who made (sometimes also created) most Wikipedia pages (like Cartoon Network Studios, Shorts Department [created by me], Lazor Wulf, Re-Animated, etc.) what they still are: the most updated and complete ever and, above all, the most totally free from vandalism acts by most anonymous Wikipedia users. Although I've tried over and over again to have a dialogue with him on his personal talk page, this user (The Grand Delusion) is only making a plot against me and ruined me trying to make unnecessary alarmism. Luigi1090 (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Paranoid much? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 20:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you also starting to insult me? Paranoiac is an insult for me! Luigi1090 (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I brought up legitimate concerns about your behavior, and you're responding in a paranoid manner that will not help your case. Wording like "making a plot against me" implies there is some kind of ulterior motive to my report. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Paranoic/paranoid is a strong word for me, equivalent to an insult or a personal attack, because I'm a most sensible type that hate read or hear these type of words. The reports that you listed:

• [228] - I had already explained it to you and I repeat it again, one of those two paragraphs ("The list of...") isn't an inappropriate discussion, because I created it for protection of the page against vandals.
• [229] - Just because it comes from a social network (Facebook, Twitter or Instagram), Twitter in this case, doesn't mean it's an unreliable source. The social user that posted there isn't simple but really the creator of this new Cartoon Network pilot, if you looked at his profile, but I bet you didn't.
• [230] [231] [232] - Those mislabelling edits as you call them I really consider vandalism; in the first (Template) most Wikipedia users insert titles that have nothing to do with it, while in the second (Re-Animated) everyone in this world know that CN Studios isn't involved in its production, and finally in the third (CN Studios page) I hate the careless and clumsy users.
• [233] [234] - In my opinion a source it can be anything, even an official website or a social network.
• [235] (the poor grammar has nothing to do with it) - Some public Wikipedia users don't intend to at all of Wikipedia's table episodes formats.
• [236] [237] [238] - Like for the UPCOMING paragraph/subparagraph in "List of programs brodcast on...", when a series or a movie has been already premiered on TV their sources no longer have any value.
• [239] (also there, the poor grammar has nothing to do with it) - Some anonymous Wikipedia users removed those links without motive.

Luigi1090 (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you are demonstrating your failure to understand Wikipedia policy.

• [240] - The talk page is for discussion on ways the article can be improved, not for lists of things.
• [241] - The account you cited was not verified. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Twitter: "In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way."
• [242] [243] [244] - You're conflating good-faith editor mistakes with "vandalism".
• [245] [246] - You did not address the problem I have with those edits. The sources you used make zero mention of Lazor Wulf. Per WP:V: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
• [247] [248] [249] - There is literally no excuse for you to remove those sources unless you have consensus to do so.

In conclusion, I feel as if you are not capable of contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 02:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that I attempted to provide some counseling at the user's talk page after seeing this thread. Their response was here. Whatever else is evident from this exchange, it is clear that ...the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively. is in doubt. There is no shame in being unable to communicate in English effectively (Gaia knows I can communicate in few other languages effectively) but it does make their participation on this project difficult. I hope I've not overstepped my bounds here. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Grand Delusion You had to specify WITHOUT just telling a bad word that you used against me, which is paranoid and/or paranoiac. It doesn't matter if you tell me to go look for that word in a classic dictionary or here on Wikipedia, because that word is strong for me, equivalent to an insult or a personal attack: I'm a most sensible type that hate read or hear these type of words.
P.S: Also mess is a strong insult for me. Luigi1090 (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Luigi1090, that post underlines the fact that your English is not really good enough for you to edit an English-language encyclopedia. All the The Grand Delusion did was to say that your edits left a mess, which is a very mild word and said nothing about you personally, so it was not any sort of insult, let alone a strong one. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger No, you're wrong. The Grand Delusion really said another bad thing about me in a personal manner, before "mess". After that I gave my first personal opinion in this thread, he said: "Paranoid much?". Paranoid or paranoiac is also an insult for me. I don't care if you tell me to search for that word on a classic dictionary, because do you have to know I'm a very sensitive guy that who wouldn't insult anyone, both inside and outside Wikipedia, and I also hate ALL type of insults (strong or slight they are). Luigi1090 (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong, and by saying so you are demonstrating yet again that your English is not good enough to be editing an English-language encyclopedia. I was responding to your comment "mess is a strong insult for me". It is not a strong insult for anyone who understands English well enough. Whether any other insults were made is irrelevant to that question. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The last parts of the first phrase of your answer: "...your English is not good enough to be editing an English-language encyclopedia". Both in the virtual and in reality, I can speak, read and understand very well the English language. I can also write it well, not in the most perfect way ever but I can do it normal, because seriously, from my depth, I do my best for my contribution to Wikipedia in 8 years that I'm here. Luigi1090 (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wow. This user has been here 8 years and has a talk page full of competency and sourcing warnings with no sign of understanding. In 8 years they have failed to both comprehend the core policy for verification and they have no sense of their poor English skills. I did not poor thru their contribs to see if they have contributed anything positive, but the inability to properly source plus the poor language skills appear to be 8 years of a net-negative. I don't know if a block is appropriate (they have a clean block log), but I don't see anything changing soon. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  If we never blocked anyone with a clean block log then we would never block anyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Simply meant that after 8 years of not getting attention, it might be too quick going straight to indeff. But I have not had to deal with this user, so left it to others. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Now Luigi is edit warring in Magic Jewelry to say Magic Jewelry's mechanical resembles that of Columns against someone who is trying to fix the grammar. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• The latest revert certainly intruduces a grammatical error, although I haven't looked into whether the accompanying removal follows reliable sources. Surely it's time for a block, which, as always, would be for preventative rather than punitive reasons. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I would totally support an indefinite block on WP:CIR grounds. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 21:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate @Phil Bridger Hey, for Magic Jewelry I haven't done any edit warring but only removed a false thing from the article: Dr. Mario doesn't reassemble its gameplay in that game but only the original Columns. Then I created the paragraph with its explanations in the talk page of that article. And finally, for Magic Jewelry's mechanical resembles that of Columns, that citation had been featured on the article for a long time, before I started working on it for the first time. Luigi1090 (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• General comment from uninvolved editor From his responses here alone, it is clear Luigi1090's grasp of English is suboptimal. (It almost reads like a parody of an Italian speaking English.) The number of warning messages Bison X notes are all just under the bar that results with some kind of administrative action, which explains how he's managed to hang around for 8 years. The way he misunderstood Eggishorn's post on his Talk page suggests maybe Luigi1090 is simply trolling here. I think Luigi1090 has occupied enough of our time here; if it weren't for the fact I'm about to go to bed & won't be around to handle the resulting fireworks, I'd block him here & now. -- llywrch (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@llywrch (talk) I don't know you and I've never seen you in my life but, in the summary revision history of the article, and partly also in your opinion, you used to insult me by giving me two very strong words: "troll" and "incompetent". I hate ALL type of insults. That's why, for the second strong word you gave me in your summary ("incompetent"), I quote you a sentence from the paragraph "Responding to suspected lack of competence" on WP:CIR:

• Alleging incompetence: It is generally inadvisable to call a person "incompetent" or their editing "incompetent". While being direct with problems is advisable, it is possible to be direct without being insulting. Telling people their work displays incompetence does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them less receptive to instruction. Luigi1090 (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Luigi1090:, at this point, your extreme hostility has proved to me that you have no ability or intention to be "receptive to instruction". Your use of English is plainly not up to the standard expected here and betrays features that strongly suggest the use of machine translation. Your continued defense of that inability to use English suggests that the Dunning–Kruger effect is in operation here. Simply put: you've amply demonstrated that you don't know English well enough to know you are not competent in its use. You attack anyone pointing this out to you with a fervor that precludes accommodation or compromise. Your statement on your user page: "...based on TRUTH, because of edit a page I inform you about EVERYTHING..." further proves this and shows you are either unaware of or opposed to the site's Core Content Policies. Intransigence and hostility to both editing within policy and editing cooperatively with other editors should be non-negotiable grounds for being removed from editing. I therefore reluctantly support a lengthy block. I'm sorry it came to this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I understood their message about using English langauge only that they'd to clarifying me WITHOUT using words equivalent to real insults for me, because I hate ALL type of insults: first The Grand Delusion called me "paranoid" and "mess" on his answers, then Llywrch called me "troll" and "incompetent" on his summary description. In fact, if you look at all my answers in this discussion, I'm replying exclusively for these their words, NOT for the message.
And then, the statement that you found on my user page: "...based on TRUTH, because of edit a page I inform you about EVERYTHING...", it's a type of statement to which I'm not tied and associated for a long time, because I wrote it as a novice the first day I registered here on Wikipedia 8 years ago. Therefore, you must not relate it to my alleged opposion to the site's Core Content Policies because it's not true. Luigi1090 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Luigi1090, when someone who doesn't know you & has no interest in the area you edit, who happens to have edited Wikipedia much longer than you, & who happens to be an Admin, when that person makes the observations I had above, do think that it might -- just might -- be that he is right? And there might be a better way to respond than to argue over his choice of words both here and on his Talk page? (And I hope you do not find it insulting that I suggest you take some time to think before you answer.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Can the users whose edits overlap with Luigi1090's confirm if any of their edits are beneficial? If blocked, I would support an unblock if they can comprehensively explain their understanding of WP:Verifiability & WP:Reliable sources; AND if they can find someone to mentor them with their writing skills (i.e., a proofreader). This is a lot to ask, so it all hinges on my question, Are their edits worth it? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Bison X: I think they're a hopeless cause. Regardless of whether their edits are beneficial, they have demonstrated poor reading comprehension in regards to other editors' replies here, a loose understanding of Wikipedia policy, a poor grasp on English grammar, and an apparent unwillingness to learn from all this. So no, his edits are not worth it, and I'd support a WP:CIR block. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 18:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on a random picked one such as here. No. That one is a pure case of WP:OVERLINK of previous links. Canterbury Tail talk 19:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking further into their history, I've come across a huge number of moves "Real original title of the game" that moved video game articles to other names with zero of the references in the articles supporting those names. For instance this diff. Amazingly they are for obscure games and therefore not spotted, but check the logs they're full of these moves with no evidence to back up their assertion of correctness. I think we should just end this. Canterbury Tail talk 19:36, 23 March 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:St Judas the Lazarene: slavery / Nazi Germany / far-right topics

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.

---

St Judas the Lazarene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first encountered User:St Judas the Lazarene (SJL for short) at Latvian Legion, a WWII formation under Nazy Germany's command. My edits were reverted by SJL on the grounds of them being  "sheer vandalism" (via e/s): [250].

I then looked at their contribution and discovered a recent pattern of problematic edits that span far-right topics, Nazi Germany, and slavery:

• 9 February: In Slave breeding in the United States, modified the article to add that it was an "alleged" practice, which "allegedly" included coercive sexual practices: [251]. Also on: 
  • 23 February: [252]; 
  • 22 March: [253]

• 10 March: SJL removed Proud Boys & Patriot Front from Template:Neo-fascism: [254]. The first sentense of Proud Boys contains: ...a far-right neo-fascist organization...; same for Patriot Front.

• 12 March: At English people, removed "Islam (see Islam in England); Judaism and other faiths (see Religion in England)" referencing "Islamic apologists" in e/s: [255].

• 17 March: At Wage slavery, modified the lead to present it as an "alleged" situation: [256]. Also on: 
  • 20 March: [257], where they described it as an "ideological and subjective concept" via edit summary
  • 22 March: "alleged" again: [258].

• 17 March: At Share cropping, replaced wage slavery with wage labour: [259].

• 20 March: Edited Irish slaves myth: [260], removing The myth is especially popular with apologists for the Confederate States of America ... during the American Civil War,

• 21 March: In this edit, SJL removed Category:Nazi parties from the WWII-era National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands: [261]. The lead of the article says: ...was a Dutch fascist and later Nazi political party.

Given this pattern, I would like to propose that SJL be topic banned from far-right topics, Nazi Germany, and slavery, all broadly construed, -- or another appropriate sanction be applied. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. I note that he also seems to have followed Bastun to the Irish Slave myths article after Bastun reverted an edit of his at Oscar Wilde. At Talk:Irish slaves myth he wrote "the idea that the SPLC, a far-left partisan organisation that in addition to spreading deliberate falsehoods and race hate propaganda openly employs violent extremists, is reliable, is ludicrous, but I suppose only to be expected from the administrators--or should I say Commissars?-- of this site". At  Talk:Communism: "I agree completely. Like all the articles on far-left politics on Wikipedia, this article was clearly written by extreme leftists themselves, which is obviously far from ideal to say the very least." Doug Weller talk 19:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Tban per OP and Doug. This is a worrying pattern of editing. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. And my compliments to K.e.coffman for the very readable manner his evidence has been presented. -- llywrch (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban to be very broadly construed, with a firm warning that if disruptive editing continues on any topic, an indefinite block will be the result. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Someone who makes edits like this shouldn't be here in the first place, given the rest of the pattern. Update: what more is required for a NOTHERE block than crap like this, "the idea that the SPLC, a far-left partisan organisation that in addition to spreading deliberate falsehoods and race hate propaganda openly employs violent extremists, is reliable, is ludicrous, but I suppose only to be expected from the administrators--or should I say Commissars?-- of this site." Drmies (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Cullen, probably en route to an indef. Miniapolis 01:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. The edit pattern at Slave breeding in the United States is a worrying example. It contains two more similar edits by SJL in addition to the three that KEC enumerated above: there's this on 19 February, reverting the people who had reverted him, with edit summary "Reverted vandalism by anons". Yes, the people reverting SJL at this article have all been editing as IPs, and I'd like to thank them for protecting Wikipedia. And there's this on 2 March (no edit summary beyond the technical "(Reverted 2 edits by 67.8.53.48 (talk) (TW))" that Twinkle provides.) SJL never visits the talkpage of this article, but just returns, at fairly long intervals but never giving up, to push the same extremist POV in the same way without making waves. I won't call that sneaky POV-pushing, since I don't know their motives, but the lack of discussion on talk (and mostly lack of edit summaries, too) certainly combines discretion with slow and steady persistence. It's the kind of editing that demands considerable vigilance by others if it's not going to undermine an article's quality and reliability. I appreciate the work of the IP editors reverting SJL at this article. Bishonen | tålk 04:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC).

Greetings, comrades and comradesses! I apologise for my lateness in SHOWing up to my TRIAL--I was unavoidably detained on account of having stuff going in the ole world of praxis. So, I see the Wikipedia Commissars, taking offense at my oblique and light-hearted acknowledgement of their existence--inexplicably, as they are, in my experience, far from reticent about their dedication to the glorious cause of World Communism or in using their powers to further this cause--have decided to form a Troika to pronounce judgment on this incorrigible Enemy of the Party and the People. Although I know nothing I say will sway the course of the People's Swift Justice, since I, unlike others who have fallen foul of that 'justice' in decades past, have the opportunity to speak in my defence, I will take that opportunity now. Since so many of you have joined in the gangbang, and there's only one of little old me, you'll permit me to address each of your aspersions at length and in detail.

Firstly, regarding the edits you've trawled up (and I applaud your dedication, tovarish--if only we all that had kind of time on our hands) that actually do relate to the 'far right' or 'slavery':

• Your edits on the Latvian Legion, as I explained to you, were demonstrably non-constructive, since they removed a whole bunch of content under dubious pretexts and added nothing. To quote moi-self:

I was referring to the edits by @K.e.coffman: which as far as I can tell consisted only in removing all the historical links that had been appended to the article, deleting the background on the battle which was being commemorated, deleting the regimental flags from the infobox, changing the sentence "which were formed several years earlier for security duties" to the ungrammatical "which were formed starting in 1941 earlier for security duties", claiming to "reduce unsourced material" while deleting a source on the dubious ground that he considered it "dubious" and being happy to leave in plenty of other unsourced material, while not providing any sources of his own, all for no discernible reason other than to wreck the article.

Maybe calling them vandalism was somewhat excessive (in fairness, I didn't mean it literally) but I think my real mistake was daring to challenge a Senior People's Commissar Administrator, which is why he's determined to throw me in a (virtual--for now) Gulag.

• regarding the 'Neo-Fascism' template, as your Comrade Bastun has informed me, Wikipedia is not a source, and idk, I guess I was just confused why an organisation which explicitly rejects and condemns fascism and racism and has a multiracial membership and leadership is listed as "neo-Fascist"? I would have provided a source if Wikipedia accepted any except leftist ones.
• My edit to the NSB article was because, as far as I knew, there was only one "Nazi" Party--the NSDAP, which the NSB wasn't. When people mention the "Nazi Party" they mean Hitler's party, not some minor outfit in the Netherlands. However, as I'm increasingly coming to learn, Wikipedia operates in an alternate reality when it comes to this and many other topics.
• The content I removed from the 'Irish Slaves myth' article, as I explained, was not reliably sourced. Maybe I should have "sought consensus", but really I was just following Comrade Coffman's example in removing content from 'dubious' sources.

The other edits are not in any way related to the 'far right', 'Nazi Germany', or 'slavery'.

• "Wage Slavery" and Share-cropping are not slavery, not even 'broadly construed' (hint: slaves aren't generally paid or legally free to leave their jobs), and the idea that "Wage slavery' is anything other than an "ideological and subjective concept" (or in fact a polemical term of abuse used by anti-capitalists) is ludicrous. What is it then, Comrade Coffman? Or if you answered honestly would it give the game away? The article as it stands blatantly violates NPOV.
• My edit to the English people article was to change content which presented Islam and Judaism as major/historic religions of the English people, which they most definitely are not (as I stated, the numbers of English converts to Islam/Judaism are tiny, and it's deeply misleading to have them in the infobox as they are), and yes, Islamic apologists routinely claim that vast numbers of English (and other non-Muslim peoples) are flocking to Islam, which, as I stated, is not supported by evidence. Perhaps Comrade Coffman could explain why he was bothered by this statement.

Comrade Weller, thank you for sharing two statements of mine. Would you also like to share what, precisely, is the matter with them? I'm sure your answer will be instructive

As for the kind comments of your other friends which you have, I presume, rounded up to assist in my lynching, I'm seeing a lot of vague terms like 'problematic', 'disruptive', 'extremist', 'worrying' 'counter-revolutionary', 'rightist', 'anti-Soviet' --whoops, forgot you're not supposed to say the quiet part loudly! without explaining a) what 'pattern' they're referring to b) why it, or any of the edits presented, is actually 'disruptive'

Or are you just following the tried and true Stalinist tactic of insinuating sinister but unspecified thoughtcrimes when you can't actually prove me wrong, and are thus unwilling to engage in a rational, evidence-based discussion? We get it: you people hate free speech, freedom and truth, and people who stand up to Communist tyranny, but sheesh, you could at least try to be subtle about it.

Users who make edits like what, exactly, Comrade Drmies? Why don't you just come out and say whatever it is you're accusing me of? I really do wonder why. For your information, the insistence on the clunky, hyper-(politically)-correct 'enslaved person' rather than the universally-accepted 'slave' is a pointless (and recent) neologism pushed by your type (see, I can do it too), though notably only in reference to African slaves in the US, never the hundreds of millions of other people who've been enslaved over the millenia, and in avoiding such instances I was only following the example of other editors I've seen and Wikipedia policy. <iframe name="ngram_chart" src="https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=slave%2Censlaved+person&year_start=1600&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cslave%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Censlaved%20person%3B%2Cc0" width=900 height=500 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe>

Btw, Comrade Dmries ,thank you for referencing this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia#Clearly_not_being_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia

It's full of interesting tidbits. For instance, under the heading, 'What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not', I found this:

Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms A number of users wish to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to conduct norms such as collaborative editing, avoiding personal attacks, or even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions in their edits. These would be dealt with through guidance, simplified suggestions on how to contribute or reediting the content to the style and standards of Wikipedia. In a small number of cases this may lead to a friendly block with warnings or even bans in some long term cases. Failure to adapt to a norm is not by itself, evidence that a user is not trying to contribute productively and some might require assistance so don't be inconsiderate.

Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner Merely advocating and implementing changes to Wikipedia articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed and even if these changes made are incompatible with certain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia. The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as not reverting due to a lack of consensus, getting the point, and civility in the course of challenging unpopular opinions.

Regarding, "users who make edits like this shouldn't be here in the first place", I also found that behaviours that did demonstrate a user was 'Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia' included 'harrasment' and 'hostile aggressiveness', which is interesting in light of the fact that this user evidently feels safe enough behind his Administrator's Red Barnstar and Banner to tell users to 'fuck off' and grace them with such messages as 'Damn boy, I'm trying to figure out for how long you been posting reactionary, right-wing, uneducated bullshit on Wikipedia--it's been a few months! You really hate blacks and women, don't you.'

As I've more than amply demonstrated, every "problematic" edit you've cherry-picked from my hundreds of edits--like every edit I've ever made-- was absolutely Great, Glorious and Correct, and could only conceivably be construed as 'problematic' or 'disruptive' by a far-leftist who finds any contradiction of his evil ideology intolerable.

You want to ban me from articles related to the 'far right', but in fact most of what you all appear to find 'problematic' relates to the far left. All I can conclude is that 'far-right' to you means anyone who doesn't like the far left, which murdered tens of millions in the 20th century, and looks set to match those figures in the 21st, ably assisted by this site which indeed, on every article relating to far-left politics I have encountered, pushes a far-left POV, written by avowed Communists (even good enough to identify themselves as such on their user pages), pushes a Communist POV instead of anything approaching a neutral or objective assessment, presents Communist terms and concepts (like "wage slavery") as objective fact rather than subjective and highly disputed concepts, whitewashes/outright promotes far-left regimes and organisations (such as the SPLC, an organisation that deliberately propagates falsehoods and literally hires violent Antifa terrorists--all of which is documented fact, unlike the content I've removed or qualified. Yes, I have fucking receipts) and minimises or outright ignores all criticism that isn't also from a far-left perspective.

You don't like that I don't accept Marxist ideology as fact, and you don't like that I don't like Communists. That's all there is to this. If you have a problem with my edits, your problem is not with me but with Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View, which I, in my supreme naiveté, actually believe in and tried to adhere to.

Could Comrade Bishonen explain what is 'extremist' about--not even outright negating, but merely qualifying the uncritical assertion of a practice that in all likelihood never existed? As for his amusing descriptions of 'slow and steady persistence' (ooooh, creeeeepyyyyyy): as I mentioned, some of us only edit incidentally since we have these things called real lives and don't always have the time to immediately jump on POV bullshit presented as fact, especially considering there's so much of it on this site and so many of you seem devoted to making sure POV bullshit continues to be presented as fact.

In fact, I don't have an agenda or POV to push (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection), believe it or not, except that I have an old-fashioned--positively reactionary--attachment to the truth (that's with Truth with a 'T', not a 'P') and when I happen to come across an article (which is every time I browse Wikipedia) that propagates blatant lies, I feel compelled, if not to correct them, then at least to frame them as opinion rather than fact. Oh, and I don't happen to be a card-carrying Communist, which I didn't realise was a requirement to be an editor here. I guess that's a POV/agenda.

The accusation that I don't provide edit summaries, if he's referring to my edits in general, is an outright falsehood. I usually always provide edit summaries, and am happy to explain my edits when called upon to do so (unlike others I have interacted with recently). Sometimes, as on this page, I don't, usually when I'm dealing with your anonymous friends who persist in edit warring after I've already explained why their edit is unacceptable, a practice I learned from the likes of yourselves, in fact. Also, interesting that it's being alleged that I 'followed' or 'stalked' (on the internet! no less) Comrade Bastun, but Comrade Bishonen is full of praise for the IPs/new accounts (created for the sole purpose of reverting my edits) who have 'stalked' me from article to article. Not to mention Comrade Weller's recent warning on my talk page, which there's no chance at all was meant to intimidate me.

That's all. Bella ciao, stay safe and snuggly and don't catch the Chinese American CIA-planted Virus! St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the longest screeds/walls of text I’ve seen on here in recent history, and despite their light-hearted sarcasm, shows a rather entrenched battleground-esque mentality. Aside from it being utterly unconvincing in terms of a “defense”, it does lead me to believe this user is more of an alt-right troll pushing a POV, than a serious editor, and likely WP:NOTHERE. Sorry. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

And there ^^ ladies and gentlemen, we have a new contender for The longest suicide note in history. Clearly not a new user (Checkuser time) and clearly WP:NOTHERE. Valenciano (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block for outright trolling. If anyone can be bothered to read the morass above, show trials, commissars, world communism and gulags are irrelevant to what's happening here, but St Judas the Lazarene doesn't seem inclined to behave like an adult. Their approach, combined with the already-established POV-pushing, wholly equates to WP:NOTHERE. As a parting shot, referencing the Chinese American CIA-planted Virus is outright trolling. ——SN54129 12:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support indefinite site ban as a far-right troll that is clearly WP:NOTHERE. --MrClog (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Indefinite Block: User is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, as shown by the screed above and the large scale personal attacks that it includes.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Indefinite block based on the great wall of trolling above. A CU would be advisable as well. Acroterion (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Their use of red-yellow text markup doesn't seem to be the thing an average new user would know how to do. --MrClog (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so not being a Communist=being far-right. Thank you for confirming my thesis. And I guess people are free to engage in personal attacks against me, but I can't defend myself? St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Above, I already noted my support for a TBan - I still support that as a minimum, but in light of the above, an indefinite NOTHERE block is now my first choice. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Indefinite block after reading his trolling comment, there is no way this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. And I suggest speedy indefinite block before this thread becomes more stupid with his comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Ban + block: duh. --JBL (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Sheesh - I knew this was a problem editor, but seeing that ridiculous wall of text, an indefinite block now as NOTHERE is blatantly obvious. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 24 March 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.

Spam-only account Sumonseo9

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.

---

@Sumonseo9:'s contributions are spam-only. All have been reverted by different users. User was warned by two other editors in 2019, yet has continued spamming. Paradoctor (talk) 06:01, 24 March 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:IMBA wiki violation of corporate policy.

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've noticed that User:IMBA wiki is an account operated by more than one person and is an organization because it uses a username of an organization and uses the term "we" on its userpage, which is a violations of WP:BFAQ#ACCOUNT which states that

It is against our local policy for two or more people to share an account for any reason. If there is evidence that an account is being shared, it will be blocked. Usernames that match your organization's name or website name are usually viewed as inappropriate under Wikipedia's username policy. (e.g., "Widgets Company") Usernames that indicate a role at a company, without identifying a specific individual, are usually viewed as inappropriate under Wikipedia's username policy. (e.g., "Sales at Widgets Company" or "Widgets Company CEO").

I kindly request the account to be blocked immediately in view of violation of this user-related policy. Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI, this is generally reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. If you use twinkle, it's much easier. Natureium (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I withdraw this request and will post this report on the relevant noticeboard.WikiAviator (talk) 05:58, 24 March 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:Soumya-8974 and redirects

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.

---

Check out User talk:Soumya-8974/Archives2020/March and you will see a wall of RfD notifications for questionable redirects created by User:Soumya-8974. Included in this archive is a thread titled Redirects are cheap; editor time is not by Mathglot and Glades12, where some of these redirects were laid out for Soumya-8974. Instead of discussing, the action Soumya-8974 took was to post these redirects to their user page, like creating junk redirects is something to be proud of. Another talk post started by Uanfala, called Before creating redirects..., went unanswered. This shows that trying to discuss the issues is not working.

Soumya-8974 is clearly a resource drain for those at RfD, and I am at my wits end seeing their redirects pop up there seemingly every single day. I propose an indefinite topic ban on redirects, broadly construed, to be lifted when Soumya-8974 can adequately demonstrate an understanding of redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• A topic ban for redirects may be in order. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like to see a block before a ban. There are two problems here: the unacceptable behavior surrounding redirects, and the lack of engagement on their Talk page. A topic ban may indeed be needed eventually, but first they need a wake-up call. Mathglot (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with a block, so long as the topic ban is in place once the block expires. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I endorse a topic ban. The user is still creating useless or near-useless redirects (such as How to survive COVID-19, Korona epidemic (a K? Really?), and Preservance (rover)), and has thus made it clear that they do not intend to change this behavior. The unanswered talk page discussions have been enough to constitute a "wake-up call". Glades12 (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Ban me if you want, I am on the full disclosure. The redirects you mentioned (except the "How to survive COVID-19", which is created by mistake) are misspellings (the spelling "Korona" is found on several boards of India). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would also endorse some restriction. I'm not an admin, and have no input on what the right form of it would be, provided it can rein the editor in. Independent of this discussion, I just nommed two redirects (Preservance (rover), referred to by Glades12, above, as well as Preseverance (rover)) and when notifying the editor via user talk, saw the link to this discussion. TJRC (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Addl'l comment: the editor in question self-identifies as a 15-year-old kid, so perhaps he or she could benefit from Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, in particular the bit about "remember that we have some rules." TJRC (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• If I may: the core of the problem seems to me to be the creation of redirects that a native English speaker would be unlikely to search by, such as foreign-language names (I Griego) and implausible misspellings (Korona epidemic, Preservance (rover). Germania (cant) and Germania (argot), which are on the short list of bad examples that were posted to the editor's talk page and transferred to their user page, are useful; I was unaware of Germanía, which they point to, and most English speakers ignore or don't notice accents. If Soumya-8974 could be gotten to not make redirects from misspellings or foreign languages, perhaps given a place to propose any they really think would be useful, that would perhaps be enough, leaving us with just stuff like scientific formulae and map coordinates, which I suspect Soumya-8974 will easily recognize are unlikely search terms here? (The formulae likely come up as suggestions if one does type them into the search box.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• As another RfD regular who has nominated a fair share of Soumya's redirects for deletion, I would most strongly endorse the limited TBAN against creating redirects from misspellings or non-English languages. Soumya has also created some useful redirects, so I would hope that they can learn to edit within the limits of this topic ban. However, the lack of adequate communication is also concerning, and if that isn't resolved blocks may be in order. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• As another RfD regular, the space has been flooded the last week or so with this user's redirects. Some of them have been kept after discussion, but a lot of them have been deleted. The user has voted to keep some of the redirects at discussions as "cheap and harmless", but a strong consensus to delete these has formed frequently. Commendably, they've requested G7 on some of them, but it's still a big time drain at RfD to deal with this user's redirects. I'd support a temporary topic ban, to give Soumya-8974 the chance to read and understand the applicable redirect policies. They've created some useful redirects, but it's growing to be a problem - redirects such as 29.9792458°E (half of the coordinates to a place, as well as the incorrect cardinal direction for that half) are making a mess at RfD. Hog Farm (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• As another RFD regular, I agree that Something Needs To Be Done. I would prefer something less than a block, as I did in the recent case with DM; but the WP:DISRUPTION has to stop. As well as new redirects up for RFD, I've also seen RFD discussions of old redirects which were heading for WP:SNOW deletion after policy-based !votes by regulars but which had to be relisted after one dissenting !vote by Soumya-8974. This sort of stuff is a classic timesink. Narky Blert (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree there should be a topic ban in place, but only on the creation of redirects, since from what I have seen, that is the only problem topic. Other than that, with the exception of Soumya-8974's rather liberal and repeated incorrect applications of WP:CSD criteria in WP:RFD discussions, I see no other topic-ban eligible problems with their edits. (Well, there was one more thing, but that was a while back and the only thing I care about that now is remembering that it happened.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support a TBAN on creating new redirects. Those are the real timewasters. (1) Find. (2) Research. (3) List at RFD, proposing deletion. (4) Stand aside while other regulars do their own research and !vote. (5) Expect an unhelpful unadorned keep !vote on the lines of "it's useful". (6) Look for the relist next week. (7) It's WP:COSTLY. Narky Blert (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at Soumya-8974's creations from the last week or so, I think I can say they aren't as eggregious as the earlier ones (the recent avalanche at RfD that forms the backdrop of this thread is not necessarily relevant for the present because of the time lag between the time a redirect is created and the time it's picked up at NPP and sent for deletion). Could it be that some of the feedback has been taken on board? I think redirects where "corona" is spelt with a k are helpful, and even ones like Preservance (rover) that might draw a chuckle here, are actually plausible from an Indian English perspective (a reminder that there are at least as many users of English in India as there are on the British Isles). Juvenoia on the other hand is concerning: Soumya, you have seen time and again that redirects for random translations of non-English words get deleted, why do you keep creating them?
  I don't know if a ban from creating redirects is completely necessary, but if imposed, it should be on the understanding that Soumya is free to request redirects at WP:AFC/R (subject to some reasonable weekly limit). At the very least, a track record of successful requests there could help with a future appeal of the ban. – Uanfala (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think a topic ban, while permitting them to use WP:AFC/R up to some reasonable limit, would be good. I'm unpersuaded that they've learned their lesson from this discussion having started. There are weeks of discussion on their talk page (now archived) that were clearly without effect. There no harm in having an editor needing to go through a slower process in an area where they've demonstrated a marked inability or unwillingness to regulate themselves. It could be educational, and if it can be shown that the redirects requested at WP:AFC/R have been meritorious after six months or so, lift the ban.

Right now the problem stems from them being able to create problematic redirects with ease, that have to be unwound only slowly, through the efforts of a large number of editors, as Narky Blert points out above. TJRC (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I see consensus for action, but this had been archived without action so I am unarchiving and reposting here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:36, 23 March 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:Locke Cole

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 in question has a history of edit warring.[262]

They are aware of the consensus and despite this have changed the text in question.[263]

I would propose a topic ban on the user in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I see. So I vote against you on the talk page at 2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), make one edit which I explained on the talk page, and you propose a topic ban? Is this how you silence dissent or those who don't agree with you? I urge anyone reading this to read the section directly above, and the talk page discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking as the admin who invoked IAR to unilaterally protect Coronavirus disease 2019 in the first place—so hardly someone welcoming disruption with open arms—this request looks like a massive overreaction. Unless there's been something oversighted, Locke Cole has only edited that page once in his entire history, and by definition it can't be considered edit-warring. If this were someone inserting an obvious fringe view I'd maybe have less sympathy, but "viruses can be spread by sneezing" isn't exactly up there with "viruses can be cured by drinking cow urine". ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• • User:Iridescent The issue is that their is consensus on the talk page and User:Locke Cole was aware of that consensus and still made the edit anyway. Sure we can also give them another chance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    • That's still not edit-warring. Neither me nor any other admin is going to sanction a 15-year editor for a single, non-disruptive good-faith edit. It's not in dispute (I trust) that viruses can be spread through sneezing, so all we have here is someone who tried to make what they saw as a correct edit, was reverted, and is now discussing it. This is how Wikipedia is meant to work. ‑ Iridescent 18:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Doc James: WP:CCC. Also, I was not aware of the "consensus" on the talk page (I'm assuming that list at the top of the page). It's really disappointing to see something that well sourced and important to people who are looking for information during this time would be getting incorrect information because of an older "consensus". —Locke Cole • t • c 19:04, 23 March 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.

NPC 00120009

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.

---

switched from using a disgusting pipe

-EEng

Could an admin revdel the "welcome" notices posted by NPC 00120009 between 20 March 2020 and 23 March 2020? See contribs log. NPC included graphic and obscene content in the welcome notices, which is hardly the first impression of Wikipedia that we should wish to present to new users. Somebody may wish to investigate whether this was deliberate vandalism as I suspect, or if it was some bizarre technical malfunction with Twinkle. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Already requested a NOTHERE block at AIV.. User switched from using a disgusting pipe to inserting an obscene image in sig so obviously intentional. Meters (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are the two sample diffs I listed at AIV [264] and [265] in case someone wants to take action here/. Meters (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's hope the user is indeffed as soon as possible, then. Altamel (talk) 02:59, 23 March 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.

Continuous unsourced edits despite repeated warnings

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.

---

Heepman1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Heepman1997 has been adding unsourced information to articles for years and a quick glance at their talk page will give an admin some idea of the amount of warnings this person has been given. It should be noted that I have only looked at the music article edits but they have been at it on more than just music related articles. Between the good edits there are a large amount of unsourced edits and despite the plethora of warnings and a previous block (Swarm's words then:"Persistent addition of unsourced content: chronic offender, if issues persist please indef") for this very reason they continue unabated.

Here are some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (I could go on but I think one gets the picture).

When I recently reverted several of their unsourced and questionable edits, I was accused of hounding and of being a crazed wikistalker. This editor also has yet to communicate on their talk page regarding any of these issues/warnings as well as my personal plea for them to source their edits. The names really do not bother me but the unsourced additions do and I'd be grateful if an admin would remind the editor of the importance of the verifiabilty policy. Robvanvee 06:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed per the above. El_C 08:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El C. Robvanvee 08:36, 22 March 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.

Unsourced contributions by 93.87.163.221

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.

---

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

I noticed this user making un-cited changes to Mary of Guise (changing her title from "noblewoman" to "princess"). I looked into it, and found no evidence that she was a princess, so I reverted the users edits and posted to their talk page. However, the used has (so far) ignored my posts on their talk page, and continued making un-cited changes. I'm not an expert, and have not reviewed all of their changes (there have been many), but the one I did look into makes me question the accuracy of the others. -drt1245 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Drt1245: If you give them enough (4 or more) warnings and they continue their behaviour, you can report them to AIV. Happy editing! Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 16:12, 22 March 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:Paulsmithwikia14

User in question has been creating many hoax/fake drafts that should be deleted. I'm not 100% sure on the procedure, but all the drafts can be deleted as they are completely false information, and the user should probably get blocked from editing or creating anymore drafts, as these hoaxes constitute as vandalism.

The drafts in question are:

• Draft:Blue's Clues: The End of Joe
• Draft:The Big Bang Plotagon: The Movie
• Draft:The Adventures of Blue and MJ
• Draft:Liam Atkinson
• Draft:Liam Atkinson: The Series
• Draft:Presidential War

Only one I'm not positive on is Draft:Template:Ilderton Blue Jays roster, but seeing as their current drafts are all completely false information and they've already had plenty of speedy deletions of their drafts, I would tend to think this one is the same. They've even been warned on this, but they definitely seem to be WP:NOTHERE. Magitroopa (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed to Liamatk2020 (talk · contribs), both of whom are evading a lengthy block for hoaxes. I'll do what I can to clean this stuff up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

RMCD bot

Moved to User talk:RMCD bot/Archive 2 § Pandemic (3/21/20)

 – wbm1058 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

On Talk:1968 flu pandemic, RMCD bot is repeatedly making headers saying Move discussion in progress. Can you figure out what is going on with it and fix it? Pinging wbm1058 since he is the bot operator. Interstellarity (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like my bot has got the virus LOL... looking into it now. wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I think it may have something to do with there being a recently opened move discussion of the 1968 article on the 1968 talk page, as well as a combined move discussion of it and other articles on another page. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, it looks like the bot has been attacked by a pandemic of open requested move discussions on different pages. I'll see if I can make it behave in a more defensive manner when such events happen ;) wbm1058 (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, single-edit drive-by IP editor 71.29.115.248 edit-warred with the RM process: diff. wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

And later another single-edit drive-by IP editor 67.68.160.84 further usurped process: diff. wbm1058 (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

ADOS MMXX

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

I just blocked ADOS MMXX for 31h for disruption. A "brand new editor" making rapid-fire changes to national or ethnic categories. Is this a recognisable LTA or just some new bull in our much damaged china shop? Guy (help!) 15:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: if this is a sock it's not an LTA. I posted this at Talk:African Americans in relationship to American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS). That article and talk page give the background and the talk page in particular should be read. "We've got an interesting issue here. ADOS sees African Americans (why no hyphen?) who are descended from slaves as deserving their own racial classification. This explains the request above about Obama. As a consequence, we are now getting good faith editors such as User:ADOS MMXX removing some black Americans from African American categories. I think this needs discussion and I'm not sure where. There are three wikiprojects that are relevant for instance, but I don't think we want multiple discussions." Doug Weller talk 16:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Their edit summary here lays out pretty directly that their edits are based on a POV: "Being black in American does make one African-American; there is a different in culture and heritage."

While that may or may not be a defensible position, it is not (AFAIK) the current consensus on Wikipedia. This comment, getting into phenotype (!) and mixed parentage is clearly wandering into the same field.

Sock? LTA? Tiger? IDK. I'd say give them a bit of rope and see what happens. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

So, where might one find the current consensus/MOS guidelines on when/how to properly use these type of descriptors, i.e. white, black, African American, Asian American, etc.? (Whatever the case may be.) Ditch ∝ 15:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ditch Fisher: I don't know of one, but for this, maybe use Talk:African American as our article discusses what it means? Doug Weller talk 16:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

So, poking around policy pages, it looks to me that if either the article's subject (verifiably) identifies as such...and/or good secondary sources report as such...then it can be used. Otherwise, not. There seems to be no clear guidance on this, as far as article writing is concerned. (Unless someone can direct me otherwise.) Thoughts? Ditch ∝ 22:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking more from the sources side. I am unaware of any independent reliable sources discussing a subject and in passing describing them as an ADOS. Surely we have someone who considers their nationality to be "of the Independent Nation-state of West Florida" or some-such? Do we list them as an "American" or "West Floridian"? {AFAIK, all of the articles edited by ADOS MMXX have reliable sources that describe the subjects as African-American.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the discussion is here. Is this about the block, or the policy regarding categories? Guy's block seems justified to stop rapid-fire changes, and to encourage the blocked user to discuss; advice they will hopefully heed when their block is lifted. We'll see.

But if a larger discussion needs to be had about whether (or when) it's appropriate to categorize black Americans as "African-American" (or something else) then this is probably not the right venue. Ditch ∝ 15:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This RFC is relevant. (But it turned into a bit of a mess, FYI). Ditch ∝ 20:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Truth Alone

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.

---

• Truth Alone (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Many of their contributions seem to be removing sourced information from articles dealing with antisemitism, for example [266] (on Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee—edit summary "There is no consensus that any Jews were persecuted merely for being Jewish, rather than alleged counter-revolutionary activity"); [267] (on Erich Mielke—"A Nazi survivor's opinion about this organization is irrelevant"); [268] changing "antisemitic purges" [in the Soviet Union] to "allegedly antisemitic purges" (on Jewish left); [269] change "Instances of anti-Semitism on Stalin's part" to "Alleged anti-Semitism on Stalin's part" in Stalin and antisemitism; [270] Rootless cosmopolitan, removing sourced info that this epithet was applied "mostly to Jewish intellectuals".

They also make questionable edits to various Iran-related articles, for example Iran says US military is a terrorist organization in United States Armed Forces; [271] remove mention of anti-Khameini protests in 2019–20 Iranian protests; [272] United States Central Command, added "The Iranian government has designated the United States Central Command a terrorist organization". Most of their edits were quickly reverted, so it seems to me that they're not here to build an encyclopedia, although perhaps a topic ban from antisemitism-related topics would do the trick. buidhe 14:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Purely as a matter of interest, only tangentially related to the above user, is there any evidence that a user with a username containing the letters "truth" has ever offered anything useful to the encylopædia? Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope, never. Always rights great wrongs accounts. Canterbury Tail talk 17:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've yet to see an account created along the lines of Verifiability Alone... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking about changing my username to User:Lies Alone. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Just came across this edit of theirs. "Unrelated and unsourced." Despite it literally being the title of the source. Who wants to do the blocking honours here? Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::I've been reviewing their edits. It's obvious that the username alone suggests some sort of agenda, but coupled with what I agree is a clearly anti-semitic edit pattern (I've been checking sources) and a number of their other edits on a variety of subjects, I think I shall block them indefinitely as NOTHERE unless someone has a better suggestion. Except that I've had an edit conflict with Canterbury Tail, so I'm doing it now. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 24 March 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.

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

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.

---

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

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

Repeated abuse at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake

Please note that all of the bolding below is what MarkH21 has added to show the passages he complains of. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Please do not delete my comment, which was in place before you added the following line. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC) The note about bolding was in the post from the beginning above your comment before you made it, and now you’ve moved it below. Redundant. — MarkH21talk 23:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Not redundant, as your ownership of the bolding was not near nor as prominent as the bolding itself, and lead to misperception. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC) The bolding in the following quotes (except for the quote about blindness) is mine to emphasize the precise comments that are incivil or about the contributor as opposed to content. Initial comments on contributors The second half of this comment by J. Johnson's is very strange, but their reaction in the discussion afterwards demonstrates that they have a very narrow definition of commenting on contributors: I don't what you mean by "more standard neutral wording", other than utterly bloodless. I imagine that for most residents the experience was F...ING DEVASTATING!, and a plain statement of cessation seems quite bland, and even colorless. You seem to be most opposed re dramatic, but that seems like a personal feeling that you just don't like it. Perhaps (to the extent this is historical writing) you have always thought history is boring, and therefore WP must be boring? Sorry, I don't agree. — 00:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC) My initial reaction to the comment: It's not a personal feeling and I don't understand where you're drawing these bizarre and incorrect personal inferrals. — MH21 00:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC) J. Johnson's response about me characterizing it as bizarre: Incidentally, it is not helpful to characterize my explanation as "bizarre", or "ceased to exist" as a "cheap idiom"... The concept of WP:I just don't like it is where you have opinions, but can't base them on any standards or polices or such. Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor? — JJ 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC) My explanation that both are comments on contributors and first warning: What is "bizarre" was your inferral that I personally find history and WP boring because I find the wording overly dramatic, idiomatic, and non-encyclopedic... That, plus your quip "Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?" are commenting on the contributor instead of commenting on the content. Stop. — (MH21 07:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)) J. Johnson's's denial that it is a comment about the contributor and tries to play off the Why am I having to explain this to an experience editor? comment as a genuine non-rhetorical question: I made no "inferral" of your beliefs; I only questioned whether you might have a certain belief or attitude (about history), which might in turn explain your view. If you don't have such a belief, fine, just say so (a simple "no" would suffice). My "quip" is a straight-forward question of why we don't seem to be on the same wave-length; it is your "inferral" that this is a comment about the contributor (distinct from the contributor's behavior).}} — JJ 00:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC) My response and second warning: Your comment about "whether you might have a certain belief or attitude (about history)" is literally a comment about the contributor and not the content. The possible belief or attitude of a contributor is a property of the contributor. That and the other comment are both inappropriate. — JJ 01:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Continuation in RfC In the RfC, J. Johnson continues to comment on contributors instead of on the content: But if "entity" is not in your vocabulary I suppose we could replace it with "city". Is that clearer? — JJ 23:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC) I followed this with the third warning: Your inclination to comment on contributors, what you think they like, what you think they find boring, and what you think is in their vocabulary is grossly inappropriate. Cut it out, you’ve been warned multiple times now. — MH21 23:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC) J. Johnson's response mocks the earlier protest about commenting on contributors instead of content, tries again to play off the Why am I having to explain this to an experience editor? comment as a genuine non-rhetorical question, and is dismissive of any complaints as petty squabbling: In the second instance ("Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?", @ 21:25, 1 Mar), that seems to be a very reasonable question, given that we seem to have a disconnect in our understandings of basic WP concepts. At any rate, it seems that you have missed that I allow this could be as much a misunderstanding on my part as anything to do with you. That in both instances you have claimed these as comments about you seems to me to indicate a failure of WP:AGF. I could as well complain that in your comments at 02:45, 29 Feb. ("Can you see what I mean here?", bolding added) and 00:50, 1 Mar. ("Do you not see...", ditto) you are saying that I am blind. (GAWK! A PERSONAL COMMENT!!!) Can you see why such a complaint would be just petty squabbling? — JJ 22:43, 5 March 2020 I respond with the fourth warning: Your comment Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor? comes off far stronger as a pointed vent of frustration at me than a genuine question. Do you really expect anyone to interpret it as a genuine question and to somehow answer with a oh you have to explain it to me despite my experience because I don't understand WP policies like you do! It's a pointed comment about another editor that doesn't help anyone. I never pointed to AGF, but I pointed out that those two comments, in addition the comment my vocabulary, are about contributors and not content. These don't help anyone. If you can't acknowledge that, you should still stop making such comments because you'd be hard-pressed to find an editor to whom those comments are useful. — MH21 23:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Final warning and continued incivility J. Johnson has described me several times in the discussion as disputatious several times. At first, I did not react to avoid making it more heated than it already is, but I found it particularly insulting when combined with obtusely / obtuse: That you are so inconsequentially disputatious is totally unuseful. — JJ 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Because of your disputatiousness I am disinclined to discuss this any further with you — JJ 00:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC) All very disputatious — JJ 00:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Since you are so obtusely disputatious — JJ 23:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC) My last warning: Again, tone down your aggressive language. "Obtusely disputatious" is language for escalation and is not helping resolve anything. It's WP:INCIVIL and inappropriate. This is your last warning from me. — MH21 21:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC) I called for a cessation of incivility several times and gave five warnings to J. Johnson over the course of two weeks. However, after I pointed out that J. Johnson previously said that I am rather neutral, so any continued heated debate is an unproductive use of both your time and my time (21:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)). But J. Johnson continued and doubled-down by calling all of the unproductiveness a result of me being disputatious and obtuse. 5. I attribute the unproductivity here to your many mis-interpretations and "inferrals", and general tendency to disputation... Your rejection of the engineering interpretation as being inferred and not explicit does seem obtuse — JJ 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

General trend of incivility

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think I lost my temper, but I was venting some over-pressure. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

The use of the plural "they" and "them" is confusing. I am okay with the male pronoun. For other single individuals where gender is unknown I would suggest something like "s/he". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Singular "they" is at least as old as Shakespeare. That is a perfectly acceptable choice when an individual's gender is not known and, in this case, it is their preferred pronoun. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with MarkH21 that many of JJ's contributions are useful and appreciated. Unfortunatly, I also echo the perception of incivility. While most of the incidents are not grave, I do think they form a consistent pattern that may make it less attractive for other editors to participate in discussions. I find that very worrisome especially in the article space I'm most active, climate change, where neutrality and quality are best achieved with a larger set of contributors. Some smaller examples spring to mind; [273] In this diff J. Johnson alleged that other people are unwilling to consider their proposal, after three people had given an argumented response already, while not responding to the arguments. Here J. Johnson accuses me and quite a big group of editors of bad faith, claiming that we had changed global warming in scope (instead of merely thouroughly updated). And here JJ dismisses a newer user by saying they should 'start a blog', because JJ assumes they are activist. Each of the incidents smaller than MarkH21's examples, but pointing to the same problem; JJ asserting things about the editor which deteriorates the atmosphere. As such, I think the editing would improve if J. Johnson wasn't allowed to comment on other people's behaviour or beliefs any more, but only on content. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The "quite a big group of editors" would be, what, five? At any rate, the "bad faith" point is a red herring, which I will comment on below. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I object to RCraig09's "his inability to grasp complex or subtle arguments ...", which is an outright slur, and false. I also object to his characterization of my work at Global warming as being "low-level tasks such as citation formats and arrangement of blocks in a block diagram." The block diagram was actually his, where I (and others) made various suggestions for improvement. The "low-level" work I have done is foundational, being the basis of verifiability, and some of it has been on working out some difficult issues of citation (see WP:IPCC citation).

I also object to his (and Femke's) statement that I alleged bad-faith. The "year's-long trajectory" refers to the planning to rename and refocus Global warming, much of which was arranged on personal talk pages. My comment was not that there was bad-faith, only that their process smacked – that is, gave some appearances – of bad faith. Apparently these erudite thinkers did not grasp that subtlety.

He falsely states that I sent him "straight to ANI". I saw possibly questionable editing, which I did not feel informed enough to judge, so I asked if anyone else thought it warranted looking into. Nothing came of that, and that was (for me) the end of the matter.

I dispute these other points, but unless someone wants to explore them I'd rather not spend time on them. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Just another example of JJ making an uncivil comment about other editors in this very discussion: saying that Apparently these erudite thinkers did not grasp that subtlety in reference to RCraig09 and Femkemilene just adds further hostility. The points that you haven't covered — I dispute these other points... I'd rather not spend time on them — are your actual comments of incivility from across various discussions. Continued abstention from addressing the fact that these are escalatory and uncivil demonstrates a serious problem here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21 is correct. Hopefully it will be apparent to any admin/closer that JJ's replies here embody the very behaviors of which he is accused. His unrepentant attitude and his deflections endure. What he calls a slur (23:17, 11 Mar) are observations that I supported with three gross examples (¶4, ¶5, ¶6). He admits that it was "possibly questionable editing" that motivated him to send me without prior discussion to ANI—which is supposed to be "for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". And he appears unwilling or unable to recognize that, in this context, saying other editors' "process smacked...of bad faith" does not differ from accusing those editors of bad faith. etc. etc. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That would be your interpretation. I have tried to be clear on the point, but it seems you reject any possibility of good-faith on my part. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

JJ: you state that we reject the possibility of good faith, among other things, because we don't interpret the phrase smacking of bad faith to mean gave some appearances of. But that's significantly weaker, with The free dictionary giving a definition of the former as to give a strong indication or implication of something. As such, I don't think RCraig09's interpretation is completely off here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Femke: In that case, I regret that the word I chose came across much stronger than I intended. I also regret that you did not explain that much earlier (was there something I missed?), so we could have sorted this out much sooner. Will you allow that, despite the mis-impression, no imputation of actual bad-faith was intended? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The objectionable term is not "smacks of" but the explicit use or direct implication "bad faith"—not just in "This proposal smacks of bad faith" (01:50, 17 Dec), but also, minutes later, by more definitively claiming "To stuff this article with CC material, then complain that the title no longer matches the content, is not in good-faith" (02:17, 17 Dec; noting the ongoing use of insulting language: stuff ... complain...). So it is not a matter of merely "sorting out" a nuanced meaning of "smacks of"; the meaning is clear. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a good sample of what is going on here. In a strict and narrow sense, yes, MarkH did own-up to the bolding. But buried in text, not set out very visibly in stand-alone text as he has done here, and outside of the box where he repeatedly quotes me. And in no way as prominent as the bolding itself, thus failing to prevent misperception as to who did the bolding. I call that misrepresentation. I added a more prominent note, inside the box, to clarify the matter. Mark then removed my note on the grounds of being redundant. If he had any issue with that a more civil approach would have been something on the lines of: 1) He asks why I added the note, 2) I explain, 3) if he demurs we discuss it, 4) he shows that no harm was intended by immediately replacing the bolding with something less, well, bold, and then 5) we move on. But no, he wants to argue that I made a false statement re misrepresentation. Not unlike the beginning of this little affray, where, having different interpretations of a phrase, he must argue why his interpretation is right, and mine is not. All of which has gone well beyond the original issue with the article. His complaint of incivility quite overlooks his tendency to battle. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The phrase Mark has misrepresented my comments is a claim of misconduct. I clearly wrote that the bolding was mine in the third sentence of the thread, immediately above the auto-collapsed box. My subsequent response was to to dispel the suggestion that I acted inappropriately, not to argue about the linguistic interpretation of the phrase misrepresented my comments (which you have now explained means that you found the disclaimer at the top of the thread wasn’t prominent enough, not that it was absent). — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not just "now" explain that the disclaimer was not prominent, I said that four days ago (22:54, 11 Mar., "comment re bolding"): "your ownership of the bolding was not near nor as prominent as the bolding itself, and lead to misperception." (Even for me: I had to go back and check whether the bolding was mine.) The effect, in fact, amounted to misrepresentation. I have not complained, nor made any claim, that you did so with any deliberate intent to misrepresent. Even if you did, I think that posting an effective notice is a sufficient remedy. If you wanted to further "dispel" any suggestion of inappropriate intent you could have simply said that any seeming misrepresentation was inadvertent. But no, your "subsequent response" was to delete my notice (diff), a clear violation, per WP:TPG#Editing others' comments, of "The basic rule [...] is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." (Bolding added.) I don't know whether you did so out of bad intent, or the basic disputatiousness that you have shown all along, or perhaps some other reason, but your deletion was NOT inadvertent. Even so, I would consider that matter closed, but it seems that on every point you have to prove that you are right and I am wrong. I believe that constitutes battleground conduct. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

There’s a difference between directly editing another editor’s comments, and removing one that is inserted into my own post. There’s a difference between explaining my actions in the face of an editor labeling my actions as misrepresentation, and arguing that I am right and you are wrong. There’s a difference between explaining actions, and continuing to labeling other editors as disputatious. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The "basic rule" is as stated. And I have not labelled your actions as misrepresentation, only the result. Which, as I just explained, was remedied very simply, and it is a wonder that you continue to dispute the matter. As for explaining anything to you: that is what go us going here, when I tried to explain why I thought you might not have read the source, and you insisted on arguing the rather petty issue of whose linguistic interpretation was right. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have nothing to say on whether these are inappropriate?

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

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

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

• @J. Johnson: Whom do you believe Mark canvased here and how? If onwiki, then please provide diffs for context. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

All of the editors he notified (as he lists below) except EdwardLane, who would have been advised if Mark had put an ANI notification in the Talk page (which still has not been done). Note that I am not making this an issue (Femke has some pertinent comments, and I allow that RCraig09 feels agrieved); but it does show that Mark is trying to broaden the issue and involve editors beyond his specific complaint. Mark has linked to WP:APPNOTE, but I don't see (I'm blind?!) that any of the criteria listed there apply. It does say that the "audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions", and Mark does seem to be angling for editors that might have complaints. (There is also something about neutral titles – see also WP:TPG – which the title here is not, but I don't know what can or should be done about that.) I do see Nil's point that someone mentioned should be notified, but, as he says, that just pushes the issue of selection into the discussion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:APPNOTE says (not including all bullet points):

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion
• Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

All of the editors in question satisfy one of those two criteria. In fact, only EdwardLane does not satisfy both simultaneously. I am not angling for editors that might have complaints. Some of them might have complaints because they previously warned you for the exact issue brought up here, i.e. precisely what qualified them for the second bullet.

I'm also not aware of any requirement or standard of posting ANI notifications on article talk pages. I have never seen that done before and Nil Einne's point about pings (similarly, informal notifications elsewhere) being insufficient for ANI still stands. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• • @MJL: Here are all of the editors that I notified about this ANI discussion: J. Johnson, Femkemilene, RCraig09, NewsAndEventsGuy, Dmcq, and EdwardLane. I mentioned all of the editors in this list in the original report except EdwardLane, whom I notified because they commented and suggested arbitration at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake in an attempt to find mediation. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @MarkH21: That's a few too many tbh. Imo a ping for any editors you mention in a report is all that's needed (either in the report itself, or in a subsequent comment with an explanation as to why they are being pinged). Otherwise, most editors when they see a notice like that will assume the report is about them. I know that's how I'd feel at least. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • @MJL: Perhaps I take a discussion about an editor and an issue with which you may have been involved (Template:ANI-notice) too literally then, in that they were involved in the same issue recently and are mentioned in the discussion. At least I've seen the notice applied that way sometimes. I'll be happy to adjust this for the future.
        But either way, it's still not canvassing by virtue of WP:APPNOTE with them having given warnings / been involved recently regarding the same issues. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • @MJL: I strongly disagree. If you're going to specifically mention someone in your ANI thread, you should notify them even if your thread is not mainly about them. Pings are not sufficient, the same as always at ANI. Just because you were not criticising their actions doesn't mean someone else won't in the thread. And that person may reasonably assume that the person they are criticising was already notified since their actions were already being discussed. It's hardly uncommon that this happens after all. If you feel editors may misunderstand why they are being notified, there's no harm in offering a clarification as part of the notice. I've done it on occasion. Note also that pinging and notifying people equally raise canvassing concerns, so there's no differences in that regards. If the only reason you mentioned someone seems to be to canvas them, then yes it's a concern whether you pinged or properly notified. If there is a reasonable reason why you mentioned them, then it's fine. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
        • @Nil Einne: Agree to disagree. However, as my friend Wander has pointed out to me, WP:CANVAS actually does not say anything about pings (and it has been argued that they're fair game). Idk, this might be better for my talk page since we're getting a bit off track. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 12:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
        • @MarkH21: Not sure if I have any contribution to give really - I stumbled onto the Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake page because of the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Earthquakes#RfC_on_wording_in_the_lead_of_1976_Tangshan_earthquake - everything I've seen related to this is in the tangshan earthquake talk page. It seems like one side of the squabble for wording is more reasonable than the other, but I guess that's what this incident is about, i've not been following the whole thread, I was hoping this would be settled amicably without having to read it all. EdwardLane (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You're an otherwise uninvolved witness, and presumably neutral, so your observations and assessments are possibly of great value. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough - if I had power I'd probably archive the talk page squabbles, block the two of you from editing the page(s) in question for 3 months, get someone to rewrite the section so that this wouldn't be left as either one of you wanted it (if it got left one way or the other it would remain as a bone of contention), the idea being that the two of you could take a time out - and probably would not then be grumpy after 3 months had passed (and so wouldn't go straight back to an edit/talk page war) Also to get the two of you to agree somewhere in writing to try and act in a more civil manner toward each other in future, and recommend that both of you 'let it go' a bit more. Incidentally I'm not the person who has the skill/knowledge/understanding of the subject enough to do that particular rewrite, but an opinion could probably be acquired in a couple of hours of reading. Apologies if this is out of line or seems harsh, it is just how I would try to handle it in real world rather than in the virtual world which is obviously a trickier situation as people frequently misinterpret even the slightest error in punctuation/sentence construction to read more into a phrase than may originally be intended. Best of luck to the admins - I am sure they have a difficult time of itEdwardLane (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@EdwardLane: The issue at hand here is JJ's several incidents of incivility across multiple discussions on different articles (as attested by the multiple warnings from different editors and the quotes above) and JJ's failure to acknowledge any of them; this ANI thread is not about the content dispute itself. I opened an RfC on the actual content dispute so that it could be resolved by uninvolved editors, and any other issues raised were my protests at JJ's repeated inappropriate personal comments. Honestly, civility and DR (like the RfC) were all that were needed from the start. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of allegations of incivility stemming from "VAN"

Info about VAN controversiality

Breaking this out into its own section. "VAN" refers to a method its proponents claim can be used to predict earthquakes. This has been very controversial, and after 1996 largely ignored by mainstream seismologists. See Earthquake prediction#VAN seismic electric signals, Earthquake prediction#1983–1995: Greece (VAN), and VAN method for details and source. See also Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 8#Ask a seismologist for the views of a prominent seismologist – Dr. John Vidale, currently the Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center – re the mainstream assessment of VAN. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC) From the nutshell of WP:FRINGE: "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea". Earthquake prediction controversity does not apply as fringe inside Earthquake prediction article but it is treated as such in an uncivil manner by JJ.   ManosHacker talk 09:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Have a look here, too, by JJ: I call bullshit on your "I just updated the literature.".   ManosHacker ^talk 02:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Also have a look at JJ's distortion of a Wikipedia article: These statements, that have been tagged, make a false claim of sources that do not directly support the content, and are part of a slow edit warring.   ManosHacker ^talk 02:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I dropped by ANI to check on another editor's situation and saw the section heading. My immediate, unfiltered thought was, "So what's new?" J. Johnson used to be much less abrasive (evidence, just in case anyone doubts it) and more interested in collaboration. I do sometimes wish we had the old editor back. JJ, maybe it's time to re-calibrate your approach? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, W., good to hear from you again.

User:ManosHacker is a relatively new user who seems to be channeling a WP:SPA user that has been try to promote a fringe theory at VAN method, the latter having added an unreliable source, and removed two "fringe theory" tags added by another editor. The details were discussed at Talk:VAN_method#Current_work_(2020). The other comment probably refers to the same long-running problem we're having at Earthquake prediction; see Talk:Earthquake prediction#Update on "mainstream claim" for VAN. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

SPAs and the tenure of ManosHacker aside, the quote I call bullshit on your "I just updated the literature" is fairly confrontational and hostile language in response to a mildly worded talk page post. Whether or not the other editor uses potentially unreliable sources or disproportionately represents fringe theories, WP:CIVIL still applies. Inflammatory language is not useful to anyone. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Does 10 years of editing and 800 hours of teaching Wikipedia count as relatively new nowadays? — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes people count the number of edits in that account (1,932 in this case), rather than the number of months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Although my thought was more that he is largely unknown in the involved topic areas. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem discussed here is JJ's manners in order to keep the articles the way he wants and the cost of this behavior to Wikipedia (retain of editors and content credibility). It is easy to attack people using Wikipedia policy, there is an argument given for any case of another's edit if you act in bad faith and JJ seems to be unable to set limits to himself (building a case on me here is another example yet). JJ had the last word after JerryRussell announced he was leaving Wikipedia in October 19, 2017. In November 25, 2017 an article (in which JJ has great interest)'s balance built on consensus thanks to Jerry's presence in Wikipedia was ruined by JJ. Add the persistive distortion of the sources by JJ, reflecting to bad Wikipedia content as shown above, and the lack of recognizing his way is inappropriate for colaboration, to get a wider picture.   ManosHacker ^talk 05:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The slow edit war ManosHacker refers to is the long term issue of certain VAN WP:SPA partisans to promote a discredited topic at VAN method and Earthquake prediction, which MH seems to favor. (His "distortion of the sources by JJ" is from one of those SPAs.) His "JJ had the last word" diff, and the insinuation that I ran Jerry off, is misleading, a rank misrepresentation, and I suggest that anyone inclined to give that any credence should read the entire discussion at User_talk:JerryRussell#Going_on_Wikibreak. MH's "ruined by JJ" diff (which is a merge of two edits) is a bit baffling. In the first edit I removed a paragraph about a supposed technique from VAN ("natural time") that simply is not notable (other than for its promotion). In the second edit, I removed a paragraph about a 2008 earthquake VAN claims to have predicted (including a criticism of the claim of prediction) on the basis (as stated in my edit summary) of failing a criterion that had been previously applied to mention of other claimed EQ predictions. It is difficult to find any "incivility" in this, other than certain SPA parties partial to VAN not liking my edits.

To be continued. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

For what matters in this ANI discussion I see no apology for violation of the community established consensus without any talk from JJ.   ManosHacker ^talk 07:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

And I don't see that your alleged "violation of the community established consensus" involved any kind of incivility, or anything to do with this discussion except you trying to heap the fuel higher.

But perhaps you have a personal involvement? Perhaps you would clarify whether you are the "M. Kefalas" that has published several times with Varotsos and Nomicos? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Breaking community consensus without talking is disregard and discredit of editors' tons of efforts and thus incivility when it comes from an involved editor. Asking for more on this, your incivil wording regarding well reputated scientists: "In this regard I have come around to the view that VAN exhibits aspects of pathological science" in public is easy behind anonymity, but here we are now discussing on your behavior. I sign with my real identity in Wikipedia and I declare no COI as we speak, proven by the dates of my publications along my career.   ManosHacker ^talk 09:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The uncivil behavior can be art. One can characterize someone by stating that (unnamed!) others call him things and get away with it. JJ says to JerryRussel: "I have said that vague predictions are a hallmark of charlatanism (6 Aug., 15 Aug.) and I have commented that others have called VAN charlatans (16 Aug.), and I stated that VAN "reject the principal means of distinguishing scientists from charlatans" (20 Aug.). But you should note: I have NOT called VAN charlatans, and I do hesitate to do so. (In part because I think doing so serves no purpose, and in part because slackness on their part, and even hubris, is, in my view, insufficient to warrant that term.)". Does JJ insist on this kind of behavior, i.e. defamation through Wikipedia?   ManosHacker ^talk 18:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Would be so kind as to provide a diff, so we can better see the context? And perhaps explain how stating that VAN should not be called charlatans is defamation?

As to possible COI: would you specifically confirm that:

1) You have never published with P. Varotsos?

2) You have never published with K. Nomicos?

3) That you are not personally connected with Varotsos, Sarlis, or Skordas?

4) That you are not connected with the Solid State Physics Dept at the Univ. of Athens?

That would be greatly appreciated. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is the diff. My detailed personal info are at the disposal of an admin, in case I am asked to for a reason, by email.   ManosHacker ^talk 00:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me hard to tell if JJ's attitude towards groups of scientists is more WP:BLPGROUP or WP:INCIVIL, as JJ tends to address thematically related editors as SPA or COI. I would like the opinion of the admins on it.   ManosHacker ^talk 14:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If you were not conflicted it would be easy enough to say so. As there is some evidence suggesting a possible conflict of interest this should be looked into.

By the way, please strike those statements of yours where you accused me of driving off JerryRussell.

You still have not explained how my saying that the VAN group should not be called charlatans constitutes defamation, let alone any kind if incivility. Perhaps you object to my comment that "others have called VAN charlatans"? That came from an extensive discussion we had on that in 2016 (see Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 7#Libel on VAN 1983-1995), and if you want a source on that you should ask for it, not raise a stink about something just for the sake raising a stink.

Now you have segued to accusing me of BLP violation, which is totally off-topic, and that I "address thematically related editors as SPA or COI". "Thematically related" is cute, but, well "nonsense" suffices as a description. The fact is that over the years there have been several episodes of editing with a common "theme" of promoting VAN and reducing criticism of VAN, and in every case the editors were, in fact, entirely WP:SPA. And in a couple of cases their IP addresses were at the University of Athens, which where VAN is based. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"Ι declare no COI".   ManosHacker ^talk 09:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And presumably no COI because you are not connected with Varotsos or Nomicos, and are not the "M. Kefalas" that has co-authored with them. Thank you for the clarification. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I object to ManosHacker's edit of 09:52, 17 Mar. where, without edit summary or other comment, he has renamed this section from the neutral 'Discussion re "VAN"' to 'Τrend of incivility re "VAN"', which is a very non-neutral assertion of his opinion. This violates the WP:TPG guidance to Keep headings neutral (bolding in the original). I am restoring the original header. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

After looking for the reason JJ did not edit or talk for some days on articles as expected, I noticed JJ was brought to ANI. As the "reply" section had already been created, I added the example of JJ's most recent incivility at the end of the talk. The comments that followed regarded JJ's incivility. The first section's title on JJ's incivility is titled 'General trend of incivility'. The examples regarding JJ's incivility were focused in the case of earthquake prediction and VAN method but had no title. JJ deployed a distract strategy instead of answering on the incivility examples given. Top of this is the put of a title that removes the incivility attribute, changes the focus and puts a big box that blocks the user from directly viewing JJ's incivility examples and editor responses. This section in fact becomes a case focused on content instead of JJ's manners discussed in this ANI (see section's tile ('Discussion re "VAN"') and block of text following immediately). This maneuvering is disruptive. Having to answer in this section one would be addressing a "VAN case" in ANI, seen by all editors & viewers of Wikipedia in the recent changes, so I am changing the title to a neutral one: 'Incivility (continued)'.   ManosHacker ^talk 07:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that "Incivility (continued)" is a neutral header is simply preposterous. "Incivility" is what you allege, and to present it as an assertion of proven fact is prejudicial. Would this be clearer if I took the same liberty as you have to rename this as "ManosHacker's false claim of incivility"? How about "ManosHacker's false statements and lying continue"? Making headers that present a claim from only side is non-neutral and a violation of the Talk Page Guidelines.

Your reasoning (as far as I can make it out) seems to be that the header I added separates your accusations from Mark's accusations. If you wanted your accusations to follow Mark's then that is where you should have put them. As it is you appended them to a string of comments in my "Reply" section. It is quite inappropriate to blame me for any confusion resulting from what is your error.

You seem to be arguing that specifying "VAN" in the header makes the section "focused on content instead of JJ's manners". But your accusations are plucked from the context the VAN issue, and misleading if that context is ignored. Your claim of "JJ's distortion of a Wikipedia article" is not about my "manners", but about content, sources, and – just as you said at the start – slow edit warring about VAN, where the central issue is the promotion of a fringe theory. So in addition to falsely insinuating that I drove off JerryRussell – which, being false, you really should strike-out – now you are dressing up a content/rs/profringe issue, and trying to pass it off as a civility issue.

You say I have "deployed a distract strategy", and accused me of disruptive "manuevering", whereas I say that your repeated replacement of the header here with a non-neutral prejudicial header is disruptive, and your introduction of a spurious accusation disruptive.

I changed the header to what I hoped might be a reasonable compromise – 'Discussion of ManoHacker's allegations of incivility re "VAN"' – but I see you have already reverted that. Which John from Idegon undid, and you reverted again. So now we have an edit war. I will jump in again, in order to remove your name from the header.

Re "distract strategy": that is what I would call Mark's approach of raising all these other instances, thereby distracting us from a focused consideration of his personal grievances. Also your edit warring re this header.

I hope to have additional replies soon. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not come here to air personal grievances (and I do not have any against you personally). I came here to report your continued uncivil remarks on other contributors despite repeated explicit requests to stop. The report arises from the requests at 1976 Tangshan earthquake but addresses a fundamentally long-term trend. So far, you still have not acknowledged the incivility of any of the reported uncivil comments (e.g. the list from two weeks ago that begins with your weasely bitching). That's the main issue; it is nothing personal. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how you can dispute that you did come here to air grievances – i.e., "a real or imagined wrong or other cause for complaint or protest" – about me. Of the grievances you raised some are from your own personal experience, and the rest not from your experience, but of others. (Is that clear enough? Or do we need to dive into more linguistic analysis?) In particular I was referring to your five complaints, I was not saying anything about them. At this point I could offer a possible explanation of why we seem to have differing concepts of "personal grievance", and that would be fully in accord with the very first suggestion at WP:Civility#Avoiding incivility: "Explain yourself". (Italics in the original.) However, that was exactly what I tried to do where all this started, where I tried to explain why it occurred to me that you might not have read the source. And here we are.

As to whether you have anything against me "personally": you do seem to be on a crusade. And while I have acknowledged that my own conduct isn't without fault, what I don't agree to are various false statements, mis-characterizations, and hyper-sensitivity seen here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know why you think I’m on a personal crusade. I asked you to stop making various comments several times, after several others before me. You didn’t stop, hence I created this ANI thread so that you will stop. It was simple, just acknowledge and stop. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it was not a "simple" matter, because when I first tried to respond to your initial complaint (on 1 Mar.) you only became more disputatious. But let's continue this discussion elsewhere, as I'd like keep this section focused on the issues ManosHacker has raised. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe that keep answering to JJ about the section's title will burn us all out. If an admin cares please find a proper wording for the section's title.   ManosHacker ^talk 22:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

What I asked regarding your changing of the section title is whether it needed to be clearer to convey why your change was preposterous. What is more likely to burn us out is your failure to put your comments in the place you intended, and your edit warring over the section title. And also your false statements that you have not yet stricken. Perhaps you should answer to an admin about those items. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Detailed reply

ManosHacker says I said "bullshit" (true), but without specifying the exact offense, and ignoring the context. (For sure, some find the word crude, but modern usage is more tolerant, and it does have a particular meaning albeit perhaps not universal understanding. But that is a different discussion.) And he alleges "distortion" of the article VAN method.

Unlike MarkH21's complaints, that I was making comments and speculations pertaining to him personally, my comment (at Talk:VAN method#Current work (2020), with accompanying explanation) was explicitly directed to an SPA editor's comment that he had "just updated the literature" with "just recent publications in well known international scientific journals, which cannot be of course characterized as doubtful claims." That was in reference to this edit, which is a continuation of a long running edit war by various SPAs to promote the "VAN" theory, and to reduce or remove criticism of it.

That claim of "just updated the literature" is breathtakingly inane. First, it removed the information that after 1996 VAN's Alexopoulos and Nomicos were replaced by Sarlis and Skordas, who developed this "natural time" method. It also removed text such as "Mainstream seismologists remain unconvinced by any of VAN's rebuttals", and added langauge that the VAN results are "far beyond chance", are "statistically significant earthquake precursors", with "proved high rates of success prediction" (all strongly rejected in the mainstream literature), etc. These statements are based primarily on publications by (surprise!) Sarlis and Skordis.

The particular bit of "recent literature" is Sarlis 2018, from a publisher (MDPI) whose peer-review process has been questioned, and a supposed journal not at all well known in seismology. Also cited were sources from 2016 and 2006 that do not support the text. (There was another reference to Christopoulos, Skordas & Sarlis 2020, but no full citation provided.)

That edit was major distortion in the promotion of a fringe theory, and characterizing it as a mere literature update is deceptive. For the sake the integrity of the encyclopedia it ought to be called out, and if anyone can suggest a more apt, more succinct term than the one I used I will welcome the instruction. Pertinent to the current discussion is that all of that is a content issue, and even an issue of WP:NOTHERE; it is not a civility issue. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

JJ's campaign against presumably opponent scientists is an expression of incivility still going on. The commenting on editors in order to justify JJ's wording choices in the examples, is being continued. I see no apology or other act of regret for the incivil language / manners JJ has used. I also see JJ's desire for continue of this behavior.   ManosHacker ^talk 09:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed sanction

It has been more than three days since this ANI thread was opened. During this time, a clear consensus has emerged that J. Johnson has repeatedly crossed the line of WP:CIVIL and created unpleasant hostile environments for multiple editors in multiple discussions. Femkemilene and Ames86 suggested above to impose a limited community ban on J. Johnson from commenting on the behavior and beliefs of other editors, but this may be difficult to implement in practice.

So far, J. Johnson has still not acknowledged the incivility in any of the recent incidents quoted/diffed above despite several opportunities to do so across the multiple recent warnings, relevant discussions, and the thread above. Additionally, J. Johnson has continued this behavior within this ANI thread itself, remarking that Apparently these erudite thinkers did not grasp that subtlety and deflected the issues of J. Johnson's incivil language onto the editors raising the objections.

In light of these facts, a community ban consisting of a three month block, during which time J. Johnson is encouraged to review the principles of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, will serve to prevent further escalation and hostility in the near future. This will enforce a cooling off period for J. Johnson, after which we will hopefully see the editor whose non-abrasive collaborative spirit appeared so prominently in the 2009 diffs posted by WhatamIdoing above. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support (proposer): The separate incidents of incivility by JJ have been brought up by several editors in several different discussions. JJ has failed to acknowledge the incivility and has failed to stop the regular occurrences of hostile tone.
  Such a sanction would prevent further occurrences in the near future while also providing a cooling off period. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support? shorter block (up to 1 month) (involved editor): I'm not sure how appropriate it is for me to comment here as involved editor. Also, I'm also not familiar with precedent here. J. Johnson is an experienced editor, who should know better than using incivil language, even if fellow editors are clearly wrong in his/her/their eyes. For the sake of having the lowest sanction possible to remedy the behaviour, a shorter block in combination with a prohibition to comment on other people's behaviour and beliefs may be more effective and less impactfull. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

J. Johnson. What do you think not commenting on people's behaviours and beliefs anymore? I think this would mean you have more time to do wonderful content-related stuff, as this has proven to be quite the time-drain for you? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

J. Johnson has now indicated he does see his comments were a breach of WP:CIVIL. I would like to see some strategy on his side of how to deal with passionate debates in the future, preventing the stage where steam has to be let out. JJ, you haven't replied to my previous suggestion. Alternative/in addition to that, would you be open to initiating third opinions and/or RfC in the future when dealing with editors you have difficulty communicating with/they have difficulty communicating with you? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

JJ has changed Incivility (continued) to Discussion of allegations of incivility stemming from "VAN", a title that also implies that incivility comes from VAN, and does not acknowledge I call bullshit on your "I just updated the literature." as uncivil, yet. I will be happy to see JJ acknowledge this and present a view or strategy on how to better collaborate in the future, especially regarding comments on other editors, i.e. introductions of new editors in a talk like this one.   ManosHacker ^talk 08:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Your comment that my revised title "implies that incivility comes from VAN" – which, by the way, was not the case with my original title, that you deleted – shows precisely the kind of mis-understanding that is rampant here. In this case there are two ways (at least) of parsing this:

1. Discussion of allegations of [incivility stemming from "VAN"].

2. Discussion [of allegations of incivility] stemming from "VAN".

Your interpretation, of an assertion that incivility stemmed from "VAN", depends on how the elements of that phrase are grouped. My intended meaning, using a different grouping, is that the discussion stemmed from "VAN", and which should have been clear from the original title: 'Discussion re "VAN"'. Your assumption of an incorrect interpretation, without inquiry, coupled with your refusal to strike your incorrect statements (above), I take as a violation of WP:AGF. Are you going to acknowledge that? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

Sorry, Femke, I missed your earlier question.

The difficulty I see in obliging Mark in that regard is his rather delicate sensibility of what constitutes "commenting on people's behaviours and beliefs", wherein he includes any speculation of what those beliefs might be, and his tendency to assume the worst possible interpretation of what I say or do. The difficulty is that people generally state their opinions without describing the beliefs on which those opinions are based. (Like you and I having different senses of what "smacks" implies.) Discussion that only piles on more support for opposing opinions only generates heat. It is my belief that resolution of such differences is not just a matter of explaining one's own beliefs, but usually requires understanding of the other person's beliefs. And where the other person may have difficulty in presenting his or her beliefs in a manner that I can understand I feel it is incumbent on me to assist in that presentation. (I.e., communication is a mutual push-pull exercise.) But Mark rejects all "speculation" or comment re his possible or even hypothetical beliefs, and thereby largely precludes any effort for resolution. Given his tendency to battle, I think he would not accept any such arrangement as a way of getting past all this, but as a way of tripping me up on any perceived slights in the future.

As an alternative: would you be willing to be a mediator? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support (involved editor). As proposed. JJ's uncivil behavior is not new 1, 2. Failure to address all previous incidents has escalated his uncivil behavior.   ManosHacker ^talk 08:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support (involved editor). The fact that JJ's behavior and unrepentant attitude endure—even within this very discussion (see diff)—warrants strong action. Given his long history, I'm not optimistic that a "kinder, gentler" prohibition from commenting on other editors' behavior and beliefs, would be effective. We would likely end up spending hours at ANI, again. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved editor) - I hadn't meant to come to AN/I and got here on a misclick. Don't know this editor at all, and am glad because the quotes I'm reading and the utter lack of contrition are over the line of decency and civility I need in a collaborative effort like Wikipedia. Three months off will preventatively protect users from abuse, and give this manners-challenged editor some time to reflect on the the reality that actions have consequences, sooner or later, even here. Jusdafax (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  got here on a misclick – I'm tempted to add a phab ticket urging that an Are you sure? dialog box be inserted as a firewall to protect people from inadvertently ending up at ANI. EEng 00:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose JJ has a wealth of knowledge about earthquakes. His lack of civility is sort of refreshing actually. There's never any doubt what he thinks of you. Unlike so many other editors here, who hide their feelings behind a veil. So all you fragile flowers out there, get used to it. I don't always agree with JJ. But, I feel it would be a big loss to the encyclopedia if he's forced to take a long break. Antipocalypse (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Antipocalypse (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [274], [275], [276], [277])

I was only kidding about fragile flowers. Please don't be insulted, anyone. And I know that you're supposed to hide your feelings behind a veil at this site. Has never been easy for me. My point is still the same: JJ is a great asset to the project. Antipocalypse (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You were not kidding. You came in ANI. And you continue. Are you thinking of striking out "refreshing" or "flowers"?   ManosHacker ^talk 05:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Antipocalypse: You may find a lack of civility to be refreshing, but civility is one of Wikipedia’s five pillars and breaches of the policy are not refreshing for others. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Antipocalypse: one of the reasons why civility is a pillar, is that other editors with a wealth of knowledge may leave the project because they don't enjoy editing in a hostile environment. Making good contributions doesn't shield you from having to follow policy. You can make it abundantly but politely clear what you think about other edits, without commenting on the editors, no veil needed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

unsure Is there a way to do a suspended sentence for these things? If not then just taking a 'gradualist' approach - the encyclopedia will get the benefit of JJ's knowledge eventually - and I think the examples in this Wikipedia:Assume_the_assumption_of_good_faith might be useful for the people reading back through the conversations they have had with JJ - which may take some of the emotional tone out of the threads (people make mistakes about intentions all the time - and I'm not convinced JJ intends to end up in conflict with other editors, but it does seem to have happened, and once it starts then obviously that naturally escalates to a stage where JJ does sound a bit harsh/unyielding). EdwardLane (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your wise words, and the essay you linked to. In terms of a 'gradualist' approach; I'm all for that. But I do think we should consider how far we've already come into that, with multiple people covering different editing areas have issues request to stop this behaviour multiple times. I immediately believe that JJ isn't intending to end up in conflict, nor has any malicious intent while editing. Still, they do end up in conflicts easily and repeatedly.

Given the fact that JJ has not apologized to any of the involved editors, even if they make a momentary lapse of judgement (for instance, not recognizing how stressful it is to bring a new editor to ANI instead of first talking to them), gives me little confidence in a suspended sentence (if such a thing exists). My preferred solution would be something in the direction of a short ban + some further prohibition of commenting on beliefs and motivations. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that I was delayed this morning by some pressing matters, as I just offered you an apology. See somewhere above. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology to me. However, I don't think I was the one you directed most incivility against, as I've tried to withdraw myself from discussions with you before things got too heated. Could you extend specific apologies to more of the involved editors? Even if they themselves have not always behaved like angels? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Presumably you refer to RCraig. I am not especially inclined to give him any apologies until he retracts (strikes) his "inability to grasp complex or subtle arguments and reconcile different points of view" and "low-level tasks" comments of 22:31, 10 Mar. If wants to condemn me for the "Repeated abuse" comments that Mark complains of he should not himself be committing even greater incivilities. If backs off from that then we can talk, though I think ANI is not the appropriate venue. BTW, I don't expect people to angel-like. But I am not immune to exasperation. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

- I presume it will be obvious to a closer/admin: the editor who has inspired a ~15 laptop-screenful, >10,000 word discussion at ANI—not his first visit here—listing numerous distributed incivilities, now indicates he is the one who is exasperated.

- But to respond: I too do countless "low-level tasks" here and don't find it insulting that they are called such. Also, I provided above, three specific instances (¶4, ¶5, ¶6) in which (I am assuming good faith) he simply does not grasp those higher-level arguments or contexts (a level of understanding that may actually underlie his exasperation). Simply put: he has persistently damaged collegial discourse in GW and apparently other projects—damage that this ANI and I simply seek to curtail; however, his enduring remorselessness, deflection, and attempted whattaboutism, make it unlikely that damage will abate without an enforced sanction. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral – I really don't like these parts of the encyclopedia. Yes, I have been brought here several times and have used it to bring problems to the attention of the masses, but I just don't like talking out problems with text like this. Too many problems with being misinterpreted. We really need to work on getting some sort of voice communication going. Anyway, I think that JJ is an immense asset to the project. His knowledge and skillset(s) are intimidating enough; I don't think the snarkiness is necessary or helpful. Now keep in mind that one or more of the times that I've been brought here may have been for the same—being rude or abrupt with someone. I think that I've grown since then and my hope is that if allowed some time, JJ can evolve just the same. Dawnseeker2000 18:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  There is no evidence (sincere apology & promise not to repeat) so far that JJ is on the way to improve in Wikipedia collaboration. JJ has a reputation on this[278][279]. JJ's knowledge and skillset do not serve Wikipedia. JJ is shown to persistingly (reverts) insert false misleading information in the articles, that is unsupported by the sources JJ cites with, apart from removing strongly notable & verifiable content that addreses JJ's POV, in the way described by the links provided.   ManosHacker ^talk 22:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Dawnseeker2000: I agree with your principles, but disagree that if allowed some time, JJ can evolve just the same without a sanction.

  JJ has been given years since the ANI incidents over their incivility and battleground behavior (one in 2013, two in 2014). More recently, JJ has received at least nine warnings from five different editors for the same issues in the course of the last nine months.

  How much sanction-free time is supposed to be given to JJ to stop the hostility? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: could a decision be made as soon as admins have time? A continuation of this discussion will probably only lead to more sour feeling between editors. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  That was a misunderstanding of the process, sorry. Instead, could administrators / uninvolved editors weigh in on the complaints. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I notice that MarkH21 and ManosHacker both seem very unhappy with their interactions with JJ - but I do wonder if as a result of having reached this state of unhappiness they are now running the risk of losing their temper and accidentally ending up being less civil than they intend. So I also think that resolving this swiftly would be best EdwardLane (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't work like that; unless a situation is genuinely urgent we don't just supervote. Thus far I count a grand total of one comment from an uninvolved editor in the above, which is nowhere near enough to establish a consensus. If the people agitating for JJ to be blocked are genuinely so hair-trigger that they run the risk of losing their temper and accidentally ending up being less civil than they intend, then possibly it's not JJ who's the problem here. ‑ Iridescent 09:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification of the process. The fact that a few of the complainants are not as civil as should be, doesn't mean that JJ's behaviour is not a (big part of) the problem I don't think. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  I do not intend to edit any article regarding the disputes shown here and I do not urge to a decision. I believe in building consensus through the talk page and then make additions and changes to the articles on dispute. I stepped in only to show this process cannot work when JJ is involved in content discussion, the way JJ (until now) treats editors with different perspectives than JJ's.   ManosHacker ^talk 10:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't intend to jump the gun - I think I'm technically a non involved editor with no clear preference on whether there should be a sanction for JJ EdwardLane (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Iridescent: Both EdwardLane and Dawnseeker20000 are uninvolved to my knowledge, as well as MJL and Ames86 in the preceding subsections who acknowledge JJ’s incivility. I don’t think there’s much risk in losing my temper; at this point, I’m only responding to JJ where an explanation of my own conduct (particularly if misconduct is claimed) is necessary. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  You forget WhatamIdoing.   ManosHacker ^talk 21:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why the rush? In the first three days we heard from those whose minds were already made up, or have been swayed by Mark's superficial gloss of events. Since then some of the allegations made against me have already been shown to be false, and as the details continue to unfold more thorough readers might come to a different conslusion. Besides, we haven't even had a proper discussion of Mark's complaints, which are so insipid that he is trying to hang me on the basis that I have said worse to other people. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Another reason for not being hasty: a range of accusations were made against me, which I think should be carefully examined. But various circumstances have constricted my Internet access and my available time, so I am not able to proceed as quickly some folks like, and have not yet presented a full reply. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support No-brainer, really; a source of a shit - ton of unacknowledged incivility must stop; to not stop it is to shoot at a pillar of (our) CIVILization. WP:CIVIL. The actions of the "triggering" parties often don't even nearly justify it. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Please refine your wording, user:50.201.195.170 as it (in fact) justifies JJ to act in a non civil manner.   ManosHacker ^talk 10:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. (uninvolved) This should be closed soon at this point. It's more extreme than I would've liked, but I'll go with it since everyone else seems to agree with it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

comment @MJL: are you sure? those that are 'involved' seem to be supporting the sanction (which is unsurprising), those of us that are 'uninvolved' seem to be much more neutral (I think I count 1 support and 2 neutrals(edit conflict means that foxnpichu below brings it to 2)), I don't think this is done as a vote counting exercise anyway, but whilst a sanction may be in order, I dislike the idea of issuing a sanction just because 'everyone else seems to agree', so if you are voting on this which might actually be significant as an uninvolved editor, would it be impolite of me to ask for more detail on your rationale EdwardLane (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Grudging Support - JJ does have a point in his above comment, but the civility issues are a problem. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there are issues re civility. And I accept that I am not entirely without fault. But I will argue (hopefully soon) that the principal reason we are here is Mark's WP:BATTLEGROUND manner of disputing trivial matters, and to assume the worse possible interpretations of my supposed intents. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

I'd say you were both in the wrong. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support it is a disruption to the project, to repeatedly diminish others with harsh language and scorn. A break is needed. Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment (uninvolved) - Before handing out sanctions, I recommend J. Johnson take a break from editing, at least in this particular subject matter. Could help clear your head and avoid getting too heated in discussions. Nanophosis (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Which I am not opposed to. And I am open to mediation. But that is not what MarkH21 is requesting. And faced with the prospect of a three month block (and the corruption that has already started regarding VAN) I am likely to just leave project. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits on VAN should be talked one by one and move to the article only after reaching consensus, due to controversity. The community should be able to handle this. If it is up to one editor to keep an article in good standing, then there is a fundamental problem in the wiki process applied here.   ManosHacker ^talk 12:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

JJ canvassing

This is blatant canvassing by JJ: JJ’s recent user talk page post linked to this ANI thread called Hi, and I could use your help and stating I could use your help here. Such wording is clearly non-neutral and prohibited by Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification.

That post was immediately followed by Antipocalypse’s !vote and reference to that message, and the connection between the two accounts is only confirmed by the dating of the former account retirement and the new account statement.

Sorry to connect a clean start user with their former account, but canvassing is a serious issue. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-issue. ManosHacker made a claim, JJ requested the editor in question to address it. It's within reason for JJ to do so. You're really fishing here. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The point is that I could use your help is non-neutral in a notification to a centralized discussion, unlike a post that would hypothetically say something like There is an ANI thread with competing claims about why you left WP. Could you clarify?

This is not the main issue in the thread but it is something to note. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

JerryRussel is a polite editor who chose to leave Wikipedia. I doubt he connects to Antipocalypse. The connection here is only the time.   ManosHacker ^talk 07:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@ManosHacker: The connection is also through Antipocalypse mentioning JJ’s greetings and heads-up while JJ’s only recent user talk page post is the one made on JerryRussell’s page a few one hours before Antipocalypse commented here. I’m not claiming misconduct by JerryRussell nor commenting on their editing history; I have had no interactions with them before. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC); correction on number of hours 08:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

User's contributions speak for themselves on the case here.   ManosHacker ^talk 08:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's me, the editor formerly known as user:JerryRussell. Since you all are so smart at following breadcrumbs, maybe you also can realize that Swiss Propaganda Research is entirely correct when they say that Wikipedia administration and editorial policy is now completely dominated by paid editors who are working for giant corporations and governments. I have tremendous respect for the many, many true volunteer editors here, but you've been out-maneuvered.

If you all want to waste your time trying to block an honest, valuable editor like JJ; or for that matter, tracking down former editors with new names; I think your priorities are misdirected. But, that's for you to decide.

I can assure you that JJ was not responsible for my departure from Wikipedia. I too would appreciate it if JJ would tone down his comments about other editors and about their contributions. But he's done great work with his contributions to earthquake-related articles, making sure that they correctly articulate mainstream views, while also allowing appropriate coverage of reliably sourced but unorthodox views.

The Wikipedia policy against canvassing has never made any sense at all to me. What is wrong with JJ asking me to reply to false claims made here, that he was the cause of my departure? Why wouldn't it be OK for him to ask me, a long term collaborator, to stand up for him at this ANI? For that matter, why shouldn't he be able to ask my opinion about the lede to the Tangshan earthquake article?

I registered this account so as to make hopefully non-controversial, fact-based contributions to the knowledge base here, and with no intention of getting involved in any administrative drama. But before I left, I promised JJ that I would be available if he needed me. So when I received his request, I then studied the rules at wp:validalt and regarding fresh starts in general, and determined that I could not answer using my old name. So now that I've been unmasked, I will open another new account in good time.

Best wishes to you all.... Antipocalypse (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Antipocalypse:, JJ can speak for himself here (ANI) regarding incivility consequences:

• For all of his incivility and failure to respect other editors, and for his particular disruptions, I ask that user DePiep be banned from making any edits to Template:M, or its documentation, or to any article or list regarding earthquake magnitudes or magnitude scales. Because of his long history of incivility and personal attacks (see block log), I ask that this ban be made permanent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You wish for a different treatment on JJ, while JerryRussel wrote:

• Wow, just wow, what a biased presentation of the situation by JJ. Yes, someone uninvolved please come and help us out. Thank you! JerryRussell (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• The consensus is completely obvious, JJ is the only one who disagrees. But he won't let us close it as involved editors, except on his terms. JerryRussell (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC).

As JerryRussel you should know how this action of JJ is in conflict with your saying "while also allowing appropriate coverage of reliably sourced but unorthodox views".    ManosHacker ^talk 00:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

At WP:Canvassing the "Appropriate notification" section (WP:APPNOTE) explicitly allows notification of "Editors who have asked to be kept informed". Which Jerry did ask, as he has said. The guideline goes on to say that an "audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". Which should not be an issue here, as on the very point where all this started Jerry's opinion is actually opposite of mine. Unlike Mark's canvassing of editors he identifies as having complaints about me, but not those of a different opinion.

This entire subsection ought to be noted – as a fine example of MarkH21 making a mountain of complaint out of a nothing, where his basis of complaint is simply wrong. And ManosHacker's "ruined by JJ" statement is shown to be utterly false. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Notifying editors who have asked to be informed is permitted, but only when all of the other conditions are also met. Non-neutral notification of an editor, regardless of whether they asked to be informed, are always inappropriate by Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Precisely how is "I could use your help" non-neutral? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

By specifically asking him to help you, the subject of the complaints and proposed community ban, as opposed to asking for his general input. There’s an inherent bias in wording it as a request for him to help you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21:, JJ should have asked JerryRussel to step in, to make things clear, as he left Wikipedia saying half words. I achnowledge, on the other hand, JJ's emotional wording on the call for help. I also believe that JerryRussel does not blame anyone for leaving Wikipedia.   ManosHacker ^talk 00:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that asking JR to comment was appropriate. It is however clear that the note was not neutral, as there was an expection of help for one side. I regard this as a minor breach of etiquette. JJ, with a small apology this issue will become a non-issue to me. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

In fact JJ's apology has to be sincere. JerryRussel has mentioned JJ's canvassing tactic in the past, in the middle of a try for consensus in the article he seems mostly interested in.   ManosHacker ^talk 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi @MarkH21: and @ManosHacker:, it's interesting to come back to some of these heated dialogs with JJ from 3 years ago. You need to understand that in general, I felt that my job at Wikipedia was to stand for fair treatment of 'fringe' positions. While JJ stands for the mainstream. This often placed us at odds.

But in retrospect I see that JJ was often correct in applying Wikipedia policies, and that I was often in the wrong. The linked deletion of "Natural Time" from the EQ prediction article, is a case in point. It was undue weight, and I was wrong to have argued in favor.

At three years distance, I feel nothing but respect for JJ.

Even compared to many of the issues JJ and I debated about, this question of whether the encyclopedia should say that Tangshan "ceased to exist" seems a bit trivial. The quote is hyperbole to be sure, and I side with those who wouldn't use it. But shouldn't it be obvious to any reader, that the city and its millions of people didn't literally disappear into thin air? It amazes me that anyone would spend so much time disputing this. And that includes JJ too!! As my wife would say: "children, children, can't you just get along"?? Hmm... I also remember how important things seemed, when I was in the middle of a dispute.

Ask yourself, will this seem important to you a few years from now? Antipocalypse (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Along with "natural time" deletion in the link, there is also the deletion of 2008 Athens earthquake prediction, which "ceased to exist" as well from the article. There is also the insertion of false misleading information that is unsupported by the sources JJ cites with. Can you make a small edit in JerryRussel's page as JerryRussel?   ManosHacker ^talk 00:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. User_talk:JerryRussell#Hi,_and_could_use_some_help.

JJ argued at the time that the 2008 prediction was only notable for its use of natural time. All the information is still readily available in the VAN method article, it didn't "cease to exist" from the encyclopedia. But I can't find the "false misleading" aspect of that diff? What am I missing? Antipocalypse (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@ManosHacker:, I see above that JJ has accused you of being an SPA editor with a bias in favor of VAN. I want to add that I also have the highest respect for VAN and their efforts! And for SPA editors, who are often great contributors to the encyclopedia. Antipocalypse (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Correction: I have not accused ManosHacker of anything, and certainly not being an SPA. I am suggesting that there are indications that he has a personal connection with VAN, and therefore an undeclared possible conflict of interest. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And I note that (further above) ManosHacker has declared no COI. The indications of possible COI are presumably co-incidental, not arising from any personal connection with the VAN principals. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

To recap, JJ said that ManosHacker is a relatively new user who seems to be channeling a WP:SPA user and also that he is largely unknown in the involved topic areas. And, as JJ mentions here, he said he suspected an undeclared COI.

Therefore, I stand corrected. JJ did not use the word "accuse" nor did he specifically identify ManosHacker himself as an SPA. This is why I respect JJ: he demands precision! Antipocalypse (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Antipocalypse. This is the diff you have been missing. The strikeouts are the JJ's false claims. As for 2008 prediction, it is notable by itself and does not have to be deleted as an outcome of natural time analysis "fringe process" (sic). The newspapers announced the major earthquake 4 days before it occurred, while its prediction (or "prediction" depending on acceptable criteria or vagueness) had been posted 2 weeks ago on scientific media. I apologize for using ANI space for article content talk, this should continue in proper space.   ManosHacker ^talk 01:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Close or just archive?

This thread takes up nearly half of this page and it has been dominated by three editors who, between them, have made over 90 comments. Could and admin either assess or just archive this obscenely long and two week old thread? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That’s what most of us have been waiting for. Iridescent asked for more uninvolved editor input a week ago; more uninvolved editors have commented and a clear consensus has emerged since then. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue has been drawn out because Mark (and now ManosHacker) raised a whole barrage of issues, and I haven't been able to address all of them (not even his specific complaints). And I can't go much faster, as due to certain circumstances I currently have only about an hour of Internet access a day. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

JJ do you have an eta on when you get your full internet access back ? that might help an admin decide how to proceed EdwardLane (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Three weeks? We have a "lock-down" situation, no telling when that ends, and some other issues. And at the rate I'm going I think it will be a week before I have responded to Mark's complaints. Sorry. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 25 March 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.