Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035

Disruptive editing/editwarring at Canaan and Canaan (son of Ham)

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

---

7Lybia7 (talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced/inappropriate/badly sourced content at these two articles, has ignored multiple warnings and never engaged in discussion. At Canaan (son of Ham) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) they have persisted in adding genetic information about this mythical person (apologies to those who think he was real, even if real the sources don't discuss him). At Canaan they've been inserting primary-sourced material on genetics which has been reverted by User:Rsk6400. I reverted this editor at both articles and at the son of Ham article the editor reverted me almost immediately. Another editor they reverted is User:TheseusHeLl, so 3 editors. But it's also gotten a bit weird. At Canaan I was reverted by User:HansFüller who added the summary "edit-warring and vandalism]]. This was their 22nd edit and they've never edited this article. Sorry if this is worded badly, I'm in a rush to get out of the house and walk my dog while there aren't many people about. Yesterday some idiot came straight up to me because his dog wouldn't come back to him and wanted to play with mine. Doug Weller talk 05:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I added a genetic section to Canaan and Canaan (son of Ham), my sources are several peer-reviewed genetic studies conducted by qualified academics on the Canaanites, the studies themselves are hosted on the websites of two well-known publishers and a scientific database: Science Advances, Taylor & Francis and ScienceDirect. I didn't add any primary sources either, anyone can check my contributions. Doug Weller (talk · contribs) also claims that he removed my contribution because Canaan is a mythical person but, he also deleted my contribution to Canaan whose subject is the historical Canaan. Doug Weller (talk · contribs)'s hostility against science is very disturbing and using the words "bad sources" to qualify reputed publishers clearly violates the NPOV rule. --7Lybia7 (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I missed the fact that this editor has also tried to add genetics to Hamites where they were reverted by User:Skllagyook, ThesesusHeL1 and me. My edit summary was "everted good faith edits by 7Lybia7: No source for white supremacist or for the quotation, please put these on the talk page along with quotes from the other sources that mention Hamites". No response to that request. The comment about my supposed hostility to science is as accurate as the claim that I used the word "bad sources" about reputable publishers. "Badly sourced" has a quite different meaning. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I reverted some of 7Lybia7 (talk · contribs)'s edits, each time trying to give a good reason in the edit summary, and starting four or five discussions on the respective talk pages. 7Lybia7 didn't take part in any of the discussions, but kept repeating his edits, sometimes writing an edit summary, sometimes not. At least once he claimed my reversion to be vandalism. I looked at his contribs, and IMHO none of them was constructive. Special thanks to Doug Weller (talk · contribs), whose careful communication this morning meant a lot to me in an upsetting situation. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller (talk · contribs) used "badly sourced" for:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00758914.2017.1368204?journalCode=ylev20

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaax0061

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30276-8

As you can see, these are peer-reviewed genetic studies conducted by academics, not "bad sources". Concerning Rsk6400 (talk · contribs)'s claim that none of my contributions were constructive, one look at the revision history of Canaan will reveal that I added an entire section to the article and also restored another section that he deleted, relatively speaking his only contribution to Canaan was the deletion of two sections without providing any explanations. --7Lybia7 (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

7Lybia7, what you're doing is a novel synthesis from primary sources. Please stop it. Guy (help!) 11:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

7Lybia7 have you any relationship with the editor User:HansFüller? You also seem to have problems with English. Badly sourced still does not mean the sources were defective in themselves, it means that you are using them badly as they don't discuss the subject of the article, as you've just been told above. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

How is my contribution "badly sourced"? The subject of Canaan is Canaan and its inhabitants, I added a genetic section on Canaan and used genetic studies conducted on Canaanite skeletons. --7Lybia7 (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Just now (12:40, 24 April 2020), 7Lybia7 (talk · contribs) used template uw-vandalism2 on my user talk page. I was not amused. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bit over the line. I've given him a week off to correct his behavior. --Jayron32 13:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, one week for that seems a bit harsh, don't you think? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It won't last 1 second longer than his correctly worded unblock request. Anyone can unblock them as soon as they let us know they understand what they did was wrong, and intend to change their behavior, even if he does so right now. Blocks are always as short as the blocked party wants them to last. --Jayron32 13:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds punitive then, IMO of course. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Nope. It would be punitive if I didn't unblock him for changing his behavior. However, the block is currently stopping him from harassing other users, as he has shown that he will do. The block will remain until such time as the problem stops. Let me quote policy to you, since you seem unfamiliar with it. It states "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:...harassment;" When he says he won't do that anymore, he will be unblocked. --Jayron32 14:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, I never said you can't block him, all I said is that one week is a bit harsh, that is all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: their unblock request reads "I added a genetic section to Canaan and Canaan (son of Ham), Rsk6400 vandalized the article Canaan, I kept reverting his edits (without violating the 3 R rule) until I got blocked from editing by Doug Weller who started a new discussion on ANI. He falsely complained that I did not use any sources, inappropriate sources and bad sources. I answered to each of his points, then warned Rsk6400 for vandalism. Jayron3 blocked me because "that's a bit over the line". It seems Doug Weller and his buddies are the only ones allowed to warn others". I of course never blocked this person, nor did I ever say they used "bad sources" as I kept grying to explain above. Nor did I falsely say they used inappropriate sources - they misused good sources. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms HansFüller (talk · contribs) and 7Lybia7 (talk · contribs) are the same editor. Blocked the master for two weeks and converted the sockpuppet to indefinite. – bradv🍁 14:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Possible compromised account?

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

---

User:Scs is a long-time wikipedian who has been around for 15 years, but has become much less active recently, often editing only a few times per month. I've always taken him to be a rather earnest person, and not known him to be disruptive in any way. However, this bit of uncharacteristic trolling showed up at the ref desks today. It seems highly out of character for Steve, given that I've been familiar with his work at Wikipedia for years and never seen anything like this before. I suspect that the account may be compromised, and want to know if others have any idea or input on the matter. Thank you. --Jayron32 16:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems a more likely explanation is that he was temporarily overcome by the constant never-ending mind-blowing fucking stupidity of the most powerful man in the world. Like, for example, I hardly ever intentionally violate BLP, but I've been driven to do it just now. I'd say wait to see if this is a one-off thing, or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we all make poor judgements, but this one seemed a bit out of character. There's other Wikipedians (probably myself included, TBH) who I wouldn't bat an eye for doing such things, but this was not a particular personality trait I had previously ascribed to Steve. That's why I was concerned. It may be as you say, but I still wanted to see if anyone else had any feelings on the matter. --Jayron32 16:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It was a joke. This is me, and my account is not compromised. Thanks for the concern. (Floquenbeam had it about right.) —Steve Summit (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

And I've never been accused of feeding the trolls before. Telling people not to take medical advice from this man cannot be said often enough, and that's a sad state of affairs. – bradv🍁 17:22, 24 April 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.

Eyeballs on Iron lungs

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

---

Could I get a few third party looks at this article? Taresantia (talk · contribs) has made some rather radical changes based on the opinion that the article is ... badly-written, badly-formatted, sloppy work like this is not useful, and that You'll need to write it properly if you want to include it. This strikes me as a great deal of baby tossed out with the bathwater, and an urgent problem for a subject which has current real-life implications. Prettifying articles at the cost of accuracy and completeness is seldom a good idea, in my opinion; doing so at this article now even less so. Qwirkle (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, in (only my opinion of course) a fair amount of that was unsourced original research (esp. the "Advantages"/"Disadvantages" stuff). But really, this is a content dispute—yes I agree their approach seems a little blunt—with no talk page discussion started, no messages on their talk, but straight to ANI. As you say, the article has current real-life implications, and removing unsourced OR, at least, is fully in the spirit of policy and because of real life, a service to our readers. I don't know about prettifying though. ——SN54129 16:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It's also extremely poorly sourced. I wonder how many of those sources conform to WP:MEDRS? There's google docs, youtube, Gizmodo(!)—and much of the rest are newspapers. And per WP:MEDPOP the popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Frankly, in this time, I'd say that article is closer to being an embarrassment than a service to the reader. SandyGeorgia, can you advise? ——SN54129 16:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the Venus-from-the-Seafoam history of the account, it seems unlikely that user talkpage discussions would be fruitful. The advantages/disadvantages are all either sky-is-blue, or readily obvious to anyone reading the cites. Yep, it should be marked up 12 different ways, but the ways that it is, in fact a mess don’t impinge on accuracy or completeness. Qwirkle (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The point about MEDRS is that not imping[ing] on accuracy or completeness is insufficient: the highest quality sourcing available should be used for the benefit of both the project and reader. As you have said, these articles are getting more attention (than they deserve in most cases), and a "meh, it's got some sources" is, unfortunately, not good enough. Articles about Pokemon character? Go all out on the crap sourcing. Articles where people might be seeking medical advice? Please no. ——SN54129 17:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

In car, on hotspot on iPad ... can try to look in a few hours, pls ping if I forget. @Colin and RexxS: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Eyeballs on lungs? That seems anatomically implausible. Reyk _YO! 16:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. Apparently we can put bleach and detergent on them as well. Qwirkle (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

And that title is just crying out for an image. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• The radical changes were made by the user who added all of that material within just the last few days. I wonder if you actually looked at the text you put back. I mean, you restored such bizarre things as the user's personal commentary on the quality of the sources they were adding: "note detailed reader comment, , April 7, 2020, by Christopher Smith, with clinical application details"..."moderately detailed"..."caution: source unclear". They had written all the section headings in lower case, for goodness sake. It read like a child's attempt at a science project. I'm really astonished that you felt it necessary to report me at a noticeboard for removing it. Taresantia (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have to agree with that. Taresantia simply seemed to be reverting Penlite's and others' recent edits, per WP:BRD. It is then up to those who want to include this content to justify inclusion on the talk page, with particular reference to WP:MEDRS. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This section thread is (apparently) mostly about my recent edits to the "Iron lung" article (particularly my last several hours of editing), and the extensive trashing of them by Taresantia, within an hour of their last post (I was in the process of gathering the appropriate major media and medical journal ref cites -- nearly all of them from sources already cited in the article -- for the lists criticized here, while, unbeknownst to me, my edits were being trashed). So I appreciate the notice, that I just received, that I might be interested in this exchange.

In attempting to provide useful, relevant, timely and encyclopedic information about this urgently important subject, I admit to some rather poor attention to certain Wikipedia traditions and standards, and was not even aware of some of them, particularly WP:MEDRS, which I stumbled across just in the last few hours. Frankly, if Taresantia had been a little slower on the draw, she would have found, within hours, that every item on the list would have been documented from substantial (mostly medical journal) sources.

However, while gathering the ref cites, I referred to a companion article I'd been editing: Negative pressure ventilator. It was an article that had been incorrectly omitted and redirected to "Iron lung" (as the NPV article now documents clearly, "Iron lung" is merely a subset of "Negative pressure ventilator"). Instead of finding my recent edits intact there, I found that they, too were trashed -- by Taresantia.

Reeling from the loss of massive amounts (many hours) of work, I redirected my focus on trying to understand and evaluate those changes, and study up quickly on the relevant Help and WP:MOS pages, and begin to form an appropriate response to them. Eventually, I decided to, instead, get back to finishing the "Iron lung" Advantages/disadvantages list (adding the not-yet-posted reference citations) -- only to find that work trashed, too.

And, while trying to make sense of that, I get the late invitation to this roasting.

Let's be clear about my objectives: Provide relevant, important, timely, valid, well-documented and comprehensible information, about an important subject, of particularly urgent global importance.

I realize, now, that it was unwise to post anything before I had the matching reference citations attached. I will refrain from that in the future. And I've taken care to read much of the other guidance on Medical articles in Wikipedia, and will adjust my work accordingly.

I appreciate and respect earnest criticism about the quality of my work, as it pertains to meeting standards of WP:RS, and the new-to-me WP:MEDRS, and -- if given a day or two to re-evaluate EVERYTHING I've posted on both of these articles -- I will fix much of it (probably most) in line with the various shortcomings cited here, and others I've just discovered by reviewing endless mountains of WP protcols.

Note that, out of courtesy, and urgency, I have respectfully refrained from trashing most of the other content by prior editors -- instead, simply supplementing it with more relevant and authoritative content. As time and workload permit, I will address those shortcomings, and will start by announcing, on the Talk page, any intent to do major deletions (and some are clearly due). But I will not trash another's extensive, relevant and accurate work within an hour of their delivering it.

Lives are at stake: Valid information is most urgent. And I have been scrupulous in providing just that, and that alone (compared, apparently, to editors before me on this topic).

I welcome respectful and well-intentioned criticism on the Talk pages of any article I edit, and encourage that they be directed to me with a @Penlite: flag. I will take note. If I don't respond within 24 hours, on a topic of this urgency and importance, fine. Trash my work.

But, for heaven's sake, let me catch a breath before you pull the rug out from under me. I don't have the time to do it over, as I'm currently also dealing with public service duties related to the current crisis. And, clearly, no one else has recently stepped up to the plate to adequately overhaul these important, timely, but previously very poorly produced, inadequate and absent articles.

Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 18:07, 24 April 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.

• let me catch a breath – Take care not to inhale the eyeballs. EEng 18:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wizardcraft and WP:TONE, WP:OR, WP:EW

Wizardcraft is posting unencyclopaedic content, is edit warring and is refusing to engage in discussion. He continues to do this past level four warnings but I don't think this is quite a straightforward WP:AIV issue so I am bringing it here for consideration.

Clearly, this is not a malicious vandal. The content being posted would indeed be welcome in many other venues, but it is inappropriate here. For example, this is an extract from the new content added on their first edit:

Aubameyang then netted his fourth of the season, whipping into the corner after Aaron Ramsey`s pass was miscued. The goal was given, despite Aubameyang being marginally offside. He then scored twice and assisted despite playing just 28 minutes as a substitute as Arsenal hammered Fulham 5-1 at Craven Cottage. He was, however, benched for the home tie against Leicester City, but was subbed on on 61 minutes, with the scores level at 1-1. Aubameyang then scored twice in five minutes to seal a 3-1 win for Arsenal; his second goal came at the end of a magnificent passing move, and would be voted Arsenal`s Goal of the Season.

This is not written in a "business-like" tone required of an enclopaedia: phrases such as "whipping into the corner" are what you would expect in the tabloid sports pages; there is commentary such as "magnificent passing move" and the whole thing (arguably) contains undue levels of detail. But worst of all is that it is is almost all entirely original research. It looks like it's referenced - each of the three matches cited has a reference to an online match report - but I'm not convinced these refs weren't simply added later to the author's own match reports because there's nothing in the ref for the last game that says that Aubameyang was substituted after 61 minutes or that the goal would be voted Goal of the Season; the ref for the second match says nothing about playing "just 28 minutes" and whilst it does say he was substituted on after 62 minutes, it also says he scored in the 91st, so it looks like the assertion wasn't even correct.

Attempts to engage in discussion have failed. Mattythewhite and I have both left messages on their talk page but they just delete them without responding. None of their edits has been given an edit summary; they just keep reinstating their content when it is removed (see the edit histories of e.g. Eddie Nketiah).

The user is continuing in the same vein over a range of football-associated articles, most recently at 2018–19 Chelsea F.C. season. See e.g. this reinstatement of content such as "they then faced a Reds side with a stronger team sheet at Stamford Bridge in the league, but were undone thanks to a late Sturridge stunner, and had to settle for a 1-1 draw", which includes the same sorts of problem cited above, including content unsupported by the ref. Even more understated statements are WP:OR, for example, "Chelsea began the league campaign under new manager Sarri with a routine 3-0 victory at Huddersfield Town" is nowhere described as "routine" in the reference. I have not reverted this again; having done so once, and made one last effort to engage, I think it's time for Administrator attention. Dorsetonian (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I was actually wondering if Wizardcraft was a continuation of a banned user, simply because it's a new account that has a fair understanding of how wikipedia works, much more than say a new user. Not to mention he logged out of that username and started editing under this IP (122.61.100.131 contrib) Govvy (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80

A number of users have been clashing with Contaldo80 for years, with the primary problem being Contaldo's disregard of the importance of consensus. I have tried to remain civil, but I grow tired of having to explain the issue to him every time he can not get his way. We have been over consensus, BRD, and every related issue more times than I care to recount. He simply refuses to abide by it.

The problem has grown so bad that Elizium23 has asked for an I-ban to be imposed against himself (!!) to prevent him from interacting with Contaldo any further. In that discussion, other editors pointed out to Contaldo that he has been editing here long enough to understand how this project works. Either he is incapable or, as I suspect, he has a chronic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. While usually separate pages, the articles where Elizium and I clash with Contaldo tend to relate to Catholicism.

As stated, this is a longstanding issue. When DrKay tried to explain to him that a consensus has formed against him in July 2018, Contaldo's response was to dismiss it based on his perception of the demographics of those on the other side. In a more recent example at Stop the Church, Contaldo tried to change language he didn't like. He was reverted with an edit summary that said "Please gain consensus for this change on talk first." Instead of doing so, he simply reinserted it. He then did it again.

It was pointed out to Contaldo in this case that not only was there a consensus to use the word he now dislikes, he in fact agreed to use it. His response to that was to delete his comment agreeing to use the word from January 2019. When I asked him to please respect the consensus, and to change the consensus before changing the language, his response was to tell me to "stop trying to hide behind 'consensus'."

He also either consistently misunderstands or deliberately misconstrues procedurs such as WP:BRD when things are not going his way. As one recent example, when he was unable to delete stable text that had been in place for months, he tried to claim that the burden was on others to include it and that he was free to delete it as he pleased.

Contaldo frequently gets emotional when other editors oppose him. My referencing a comment left about him on an administrator's noticeboard, for example, drew an accusation of trying to "humiliate and belittle" him. (I apologized and immediately explained that was not my intent.) In that noticeboard discussion he claimed that another editor discussing him off-wiki was a "violation of my personal privacy" and "is intimidating me." When a NatGertler started to push back on him, he accused that editor of "starting to feel harassed and intimidated by" Nat. The last time I reported him, in 2018, he responded by mocking me and repeatedly vandalizing my userspace. He received a warning for his aggressive editing style and pledged to make an effort to improve. Unfortunately, many of these same traits persist. I have not seen a great improvement over the long-term.

Contaldo does some good work in some articles, but his refusal to abide by WP:Consensus and WP:BRD is troubling and persistent. I should also note that my edits have, at times, been less than exemplary. As I have in the past, I sincerely apologize if my behavior has in any way has precipitated Contaldo's. Still, it is not fair to others to have to continually deal with this type of behavior. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, indeed, if you're editing longstanding text, then the WP:ONUS is on you to reach consensus on the article talk page first. If you feel you've reached an impasse on the article talk page, please feel free to make use of dispute resolution requests. Good luck. El_C 16:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Much of the issue here is that Slugger O'Toole appears to thinkg that NPOV means CPOV (Catholic point of view). Hence his topic ban from Knights of Columbus, and his current issue at Stop the Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have no real opinion on Contaldo80's edits, but Slugger's are often problematic. Guy (help!) 23:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

As the "a NatGertler" Slugger referred to, I have to concur that Contaldo is problematic. One doesn't have to look further than the [[AN thread that Slugger pointed to. Elizium had come there requesting a one-way i-ban on himself, which is a request that I think would normally get accepted without much fuss... but Contaldo chose to weigh in for some reason, to paint himself as a victim for this. I wouldn't even have known of the thread if he had not suggested that I look at it, but when I then responded to the thread and his claims there, he has accused me of making him "feel harassed and intimidated" for being there. He is not playing well with others. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems like if you would like to present evidence about Contaldo80, the diffs should be by Contaldo80. The diffs linked above are the sort I would expect to see if Contaldo80 were here making article ownership accusations (I'm not saying there's an WP:OWN problem here FWIW -- just that that's where I'd expect to see this kind of diff list). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, Here's one longstanding example. There are many more like it. In July 2018, Contaldo added new language to the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality that included the phrase " desecrated the Eucharist." In October of that year, he changed it to "desecrated a Communion wafer." I objected and reverted. A discussion ensued on talk, in which I explained to Contaldo yet again the importance of consensus.

What happened next was, in a word, bizarre. Contaldo replied to me as if he was someone else, and referred to himself in the third person as if he was an uninvolved party. He then left yet another comment, this time as himself. Both the reply and the reply-to-the-reply were in the same edit. Apparently he realized what a mistake he made, and deleted the second reply. It was a poor, obvious, and sloppy attempt to manufacture a consensus.

A third editor joined the conversation and said the word Eucharist was acceptable to him. Contaldo's reply was "Thanks I agree with that. As a compromise I will leave in Eucharist too as long as I hope other editors note that this is a compromise and the view of a majority of editors." That seemed to settle matters.

Stop the Church was then spun off with content from Dissent in January of this year, more than a year after the issue had been settled. It included the word "Eucharist." On April 8th, four months later, Contaldo came in and changed the text from Eucharist to wafer once again. Again, he was reverted and I asked him to gain consensus first. This was particularly annoying because he had been an active participant (indeed, perhaps over active with his fake user comments) the first time around.

In the ensuing discussion, he denied agreeing to use the word and then said that becasue he was mistaken in that instance that no consensus had existed. He then went on to say that, because he changed his mind, the burden was on me to gain consensus for "Eucharist." He also went back and deleted his comment from January 2019, perhaps in an effort to make it look like he never said it. When I objected to this, he then accused me of "hiding behind consensus."

Another recent example can be found at History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality. In February I added a new section on HIV/AIDS with an edit summary that stated "Would be glad to have some help expanding/ refining this section." Two months later, Contaldo came in and started making a few edits. Some were fine, some I tweaked slightly, and some I objected to as UNDUE and moved them to other articles. We discussed several of them on talk, but Contaldo remained unhappy.

Contaldo's response was to then delete the entire section, which had stood for two months, with an edit summary of "BRD." Because he couldn't gain consensus for language he wantedd, he claimed that I would need to gain consensus to include any of it, even after it had already been there for two months.

I could go on and on if you like, but I hope these examples spanning over three years is sufficient. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop the Church

One focus of this dispute is Stop the Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where Slugger O'Toole is remarkably insistent on piping the article host desecration as "desecration of the Eucharist" and inserting it into the lead as having at least parity with the protest itself as a source of its lasting impact, a position that doesn't appear to be supported by even the niche catholic sources he prefers. Note that in the Anglican communion, for example, "eucharist" means the entire service of communion, which is the sense conveyed in our article of that title, and many (probably most) denominations don't use the term at all. To pipe this to host desecration makes no sense to the non-catholic reader, and probably to many lay catholics - it reads as desecration of the service of mass, so the link target is confusing and the separation from the protest, which was, er, a disruption of the service of mass, also makes no sense. Slugger does not appear to permit any view other than a straight-up catholic view, hence my belief that he is mistaking CPOV for NPOV.

I understand that he is outraged by the specific act of sacrilege within this protest, but Wikipedia is not here to share the outrage of parties in a dispute, we're here to describe it in neutral terms that are understandable by the lay (in this case also in its literal meaning) reader. Slugger O'Toole's idea of compromise is to own the text, which is why he was topic-banned from Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It seems to em that wherever his faith is involved, Slugger O'Toole is so vested in the content outcome that he is unable or unwilling to compromise. Guy (help!) 10:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I have acknowledged that I'm not perfect, apologized for the times when I have fallen short, and have made an effort to improve. See, for example, my recent pledge not to edit war with you even when I thought the burden was on you to gain a new consensus, not me. Also, as pointed out to you already, my "remarkable insistence" is based upon a compromise consensus in which the only three editors involved at the time agreed to use the word. I have said over and over and over again, if a new consensus emerges not to use the word then I will abide by it. To date, I have not seen one. Also, if you review the edits of the last couple days, and particualrly the 15th, I think you will see a clear demonstration of my willingness to compromise. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the energy or the inclination to respond to all the points above. My overall concern is that there are instances of editors who are deliberately skewing articles to present a positive picture of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe Slugger O'Toole is one of those - he is insistent that terms like "desecrating the Eucharist" be used when the source talk about a "communion wafer". Because the former is more emotive. He use the term "pro-life" to describe the actions of a women's rights protest group even though the sources talk about concerns around access to abortion. To the point where every edit I make the words are changed almost immediately to something more palatable. The the extend where Slugger has followed me to articles upon which he'snot previously worked in order to change my words (and just my words). The work by Slugger on Knight of Columbus has painted that organisation as one of the greatest movements on earth. He inserts text on the history of LGBT and Catholicism that talks at length about the role of the church in providing health care facilities around the world and resists anything that might suggest that gay men didn't have a particularly nice time during the AIDS crisis. Dealing with articles that cross LGBT rights with religious practice is highly sensitive one - and I've always been careful to try and present the story on both sides so that the reader gets a rounded view of what's going on. But it is hard work and I've experienced a lot of hostility over the years. I find Slugger tries to use the rules to stop stuff they don't like (critical to the catholic church) in a way that discourages genuine and open discussion - and fails to respect that different editors may have a different perspective. I think it's worth reviewing a sample of their average edits. The issue above concerning Elizium23 remains of concern to me - Slugger used comments from this discussion to challenge me in a separate discussion on an article talk page, as a way to suggest to other editors that I had been admonished. They were wrong to do this and they had not been involved in the earlier administration board discussion. I still do not think it is acceptable for Elizium to have told me that he had been talking to his priest specifically about me and that this made him "angry". I find this intimidation. I also didn't really appreciate Nat Gertler's intervention if I'm honest - one of the reasons that wikipedia may have a problem with recruiting enough quality editors is that kind of "pack attack" where everyone decides to get stuck in. If the decision is made to censure or block me then I respect that, and hope that administrators do so with judgement. But I fear that won't resolve the deeper problem about religious bias creeping into a number of these articles and which I fear weaken the value and reputation of wikipedia - to the detriment of us all.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I also hadn't realised until now that Slugger has been topic banned from The Knights of Columbus. It's not obvious from his talk page because he removed this particular piece of information. Nevertheless it kind of reflects my concerns above, and am encouraged that administrators are monitoring the issue and taking action. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you didn't appreciate my attempts to be a third voice when you were attempting to reintroduce unsourced BLP-problematic claims into an article I edit, nor my not siding with you when you attempted to demonize Elizium23 on my talk page, nor when you find me correcting you in a discussion you pointed me to, nor when I come in on this discussion after someone mentioned me. If me being involved in editing discussions on pages I edit, responding to a post on my talk page, or responding in threads that you point me to or am being discussed is "piling on", pray tell when am I allowed to be involved in Wikipedia without you consider it "piling on"? Or is it fine when I'm not pointing out your errors, your false claims, and the problems with your actions? You seem eager to find a mote in my eye here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Random unsolicited comment: I've clashed with Contaldo80 multiple times in the past and remember the previous AN/I discussion. At times, I've found him to be quite indifferent to Wikipedia regulations, including but not limited to neutral point of view, the three-revert rule, consensus, and on personal attacks. Anyone who wants to read about the numerous problems that I've had with him can read the AN/I page that Slugger O'Toole linked. Other times, particularly since the AN/I thread, I found him to be reasonable and willing to compromise and respect guidelines, and it's clear to me that he at least knows how to be civil. I'm not involved in any of these recent disputes and have not interacted with him in a while, but I would be disappointed if he has returned to old bad habits. Display name 99 (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Display name 99 for your kind words. No, I'm not sure I am guilty of any bad behaviours. At least not this time haha. On the contrary I have recently experienced a personal attack myself (NatGertler is familiar with the comments made against me by Elizium23 who thought it fine to confide to his priest that I "made him angry" with my edits; and this apparently is my attempt to "demomnise". I think I was the one the parish priest was being the "demon" on this occasion Nat!) Likewise I myself have genuine concerns about neutral point of view language being used by Slugger O'Toole - and a number of other editors have recently raised this as an issue of concern. Be good to collaborate on something in the near future Display - I always thought your interventions were well-reasoned and constructive :) Contaldo80 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Repeated problems with Walter Görlitz

Hello. I've had repeated issues with the user Walter Görlitz over a three year period and Id like things to be dealt with. As it's getting extremely tiring and has seriously hindered my ability to edit Wikipedia in peace. The latest examples are WP:Articles for deletion/13th GMA Dove Awards where he called the BEFORE I did to ascertain notability disingenuous. Also, on Bethel Music's talk page I suggested the article be split and he said I shouldn't be able to do the split because I disdain Christian. Which clearly rises to the level of harassment as defined by WP:Harassment. There's plenty of other examples out there of similar things. Like arbitrarily removing banners I've added to articles, reverting even basic edits I've done to articles that he is fine other users making, repeated edit warring, disparaging me for asking questions on official message boards multiple times, etc etc. All of it is clearly a targeted attempt to dissuade me from editing through intimidation and other tactics. Especially his comment in Bethel Music I tried to talk to him about it and asked him multiple times to leave me and my edits alone, but he's been unwilling to be reasonable and stop with the behavior. So, I'd appreciate it if someone stepped in. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I can second this opinion by Adamant1. I only recently met Walter Görlitz when he began to edit war over a paragraph break. I found this to be evidence of a very combative editor; apparently, he wrote the lead of the article where I inserted the paragraph break, and he was very much against any deviation from "his" version. It baffled me to the point where I looked over his talk page, and saw a link to this discussion. I don't know anything about Adamant1's problems with Walter, but I thought I should speak up to say that he's not the only one to experience this from Walter. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

One editor is not capable of edit-warring alone, and based on your description, you would have initiated it. You made a bold edit to introduce a paragraph break, and it was reverted. BRD is the generally accepted process, which means at that point you discuss, not revert again. And if you are going to make accusations about misbehaviour (OWNing and EWing in this case), you are required provide evidence supporting them otherwise you are casting aspersions. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed (and had them removed on my part) notability templates after AfDs because it has been shown that the subject is notable. I have shown you that the subject is notable by the news with Kirk Franking (essentially WP:BEFORE) but you want me to add the content. I can do that, but I'm busy responding to frivolous ANI discussions and dealing with my family.

As for the paragraph breaks, I was simply comparing other band articles of similar size. We don't need a break there, but I have given up on trying to convince you of that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

as for splitting the Bethel Music article, a simple check of your AfDs and related discussions (at EL about references used) and other locations show that you want to minimize their presence on Wikipedia. Time and time again, other editors have told you that you're wrong and yet you continue to attack this and other charismatic Christian groups. Yes, you edit in other areas, but you come back to these groups. I think the solution is to continue to ask questions about them, but not edit the articles until you can do it in a neutral way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The article your mentioning isn't really one I have a problem with. Nor did I mention it here. Although, that it took me re-adding the template multiple times for you to agree to adding the sources instead of just removing the template does speak to the general problem this is about. Re, "I attack charismatic Christian groups." I asked for evidence of that and you haven't given any. I edit Christian articles in an extremely small amount relative to other topics and compared to how much you edit them. None of it rises to trying to minimize their presence and I don't know or care what articles are "charismatic." With the article your adding sources to, I repeatedly told you to improve the sourcing before removing the template and encouraged you to add in the part about Kirk Franking. I'm not sure how that's attempting to minimizing charismatic Christianity or a disdainful action. I'd love to see some evidence that is though.

Most other articles I've edited, christian or otherwise are along the same lines. Mostly I edit company articles. Including doing the same type of edits your claiming show I disdain and minimizing of Charismatic Christians. I guess I disdain companies and am trying to minimize their presence to. Either that or there's just a lot of low quality articles out there that need improving, Christian or otherwise. There's nothing nefarious about my edits or the intent behind them, all of my edits have been "basic house cleaning", and none of them excuse or justify how you've treated me. Also, it's pretty ridiculous to claim I'm trying to minimize the presence of a religious group over a few AfDs. Our problems predate the AfD's by a long time anyway and some of your actions have taken place outside of Christian topics.

A few more examples, on Bethel Church (Redding, California) I tried to re-add a removed (without discussion) criticism section. He repeatedly reverted me, but then was fine with someone else adding it back. It was clearly a personally motivated edit war and had nothing to do with just being a bad edit on my part. On this RFC about Michelin stars, he badgered me for asking the question and claimed I was lecturing/re-litigating things for having a personal opinion about it. Also, somewhere else I asked about using social media links. He went off about how I asked in the wrong board (even though didn't), accused me of waiting until he was on vacation to ask the question so he couldn't reply to it, and treated me like I was lying about there being an admin involved in the discussion (who called him out for having an attitude). Then after the admin and another person said it was better not to use social media links, he discounted them by claiming they just didn't understand my question. Plus, he said their opinions were not valid because I asked in the wrong place (which I didn't). Later, he repeatedly reverted me when I tried to improve links to social media accounts. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Nor will I provide any proof of your hostility. It's evident is someone wants to dig and it's not something I want to use as evidence. I will simply make the claim and the request.

And for the RSN—and I made this clear to you yesterday and you show here that you have no faith in what I wrote—I formulated my opinion of the question before I knew who it was that wrote it and my response did not change because it was someone who has shown disdain toward me and my opinions in the past. The majority of editors were similarly incredulous that anyone would question whether Michelin stars were a source for notability. I see you hold long grudges and you'll dig into those. I just build general opinions about individuals and I won't throw specifics back at them. If you want to split that article, I will alert the project that I think someone hostile to the aims of the project is about to act and stand back to see how they approach the situation, but I simply advised you that I do not think you should touch that article because I so not think that you will approach it fairly. Prove me wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

And as for criticism sections, would you like to reiterate my reasons for excluding them or do you want to make it seem as though I wanted it removed? No, you want to make it appear as though it was nefarious. In fact I repeatedly reminded you that Wikipedia:Criticism should be blended into existing sections of an article, and not be in a stand-alone section. I have never objected to adding criticism alone, but it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the criticism if it is in a stand-alone section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course you won't, because none exists. You can't even support a simple thing like that I used AfD's to target charismatic Christians. That's the problem. You've repeatedly made unfounded claims, used them to justify your actions, and ignored WP:Harassment and other guidelines about proper behavior in the process. Then you just deny your abusive behavior when people call you out for it. That's why this exists. Whatever beef we had was like 2 years ago and I could really give a crap about you or your opinions at this point. I haven't edited any Christian articles since then, except for the few last week because I knew you'd start in again with your bias crap if I did and I didn't want to deal with it. Your the one holding the grudge by screwing with my edits and insulting me two years later. Just get over it, and leave me alone. I'm sick of saying it. It's exactly why an admin should step in and deal with you.

As far as the criticism section of Bethel Church goes, no where in your reverts did you say anything alone the lines of "weave it into the article." You just said if I had a problem with your revert to take it up on the talk page. You didn't say so on the talk page anywhere either. So, that's simply a lie. I didn't see the talk page discussion until recently anyway. It should have been your thing to discuss it on the talk page though since it was already there for years before it was removed and your the one that had the problem with it. It's on other people to do things how you want them and reverting isn't to he used to push a certain way of doing things. On the Michelin Stars thing, there where plenty of comments and the opinions where mostly split. Only one other comment that I saw, out of like twenty besides yours, had a problem with me asking. So your statement that it was the majority of editors is simply false. A lot of them thought they shouldn't Michelin Stars shouldn't automatically count for notability. Your attitude about it and everything else is the issue here, including with splitting the Bethel Music article. I have every right to ask questions or suggest things without being badgered, insulted, or slandered. All I did on the Bethel Music article was make a suggestion, that I said I didn't even want to do it myself, but you couldn't even handle that without turning into a big issues and slandering me. That's why it's WP:Harassment, and again why I posted this. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Adamant1: Please provide diffs for the claimed misconduct. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @MarkH21: There's the Bethel Music comment that I disdain Christians. Also this comment. Where he said "you're not at all neutral on them and Christians in general. You have a disdain for them. That has been evident in the way you attack them, their sources and their claims. If you were truly neutral, you wouldn't concern yourself with the articles." There is also this AfD where he called my BEFORE disingenuous. The comment on the RFC for Michelin Stars doesn't seem to have a diff because it's archived or something. I'll quote it though, hopefully that works. "You came here of your own free will. You asked a question. You received a unanimous opinion from the first three editors who responded. Now you're going to lecture us on how we're wrong?" This is the link to it. You can just search for his name to find the comment if need be. He's also repeated the same thing multiple times in this discussion. Including in his last comment "If you want to split that article, I will alert the project that I think someone hostile to the aims of the project is about to act." Hopefully those work. There's more comments out there, but I'd have to find them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I also found this. I can't do the diff thing there either because it's also archived or something. If you look for "Musical artists and albums pages being excessively linked to Amazon or iTunes - while I was on vacation" He says negative things about me there. Including threatening me and claiming I asked in the wrong place. "this is an official warning to Adamant1, the next time you remove references from the article and tag it incorrectly as you did in the diff linked above, I will take you to 3RR for long-term edit warring. In short, wrong place to discuss this issue." Also, a quote from him claiming my question about social media links was "bait" that other users took (insinuating I was trolling for asking), which also discounted other people's opinions "Second, Ian.thomson fell for the bait and stated that we cannot use commercial site per WP:ELNO." He later used that as justification to continue edit warring me. I'm sure there's more out there. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• So you're claiming I created a "bait" that others "took"? Don't you mean that pointed something out that others agreed with? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• No, what happened there was that I asked a question about using references to social media accounts, an admin (and another user) told me it was fine to get rid of them if I wanted. So better references could be added instead. So, I did (and said in my changeset that an admin told me it was OK because I knew you might flip out about it). Then you reverted me multiple times, accused me of lying that an admin had said it was OK to delete the refs, and went off in that discussion about it to the admin. Which is where you said the only reason the admin that you thought wasn't one told me it was OK to delete the references was because they took my bait (whatever that meant). Then you discounted their opinions as not valid because I asked the question in the wrong place, an internal versus external linking message board or whatever when it didn't matter, and also discounted them because supposedly I wasn't clear about what I meant in my original question. When I was and you weren't involved in the original discussion to determine that anyway. Which was also why your accusation that I was lying about talking to an admin was crap. Hopefully that clarifies it. It's yet another good example of where your bias negative opinions of my actions led you to treat me in a bad way, for something where I really didn't do anything wrong. I was just doing what the admin and other user said to. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I just looked at the discussion, and ELNO still does not apply to references and Amazon and iTunes are not social media. @WhatamIdoing: might be able to recount the discussion. That discussion goes on to show what transpired. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that was about commercial sites. There was like 3 different places I asked similar questions at the time that you got the same massive attitude about. I'm pretty sure the details other then that are the same. I'll look through and try to find the first discussion when I have time. IMO whatever you want to say about something applying or not to that particular message board, the people who were actually involved in the discussion didn't say that was the case and they still answered my question. Otherwise, I would have been fine taking it somewhere else. They would have had the same answer where they would have responded to it in though, because policy is policy. Especially with the admin. The problem is you treating the whole thing like they just didn't know what they were doing, or like I intentionally went to the wrong place to fool people so I could get the answer I wanted. That wasn't the case. I would have done whatever they said. Even if they had of said to keep the links. I just didn't understand the policy and you where badgering me about it. So I asked for clarification. It's not on me, the medium where I asked, or them being fooled into saying to delete the links. Btw, your ping didn't seem to work. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Another thing is that it matters how they are used to, my issue was always more with them being used in articles where they were the only or main sources, used as ref bombing or redundantly along with other better sources, and in a way to advertise. I could ultimately care less if there's a few links to in an article to cite basic facts, but that's not how they where used. In the articles that lead to me asking the question about them, like 50 of the citations in both where to Amazon and iTunes and that's pretty much all there was. In no way is that an OK way to cite things in an article. Whatever guideline there might be about it being OK cite Amazon once in a while to support a fact. Again, I have zero problem with that and it was never my issue. Although, if the article already has a better citation to a more reliable source for the same information, there's no reason not to just go with that instead. Unless your just trying to make the article seem notable through ref bombing. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, I found the discussion. It's here under "Musical artists and albums pages being excessively linked to Amazon or iTunes" (Again, it was the excessive use of them that I had a problem with). To quote Ian.thomson (who was the admin) " WP:ELNO #5 says those links should not be included. Feel free to remove them again, linking to that point and leave a uw-spam warning on the usertalk of restores it. If I'm on and active, feel free to ping me when you warn them." Also the other user said "Most of these are indeed hardly ever suitable as external links, but used in the right context they can serve as primary references for certain information. It does seem a bit overdone, though." Again, it was about the amount they where being used. Ian.thomson also said "Many of the commercial citations don't verify the information they're cited for" and they also called out Kuda88 for doing it "So we have a number of articles, many of which limp by on WP:NM while otherwise failing WP:GNG, all created by a single purpose account that drastically switched topics, that all contain weak references to sites that sell products for two connected organizations. Now, I can imagine that there's a perfectly innocent explanation, especially if the user in question promises to do better with referencing in the future (maybe stop citing sources that sell the music entirely)." Which was also partly what motivated me to the whole thing with him having a COI that you brow beat me repeatedly over. You went off and edited warred me over a lot of links that didn't even contain the information they where suppose to verify. Even with the ones that did, I was still told I could removed because of how they where being cited. Btw, I brought up the over linking to sites that sell music to Kuda88 like was recommended. He didn't respond, you needlessly involved yourself with your combative confrontational crap (which just made it look like he wasn't doing anything and I was), and he's still doing it (or at least he was the last time I checked). So, thanks for that. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That's because you misconstrued references as external links. You didn't understand the difference then and you don't seem to understand it now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: No I didn't. Even if I did though, they looked at the articles themselves and I'm sure they could have told the difference if it mattered. What happened to accepting what other people tell you? That must only matter when it comes to getting what you want. Why not just accept that half or more of the references in an article shouldn't be to Amazon or iTunes? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no horse in this particular dispute, but this name rang some bells. I had an encounter with Walter Görlitz a few years ago, and he left the impression of a hostile editor who has a tendency to WP:OWN content even if consensus may be challenging his personal opinion. I had a quick look at the talk page mentioned here, saw him casting aspersions, and realized my memory must be correct. I don't think it's a coincidence that I recall him specifically for the no-true-scotsman thing. Cryptic Canadian 04:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Not responding to this any further, but Adamant1 really needs to find a better tone in their noms and arguments for deleting articles; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Gospel Music Association and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Gospel Museum and Hall of Fame, where they derisively refer to the latter as merely 'a room'. My vote! that a hall of fame and organization for a well-known genre of music were notable and they need to find better sources was viciously taken apart in a way that's chilled me from commenting any further (and note that I'm hardly a hardcore Christian, I just argued that deep sourcing should be very easy to find for a Southern Gospel topic and they think that, along with simply reminding the nom that the SGMA isn't a company but a non-profit, is a 'totally trash' reason for a keep vote!.). I can see why Walter has taken issue with the OP's tone, because I never want to deal with them again myself. Again, no further comment, so don't bother with a ping, just my experience with the OP. And just looking at this summary on Bethel, it explains succinctly why it was a rare error on my part to comment on an AfD they created. Nate • (chatter) 21:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Just stumbled upon this thread and thought I'd give my two cents. I had a weird experience with Walter Görlitz on the Kirk Franklin article in April 2018. I tried to add a recent image of Franklin to the infobox to replace the current one from 1999. Despite the image being creative commons, Walter reverted my edit twice and nominated it for deletion on wiki commons despite the fact the image was from this video with a creative commons license at the bottom. He then nominated it for deletion but it was closed because... it was creative commons. (I later requested the deletion of the photo because the metadata contained identifying information). A second incident was in December 2019 on the Yolanda Adams article. I tried to replace the current photo (which in my opinion is useless because you can barely identify her) with this one from September 2019, also creative commons licensed. Despite this, he reverted my edits and I just gave up at that point. I believe he violates WP:OWN a lot. These articles would have better images (in my opinion) if not for him! Heartfox (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment First video is copyrighted to Emmis Communications, the owner of WBLS; definitely a copyvio (YT has that blanket disclaimer but the final ownership continues to reside with whoever produces the content, and it would have a "© 2019" tag on the station's website, no matter what). Second really doesn't look any better than the HQ 2010 shot. I'd rather have a really great PD image than a blurry video screencap any day of the week. No OWN found here at all. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    • First of all, the deletion nomination was closed and the file was kept because it's not a copyright violation; WBLS tagged the video with a Creative Commons license at the bottom of the description, and yet Walter Görlitz refused to let the image be in the article. I think you misunderstand—YouTube's Creative Commons FYI states that "you retain your copyright and other creators get to reuse your work subject to the terms of the license." A screenshot of Franklin smiling in the video could not possibly be worse than that picture from 1999. I will try to add one to the article again. Heartfox (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Look through the changeset histories of many articles and the vast majority of edits will be him reverting people over little, minor none issues. He's reverted me more then a few times for doing basic edits like changing a word an article or adding a "better source needed" thing to one. When I was a new user he called me pathetic in a changeset comment and said I needed to get a life. So, he definitely has some ownership issues and a not good attitude. Which are clearly not just confined to my edits. @Mrschimpf: I apologize for my tone in the AfD. I was already pretty upset over the personal attacks etc by Walter and the whole room thing really seemed like nitpicking. As I explained later, it is actually in a room. It's extremely frustrating when people don't assume good faith on the part of the nominator when they vote. All we can do is what we can do. Clearly I shouldn't have described where the hall of fame was located. Regardless, even though I had things going on, made the grave error of describing something and there was nitpicking on your part, I still could have used a better tone. Even if your's wasn't great. So, that was my bad, really. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
        • After reading this comment chain, I took a closer look and it truly does seem that "revert, revert, revert, insult" is a habitual issue with him, because his block history is a mile long, all for edit warring and incivility. I was particularly taken aback by this one where he wastes his time deliberately making someone's editing experience more difficult, for a reason that is objectively wrong. He's also been brought up at ANI many times for these same problems (([1], [2], [3]). He doesn't seem like a bad editor, per se, but frankly, I'm surprised that he hasn't been hit with a 1RR yet. Cryptic Canadian 03:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think either if your edit summaries were particularly clear that the original video on Youtube was Creative Commons licenced. Maybe Walter Görlitz should have looked more carefully but the reality is despite Youtube providing the option, not that many copyright holders actually use it. I.E. A lot of time either the video wasn't uploaded by the copyright holder even if the tag is used, or they don't release it under a free licence. I mean heck, Youtube themselves generally hide the licence unless you click the show more. And of course, even when the content is released under creative commons, it's often the case that screen caps, extracts or reuploads of the whole video aren't that useful so they aren't in articles. So I don't think it's particularly surprising if editors may miss or be unaware that some Youtube content can be re-used.
    Since the file was deleted on your request, I don't know what it looked like, but if it was like File:Mariah Carey WBLS 2018 Interview 1.jpg, IMO it's not particular clear that you are stating the original Youtube video is Creative Commons. (More recent ones like File:Wendy Wiliams 2019 WBLS Interview.png are clearer due to the use of the Youtube template.)
    Remember we get a lot of people who seem to think just because they "made" a file, by making a screencap or something somehow it's entirely their own work and they get to choose the licence without regards for the copyright holder of whatever they took their content from. In other words, it's a fairly understandable mistake to make. No one is going to support sanctioned Walter Görlitz over it.
    I would suggest if you get into this confusion in the future, more communication is the key. In your edit summary, say something like "original video on Youtube was released by the copyright holder under CC-By-SA" or something. Or stop just communicating only via edit summaries and use talk pages.
    Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I think your missing the point here that discussing it either doesn't help or when it does there has to be a massively uphill battle, involving insults and reverts in the meantime. It doesn't help that he routinely deletes messages on his talk page that might shed him a bad light and then continues reverting people. So realistically where else are things going to be communicated except in changeset comments? Also, it's unrealistic to use article talk pages as places to hash out personal disputes and people shouldn't have to go through a protracted process every time they want to make a basic edit just because Walter disagrees with it anyway. More so considering most of the time he just ultimately ignores people who do try to discuss things and continues his behavior, like he did with the person who messaged him about the syntax highlighting reverts. More discussion isn't the answer here. At this point it needs to be dealt with in another way, that doesn't involving repeatedly groveling on his talk page for the privilege of making rudimentary edits. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Reverting copyvios is the correct course of action. If you think it isn't then you shouldn't be editing here. If you agree it is the correct course of action, then I don't see why you don't accept that Walter Görlitz made a minor mistake in not noticing that the video was CC licenced on Youtube, which as I've explained in detail is fairly understandable under the circumstances. I have no idea how "Reverted 1 edit by Heartfox (talk): The image is a still from a YouTube video, which is itself copyrighted (TW)" or "Reverted good faith edits by Heartfox (talk): Copyyright violation (TW)" is an insult, or at least enough of an insult to make an editor unable to talk about the issue. I also have no idea how on earth a belief that an image is copyvio is a "personal dispute". (Although more personal issues can to some extent be discussed on editor talk pages.) Frankly, I wonder if you are missing the point I was trying to make. I was only commenting on one particular aspect of what Heartfox said which I found fairly flawed. I did not comment on anything else, since I found that particular aspect flawed enough that it didn't seem worth it. I have not read your comments so of course could not be replying to them, and frankly your reply to me suggests it was the correct course of action. Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That was only one example out of many though. He can be correct in some instances on a policy level, but still be completely in how he handle things. They aren't mutually exclusive and his problems should still dealt with even if he might get a few reverts right sometimes. I don't if he did in the particular case your talking about. Nor do I care because my problem with him isn't about one edit but a continuum of multiple issues. That said, what I was specifically responding to was the last part of your message where you said "stop just communicating only via edit summaries and use talk pages." Your use of plurals made it sound like the last sentence in your message was more a general thing that wasn't confined to that single edit. More so since that's what 99% of the comments so far have been about. If I miss interpreted your phrasing though, my bad. At least we know where your position is on this whole thing. That it's OK to revert people "because opinions" on unrelated talk pages, and that people who reply to you based on how you phrase things should piss off and go edit somewhere else, because again "opinions." I'd appreciate it if you didn't comment anymore. Your attitude isn't constructive and doesn't add anything to the discussion. There's enough negative, judgmental crap as it is and it seriously gets in the way of resolving things. Thanks for helping resolving that one dispute though (that really doesn't matter), really.  --Adamant1 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Walter_Görlitz came to my attention as the only editor (if memory serves correctly) who reverted and argued for using Liliputing as a source at Kodi_(software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as "consensus" was forming that it was a self-published, not reliable source. The factoid being supported was not controversial, so the logic behind insisting on using the source was puzzling to me. I don't recall any other interactions, including any of the above TL;DR. I can't fault them for standing behind their position, or their "civility" during the discussions, and they eventually went along with the "consensus" in the interaction I recall. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I briefly interacted with Walter Görlitz only on one occasion. Here. His editing of subjects related to religious communities does appear problematic to me. For example, in this edit he reverted to restore content sourced to self-published materials included by a sock puppet [4]. Here he restored material which is simply not supported by the cited source. Then he did it again [5]. I have no idea if it is related to one specific subject or something more broad. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds pretty par for the course with him. He reverted me a couple of times to restore sources I had removed because they didn't discuss what they where being cited for. I think reverts are just his default behavior. A lot of times he probably doesn't check the edit he is reverting before he does it. Which I think is proved by how many reverts he often does in such a short time period. The majority of his edits are reverts and most of them are done in quick succession. It's doubtful he reviews them, let alone thoroughly. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No, at least in my case, he did check the source and did discuss the matter on article talk page, only to replace it by another source that ... also do not support the general statement [6], as I explained several times on talk page [7]. But again, this is probably not a big deal. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: He admits to doing exactly that in another ANI thread happening right now, in response to yet another editor who is very upset with his disruptive reverts. Tellingly, he blows it off, as if this isn't a long-term, recurring issue that hasn't repeatedly gotten him blocked or hauled to ANI/AN3. I would say it's time for a 1RR. —{ CrypticCanadian } 02:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cryptic Canadian: I agree about it being time for 1RR. I noticed that he was mentioned in another ANI down below, but I haven't had to read over it. Except to see that someone was saying that he was acting above it all. If it is allowed and would be helpful perhaps you can mention this thread there and, if it hasn't been brought up yet, suggest a 1RR. It seems this discussion hasn't engaged the attention of the admins and I would like to see things dealt with. Reading through his prior ANI's it sounds like a few of the admins have already told him that if he continues abusing the revert system that would be the solution, or a block. I think 1RR would be adequate. As a side note, it's kind of ridiculous he's having issues in two ANI's at the same time. Especially for very similar things. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Except the edit that the other edit was upset about was in no way disruptive. I in no way blew it off either. I engaged in constructive discussion yet none has been forthcoming from that editor. It seems you're both twisting the truth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(EC) IMO any proposal for action needs to be focused and with good examples illustrated by diffs if you want to have any chance of success. The thread that you both seem to be referring to seems to mostly concern another editor. While Walter Görlitz's name may have came up, it seems another poor example, as with the copyvio issue I highlighted below. In fact it's even poorer since this time, AFAICT, it's in reverse. It seems to have started when Walter Görlitz made 2 edits to an article. One was changing United States to U.S. [8], which okay you could debate whether it was a good idea or not but as a single edit, you're not likely to get far. Anyway the other edit was fixing a broken link in a ref, as the Help:Pipe trick doesn't work in them [9]. These were both reverted. The edit fixing the broken link was reinstated by Walter Görlitz which was again reverted. Finally, this was reverted (reintroducing the fix) which seems to have been settled on.

As I remarked below, I do think it would have helped if Walter Görlitz had better explained early on why they were making that change. (Their first edit did say "fix", however it sounds like Walter Görlitz is aware of the pipe trick which doesn't work in refs. So it probably should have occurred to them there's a good chance other editor isn't aware of that and had failed to notice the link is broken. So they could have said something like "this fix is needed since the pipe trick doesn't work in refs" which would have been clearer than "no, the publication edit is needed".)

But I am basically saying the same thing as I said about the copyvio issue but in reverse. Which means I see even less reason to sanction Walter Görlitz over them correcting an error reintroduced by another editor, no matter if they could have explained things better. As for the incivility, it was clearly a 2 way street.

If the claim is Walter Görlitz reverts too readily, then diffs of this should be shown. Given WP:BRD which means reverting an edit you disagree with is often not wrong, this would most likely be in the form of examples where they reverted in a way what was clearly harmful e.g. reintroducing clear errors. Or maybe if they revert minor changes when they had no good reason to revert but just because they wanted others to seek consensus. Or cases where they reverted and then refused to participate in the discussion. And you'll need enough examples to show this is a consistent problem and not just something that happens occasionally. You could try coming up with examples where they reverted and participated in the discussion but consensus was against them, but this is likely to be more difficult. (You'll probably need even more examples, and also the cases would need to be clear cut i.e. consensus was quickly against them.)

Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I am aware that this particular revert was justified, and that the other party has been grossly uncivil. My only intention in referencing that thread was to point out that this editor admits to reverting on impulse, which seems to adequately explain the diffs and examples already provided here by other confused editors (including myself), and which implies that it is likely to continue if left unchecked. Rest assured that I won't actively push for this, as I do understand that this place gives significant carte blanche to people who've put so much time into Wikipedia, no matter how obvious the patterns are (see: all of the support for Jytdog to be allowed back). I'm just offering my two cents as someone who's also had a negative experience with this editor in the past and who's also now baffled by the extensive history of edit warring and mindless reverting on display. —{ CrypticCanadian } 02:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Nil Einne: I provided difs of Walter making harassing comments above (that he repeated here). Along with a link to a discussion about Amazon and iTunes links where he blew off consensus and edit made disruptive reverts by putting back links to those sites that didn't even contain the information they where being cited for. There was multiple articles he did it on and I don't feel the need to dig through difs to prove it. Especially since there was the discussion that an admin was involved in.
  There are many other examples including the discussion cited by @Cryptic Canadian: where he reverted Syntax highlighting for essentially no reason and blow off the user who tried to discuss it with him. There's also the multiple complaints here and you can look through his user contributions to see that he does a large amount of reverts in an extremely quick way, that would make it impossible for him to review to make sure they are correct.
  He was told by admins multiple times and as far back as 2014 that if he continued miss-using the revert system or got a bad attitude that they would do a 1RR or block him. I don't have to provide every damn example under the sun going back 6 years for it to suddenly be warranted. Again, there are enough examples here to, but it's easy to find other ones. The miss use of reverts is also largely what lead to the harassment that instigated this complaint, because me starting the discussion about Amazon and iTunes links was caused by him reverting me repeatedly when I tried to remove links to them. Which then lead to him believing I just didn't except his reverts because I have a disdain for Christians.
  Someone who is unwilling to accept that their revert was wrong (especially after a discussion) and chalks up the original disagreement to a disdain for him or a religious group shouldn't have the right to indiscriminately use reverts. There doesn't need to be a bunch of examples to back it up. Although there are many. Again, multiple admins told him to stop that kind of behavior like 6 years ago. If he hasn't by now a 1RR is 100% warranted. Otherwise, how many times does he have to be told or continue acting that way until it is?
  Re "incivility is a 2 way street" I'd love to see examples where me or anyone else here made threats toward him, made calls for him to be banned from editing certain topics, said he was just motivated by disdain for a religious group, otherwise insulted him, or did anything even close to those things. Both I and @Cryptic Canadian: (who are the people calling for 1RR) have both went out of our way to say that the issue is with Walter's attitude and miss-use of reverts. We are both fine with him as an editor in general. In no way has anything we have said involved threats, insults, personal attacks on his motivations, or his character. Which again is how he has treated me multiple times. To insinuate otherwise is seriously victim blaming. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Adamant1 This round started when you made a valid comment about splitting the Bethel Music article, I then wrote that I thought that it was a good idea but said I did not think you should do the splitting as you have shown a disdain the subject in the past. You have made multiple contentious edits to Bethel Music musicians, the history of Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer), Amanda Lindsey Cook, both of which are on my watchlist show evidence of this— and the history of the parent church article, Bethel Church (Redding, California) does as well. I had just addressed concerns at the AfD for Gospel Music Association article, which you had just created without doing WP:BEFORE and there were others. That AfD concluded with a delete, a quick refund, and several editors in the new AfD (which you did not initiate) called you out for not doing WP:BEFORE. I was not heated in the discussion on the Bethel Music talk page, I merely voiced a concern. Your response started well, asking me to explain how you've shown disdain, you then became defensive and made attacks on me claiming I attack you (which I do not) and that talk you (which I have not). You state that you show good faith but that I do not. I attempted to respond with statements without attacking you. You followed with more defence, attacks and launched off into yet another subject (an RSN that you started because a restaurant article you nominated for deletion had a Michelin Star and you wanted to know if it was a RS—the answer was yes—and you didn't like that I entered that AfD after you alerted RSN about it where I was patrolling.) At this point, I was busy and I referred to your three-paragraph long response as self-serving, pointed out my involvement at RSN, and tried to assuage your concerns that I was not stalking you. You then deleted part of your earlier comment and continued to claim I was harassing you when all I said was that I don't think you are the right person to split the article because of the previously demonstrated disdain for Bethel Church and their musicians. I disengaged and you came here. All of that to say, no, I am not harassing you and still think have have shown a clear pattern of disdain for Bethel Church and their musicians. That's not an attack, that is an observation. If anything, you should have a topic ban at least from that church, the musicians on its recording label. I would even consider a topic ban on Christian music as appropriate, but there's much less evidence of problems there. This is not a formal proposal, however. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Again Walter, what was "contentious" about those edits (especially when other people said they where OK to make) and even if they were how would it justify you harassing me three years later? Saying I'm motivated to edit articles by a disdain for Christians is not "addressing a concern." If you actually had a real concern, instead of a personal problem with me, you could have voiced it without the added useless personal slandering tone. Which I probably would have been fine with. Harassment isn't so much based on the "correctness" of the actions, it's about the targeted threatening way the person goes about them and that's how you where acting. 100% negatively calling out my motivations is attacking me. You'd say the same thing if this where reversed and I was randomly posting on secular music articles that you only edit them because as a Christian you disdain rock music or if I said I was going to report you as a hostile actor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music. Seriously.

Also, if you where making observations instead of just vague accusations there'd be real evidence of me making blatantly detrimental edits, where I clearly said my reason was dislike of the subject. What you have is some questionably bad edits I made as a new user (it happens), and attempts to learn how to edit better by asking questions on noticeboards. Which doesn't rise to the level of a topic ban. Let alone prove your extremely baseless theory or warrant how you've treated me since then. It's still not completely clear the edits were wrong anyway. Not that I care if I get topic banned. Since I don't really edit Christian articles anyway and could give a crap about doing so in the future. I doubt I'd get topic band for what your saying I should be though. That said, there is more then ample evidence for you to get a 1RR and I'm 100% fine with it being a formal proposal if need be. I'd suggest a topic ban, but I feel like it would be a little to harsh. IMO only someone with a clear dislike (shell I say disdain?) or personal grudge for the other user would suggest one. Especially with zero evidence. A 1RR seems completely appropriate though since it's been suggested by other users, admins, and the miss use of reverts (plus a clearly bad attitude) was what instigated this problem in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't see your third topic on the external source notice board, where WhatamIdoing gave me the run down YouTube links, because it didn't alert me about it and I was already on to different things by then. That said, it seems like you where just posting until someone gave you the answer you wanted to hear. Since it was already settled in earlier discussions. Plus, both of you left out of it that my issue was with over using those links. Not their use in the first place. I did post about it on WhatamIdoing's talk page a few days ago to see if they could clarify things. There hasn't been a response though. I can't be blamed for ignoring what other people tell me when they told me it in discussions I didn't know about and wasn't involved in. Whereas, you could have accepted the original opinions by ian.thompson and the other user that excessively linking to commercial sites isn't OK, instead of bringing it up repeatedly (and not being clear what the issue was) until you got the answer you wanted. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, I was simply showing evidence of what I consider your disdain for Bethel Church and its musicians, and recent interest in other Christian topics. I'm not trying to rehash the discussion or call you out here, but you did ask me to show some examples. In short, the conversation at Bethel music was you made a suggestion, I gave a response and voiced a concern, you responded and attacked, I responded, you responded and attacked, I responded, you responded and escalated. So why is this about me voicing my concern? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. It's not evidence though. It's showing some edits I did (good or bad) as a new user and interpreting as being motivated by bad intentions. Instead of just newbie mistakes. Evidence would have to be something like me specifically saying that's why I was doing the edits. Your 100% allowed to have personal opinions, again the problem is how you voiced them repeatedly in a harassing manor. After your first message in the Bethel music discussion I said several times to leave me a message on my talk page if you had personal problem, because it was off topic, but you kept going off and repeating yourself. You've also repeatedly done the same thing here when I was pretty clear from the start of this what your opinion was. If you had of left the initial message and left it at that fine. The problem is the personal way you continued it. Along with the way you went about it originally and the threats involved. Especially considering we had past issues. Which to me, would have necessitated a need to be more strategic about things. If your first message was a simple of statement of fact that you didn't think I should split the article and then you went about your way, I probably wouldn't have escalated things. Approach does matter. There was zero reason to add the personal, slandering comments. Or your perfectly fine with making things personal, slandering other users, and you don't think harassment is a thing. That's fine to, but if that's your position all the more reason for me doing this. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Newbie mistakes? I first noticed this with the Bethel edits in September 2017—at that point you had been on Wikipedia for three months—but continued for 18 months until the Bethel edits that started this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Oh wow, a whole three months? I totally should have known everything at that point (sarcasm). How many edits was it when the "problems" started? And can you really blame me for continuing to make mistakes for a while after that when the only "feedback" you gave me was that I needed to get a life, to call me pathetic, criticize me for asking questions on noticeboards etc etc? I don't think you can. And I didn't continue doing the same things until now. So that's total BS that is easily disproved by looking through my edit history. What started this wasn't a Bethel "edit" either. It was a comment on a discussion page. You've been here what, 15 years? and you can't even avoid constant problems and blocks. Yet your judging me because I was still learning things after being a member for only three months. A lot of the edits you had a problem with wheren't mistakes anyway. You just reverted me because you didn't want me editing the articles. So what the hell ever dude. You didn't know what vandalism was after being a member for years, or you where lying about it. Either way, you clearly have serious issues that will only be solved through some kind disciplinary action. It's pretty clear the many slaps on the wrist you've received haven't done jack or humbled you at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

*Such as drama to see Adamant1 also has issue in wikidata....wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#borderline not constructive edit or straight cut vandalism?. Admin have fun to review the two parties behaviour. Matthew hk (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I struck out your comment. As it's off topic, none constructive trolling. Go do it somewhere else. This discussion has nothing to do with you and it's not on me that your crap complaints didn't go anywhere. I told you in Wikidata I was done with dealing with you. So, kindly respect it and shove off. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't mean to put more wood on to this fire! But it is impressive that Walter has been blocked nearly every year since he joined [10] and even has an SPI file! If I am an honest, I am surprised that he hasn't had an extended block, all those comments above, clearly there are multiple issues. Govvy (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the nominator has caused problems elsewhere: wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#borderline not constructive edit or straight cut vandalism? and goes to show that Adamant1 overreacts and can make foolish choices. That was the issue with the Bethel discussion here as I showed above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah totally, I guess the whole thing is a wash because I had one issue on another site with someone who was completely unreasonable and refused to explains things. Yeah right. I never claimed all my edits where 100% perfect anyway. Just that the mistakes I did make where because I was new and not from a disdain for Christians, or warrant how you've treated me. Which should be obvious. As I've said it about a hundred times now. Feel free to use the whole thing as a way to deflect from your behavior anyway though. The way you act, your many problems have zero to do with you. Yet I have one other problem and it means this whole thing is BS I'm causing. Right. Me having a problem on another site (or here) and you harassing me isn't mutually exclusive anyway. Nice try though.

BTW I wouldn't bring something you did on another site into this, because it would be a worthless deflection move and not relevant anyway. Especially if you where treated the way I was there. We clearly don't have the same standards though. That aside your point isn't relevant anyway, because there's nothing foolish or overacting about suggesting an article be split, but your response to it was 100% both. It seems like your really mixed up as to who did what here and what this complaint is about.

More on topic, I still want to know what you think would constitute harassment and how your actions don't fit into it. I've asked you several times and you still haven't answered me. It should be a pretty easy question considering how long you've been on here and how many COIs you've been involved in. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I have not seen your question about my opinion of harassment. WP:harassment is clear that it's is a pattern of repeated offensive behaviour that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.

My behaviour does not qualify. am not following you and have simply pointed out that you have made charismatic Christians a target. Do you disagree with that assessment of your behaviour. In short, I have not hounded you, but you have edited in areas where I was already editing. I have not threatened you in any way. I have made no legal threats, posted personal information, engaged in private correspondence or attacked you on your user space or mine. In short, I have not harassed you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Yes it does qualify, because you did follow me and messaged me in an intimidating way with the intent to dissuade me to not edit articles. When you could have just as easily left me the hell alone like I asked you to and we both agreed we would do 2 years ago. There was zero reason you had to message me anywhere about anything. Especially since I asked you repeatedly to leave me alone. That you edit some related articles isn't a good excuse. Some of it wasn't on Christian articles anyway and you know it. Also, none of your actions were to encourage me to edit Wikipedia or make me look good. You kept doing it long after you had made your original point to. You wouldn't have acted the same way to a random person either. So, 100% it was targeted at me, to discourage me from editing Christian articles and to make me look bad. Also, no where does WP:harassment say it's confined to just releasing private information or any of the other things your claiming it's confined to. Let alone is it only valid if you did it in a private message. The claim that your threats etc aren't harassment because you did them in a public setting is completely ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This has devolved into just the two of you going back and forth. And considering it's over 2 weeks old, I don't think anything is going to come of this thread but further animosity. It's time to move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't have if the admins had of actually done something about how he acted. I agree with Cryptic Canadian though that they rather not deal with extremely abusive users that have been around for a while. It's unfortunate, but sometimes it's better to keep around bullies. That's life. I had a feeling it would go that way from the start, but at least I did what I could. Back to editing articles and receiving more pointless abuse for it I guess. Such is Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cryptic Canadian though that they rather not deal with extremely abusive users that have been around for a while. It's unfortunate, but sometimes it's better to keep around bullies.

That's a pretty blatant personal attack. I strongly suggest you strike that out and just stop editing the page afterwards. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Nah, I'm good and I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me what to do or cite the rules as if I don't know them. That the whole point in this. I'm not doing this one sided crap where I get chided for saying something, but it's fine if the other side whatever the hell they want. The conversation would have actually already been over if you hadn't of interjected with your worthless comment, because I was already done with it at that point since it was pretty clear nothing was going to be done about it. Also, Your massively deluded if you think there aren't bullies on this platform or that some admins rather keep them around since outside of their behavior they mostly improve the platform. That's just reality. And 100% someone who edit wars new users and tells them they are pathetic and need to get a life, just for adding a sourcing banner to an article, is a bully. I have zero problem saying so and I'm not striking out the comment. Now this should actually be ended by you not continuing it with your pointless unsolicited comments. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Meta-wiki block

I’m not sure this is the right place to post this, but perhaps someone can point me in the right direction if not. I’m currently blocked on my home PC by a meta-wiki IP range block. The block message is:

Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis.

The block was made by Tks4Fish (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Cross-wiki abuse: Disruptive editing.

Start of block: 12:07, 20 April 2020 Expiry of block: 12:07, 20 May 2020 Your current IP address is 2600:387:5:807::82 and the blocked range is 2600:387:5:800:0:0:0:0/56

Normally I use my ISP but because of the COVID-related surge in home use, the bandwidth on that has dropped to nothing, so I’ve set up my cell-enabled iPad to function as a modem and am using that to edit from home. Evidently the cell-tower IPs are the range being blocked; I found I was able to edit for a while earlier but now I’m blocked again. I’m now VPNed to my work PC and am editing from there, which isn’t a solution long-term because of slow response time. I tried emailing the stewards, which is what the block says to do, and gave them my username; I got a reply that looks canned that says “please tell us your user name if you want to be unblocked”, and nothing since then (about 12 hours ago). Is there any other way around this than waiting for the stewards to notice my request? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Christie (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I'd recommend going to their admin noticeboard. m:WM:IPBE is also something that might work. SemiHypercube 21:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC) pinged SemiHypercube 22:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; trying the noticeboard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Local IP-block exemption would also work, while you'd still be blocked from other WMF wikis you'd be able to edit this one freely even through a global IP block. It's not an area I've dealt with previously as an admin so I'd leave it to someone else but it'd certainly be an option if you don't get a quick response on meta. ~ mazca ^talk 22:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I disabled it on English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I've twice been hit by site-wide steward blocks (unable to edit even my own Talk Page), and never got any response at all from the stewards on either occasion. The first time needed off-wiki emails and experimental intervention by at least two admins over about eight hours (different timezones) to return to editing. The second time, WP:UTRS worked like a charm, and I was given temporary WP:IPBLOCKEXEMPT protection. Narky Blert (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I got an email overnight saying I'd been given global IP block exemption, so I'm safe from any future blocks. It took about 20 hours total to get it done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I recently got hit by a rangeblock at my place of employment. The stewards didn't respond until the next morning, by which time the block had expired, and declined to provide an exemption since... the block had expired. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Black Hours, Morgan MS 493, TFA

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

---

• Special:Contributions/69.112.137.73 is making disruptive edits to today's featured article and isn't listening to advice on talk page. TryKid (talk) 00:44, 25 April 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.

Block warning

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

---

Hi all, I was advised that I was making personal attacks against other parties by MiasmaEternal - see my talk page and that I was about to be blocked. I asked repeatedly what attacks they were referring to, with no response so I asked directly on their talk page. They just removed my query with no response. Can I please have someone review this? What were my personal attacks and who were they towards?

Can I also find out - is it normal to be threatened with a block nowadays without a followup to a reasonable query about what you might be blocked over? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, MiasmaEternal, this is not cool. Either you be responsive or don't issue warnings. El_C 15:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Practically everyone involved in that dispute made personal attacks against other people, and the diffs you're referring to were from 3 days ago. It's all finally more or less died down now. There is no benefit in picking at scabs. Not every lingering aspect of every issue has to be resolved to your satisfaction at ANI. Let it go. Be kinder to other people than you think they have a right to expect. Accept less kindness from others than you think you have a right to expect. This dispute has so far lost 2 editors that you care about... and you think the best course of action is to reignite it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m not picking at scabs. I took great pains not to make personal attacks against other editors. If someone is going to threaten me with a block template, and I ask for clarification multiple times, then I would appreciate an answer. The fact they just deleted my comment tells me there is no such personal attack. I don’t like being threatened with sanctions when the person cannot or will not substantiate what they have accused me of. Do you think that is reasonable?

My question stands, what was the personal attack I made that MiasmaEternal was referring to? Also, I find it curious they arrived on 2nd March fully knowing how to edit Wikipedia, knows all our policies in detail and all our templates.

You are in danger of losing another editor. I have spent a lot of time and effort working on Australian articles for the WiR project. I hope to do more, but if I am going to be threatened then I won’t continue. Basically, summing up your advise, it is “be kind to everyone and expect to be abused. And enjoy it.”. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

MiasmaEternal is not an admin and is not going to block you. And if you have to seek final detailed resolution of every aspect of a disagreement, well, surely you have enough experience here to know that's an impossible dream. My strong suggestion is: forget it, put it in the past, and get on with other things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know about you, but I find being threatened very disturbing. Is your advise that I should ignore threatening behaviour? Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's my advice that you simply ignore a threat that has no substance, try to put it into perspective (which would rate it as meaningless in my book), and go do something productive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

What would you say to the person making the threat? Do you believe it was ok to make it? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) As I said, almost everyone involved (I don't know, maybe 10 people?), including you, went off the rails to varying degrees, and there is no point in singling out one person, and there is really no point in reopening the issue to make sure that everyone who should have a finger wagged at them has actually had a finger wagged at them. Wanting to do so at this stage is prima facie evidence of a battleground mentality. I guess I'll log off for the rest of the weekend; I suggest this thread be left to wither, but if others want to reignite the dispute, at least I won't be tempted to be participate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I actually still think that if one issues a warning, they should be prepared to explain what that warning is about. That said, moving on from this would not be the worse idea, either. El_C 16:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El_C. The whole thing has been very upsetting. I have a feeling I’m spiraling out of control a little. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Chris. But I think it isn't anything to spiral over. So, I hope you're able to take it in stride. I think you've made your point, which again, I agree with in principle. El_C 16:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m trying hard not to. I can clearly write about this, but in my head I’m a mess. It’s unfortunate. I think I’m not terribly well. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

These are trying times for everyone, Chris. I suggest shifting your attention elsewhere as the best thing you can do to alleviate any distress from this. This really isn't a big deal. I wish you the best for your health (including mental health) and safety in these unprecedented times. El_C 16:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(ecx2) That’s a very strong claim Floquenbeam. If you believe I made personal attacks, it would be nice if you could give me specific examples. Could you please provide them? You were also involved, what personal attacks did you make? Because I don’t recall you making any. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam and Boing! said Zebedee have given you good advice for life in general, not just for Wikipedia editing. If this editor refuses to explain the warning then that is a good indication that you can ignore it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

So your advise is to ignore threatening behaviour? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, in fairness, as it stands, it's not much of a threat. El_C 16:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) There was no threatening behaviour here, but just an unexplained warning from a random editor who can't block you anyway. It happens all the time, and can easily be ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(Multiple (edit conflict))To clarify, Miasma didn't threaten to block anyone; they used a template, which carries with it the boilerplate warning. I'm not saying it was deserved—perhaps DTTR applies—but it's not particularly helpful, after all the recent shannanagins, to claim to have been threatened with a block when that wasn't, actually, the case. ——SN54129 16:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

So they templates me, telling me I was making personal attacks when I wasn’t. In other words they told me if I continue to make any comment on my own talk page, then I’m at risk of being blocked? Yes, that was a threat. I know you dislike me, but I felt very threatened. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: I could probably start an AN/I thread wrt your aspersion I know you dislike me; I have no strong feeling towards you either way. What I do think, is that as you should probably focus your love of drama on the STC. ——SN54129 16:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(Ec) Ok, so what personal attack were they referring to? They made it clear they were going to get me blocked for personal attacks, only I didn’t make any. So if I didn’t make any, then it appears anything I wrote could have been blockable. What was I meant to make of this? How was I meant to have ignored this? Is the expectation now that any random editor can accuse someone of personal attacks with a threat of an impending block, and the answer when they don’t follow up is “just ignore it, what they did was fine”? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody here as said that what they did was fine, but if it was any sort of threat it was an empty one, and the answer to your question, "How was I meant to have ignored this?" is pretty obvious. Just ignore it. That is, do nothing about it. This editor simply made a mistake by posting that message. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 25 April 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:Didoes

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

---

Didoes (talk · contribs) has been removing well-sourced content from Warnborough College that shed any negative light on the institution. It began with removing a large chunck of content. Then, they added this, clearly in violation of NPOV. Then went on to add other non-neutral words to the article. They also changed verifiable content to a factual error ([11]). Overall, seems to be here to push a pro-Warnborough College POV, without regard for Wikipedia policies, despite four warnings.

In total, I have made 4 reverts, of which the first is exempt from 3RR (the user blanked a large section without any explanation, which qualifies as vandalism.) The user has continued their editing, and I have now ceased reverting because of 3RR. --MrClog (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Didoes is a single purpose account, and only edits the Warnborough College and it's talk page. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 17:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Blocked from editing that page for a month. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:23, 25 April 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.

IPs and English anime voice actors

Over the past month, a number IPs (most recently 47.31.137.40 (talk · contribs)) have been randomly removing English voice actors from fictional anime character articles and changing the section headers in said actors' pages from "Anime" to "Animation English dubbing" (which isn't incorrect, but it's extremely clunky in comparison to just saying "Anime"). From this one IP specifically, examples of the former include a number of Fullmetal Alchemist characters (Scar, Winry, and Alphonse); in a recent case of the latter that just transpired, "Anime" was changed to "Television" and "English dubbing" was at the end of the header when the subject matter is obviously about an English dub VA.

After checking the IP, it was apparently blocked from editing airline pages back in February, and it's not the only one either. A myriad of IPs from the area (somewhere in India, per Geolocate) have also been blocked from airline articles and have gone on to make the same edits to English dubbers (one example from 47.30.129.143 (talk · contribs)) and character pages (another FMA-related edit from 2405:204:3399:8425:B5D9:4C67:60C5:C5D2 (talk · contribs)). I get that dubs can be polarizing for the anime community, but this is just ridiculous. Zappa⚡Matic 18:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I know it's a content dispute, but I don't get why we have the English voice actors for Japanese anime series. It's not the original actor, and we don't list the Spanish, German etc voice actors. It's not like English was the original target for the audio for the anime, it's just a secondary dubbing done by a local market and not really part of the original. Canterbury Tail talk 19:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because this is English wikipedia? --Jayron32 19:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I get that, but it's based on local market and releases and isn't a universal thing. Anime in the UK sometimes has different voice actors for the English dub, same with Australia. And different releases in different years often changes it as well. It's basically the American dub at one point in time on these articles. Canterbury Tail talk 19:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If there is verifiable evidence to identify other English speaking actors in different dubs the answer would be to include them not to remove all the dub actors. I see no need to include non English speaking actors (except for the original Japanese version) due to be this being the English Wikipedia. Finally, if there is an attempt to remove dub actors from Wikipedia WP:ANIME needs to be informed.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I've fired up my test filter Special:AbuseFilter/201 to keep track of the extent of the problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Quick question

If a user has ignored my request to discuss a matter on Wikipedia, but has instead continued to send me private e-mail several more times in response to comments I posted on Wikipedia, then am I allowed to block their sending e-mail privileges myself or would that fall under WP:INVOLVED? I can't just block their e-mails on my own end — I haven't responded by e-mail, so they're using the Wikipedia "e-mail this user" feature, and thus as far as my e-mail provider is concerned the messages are coming from Wikimedia rather than the specific user. So I could block all Wikimedia e-mail (which I obviously don't want to do) at my end, but not e-mail specifically from just one person. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

[[Special:Mute/username]] should do the trick. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You can also find the option in Special:Preferences to block emails from specific editor. That said, if you've asked someone to stop sending emails and they're still doing it, a complete block on emails for them is perfectly justified. It's probably best not to do it yourself but simply raising the issue at ANI and perhaps providing a copy of one of the email privately if there is any question should be sufficient. To make things easy, I'd suggest you make the request to stop emailing you on Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If there are no privacy concerns, I respond to emails on a user's talk and add a request that they follow the principle of keeping communications transparent, open, and reviewable. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne's right though: if you've verifiably asked them to stop emailing you, then that's as much harassment as would be continuing to post unnecessarily on a talk page in defiance of a WP:NOBAN request. ——SN54129 13:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Collapsing lots of text that amounts to me eventually discovering that E247 and NE above are correct. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

From https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Notifications#mute, "... emails are not affected by the mute list". @Eagles247 and Nil Einne:, are you sure that would work? If mute works, I think that's better than blocking email. But if mute doesn't work, I suggest providing the name of the user to an admin, they can leave a final warning, and then block if any more emails are sent. I'm also not sure you can block only emails, but still allow on-wiki editing; I'll look into that. If not, continuing to email after a final warning could result in a full block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC) Maybe everyone but me knows this, but I just did a quick test, and partial blocking email works; I can't email with this account now, because it's partially blocked with no specific page specified, but with email disabled. --Floquensock (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Floquenbeam: Help:Notifications appears to be out-of-date (also, I couldn't find the text you quoted there). Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/User Mute features#Special:EmailUser Mute indicates the email mute button works, but the talk page has been marked as {{historical}}. @Bearcat: have you tried the mute feature yet? Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC) I see the problem; "mute" under "notifications" doesn't work on email (it does on normal notifications), but "mute email" under "user profile" seems like it does. --Floquensock (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC) (also, you're right, the text I quoted was from https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Notifications#mute, not the en.wiki I provided at first. Link above fixed. --Floquensock (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC) @Floquenbeam: am I missing something? When I visit Special:Preferences I see the option "Prohibit these users from emailing me:" As for mute, when I visit Special:Mute/Floquenbeam as an example, I see the option to "Mute emails from this user". I haven't actually tested these either of these to disable emails, I just assume they work to block emails form a specific user since they specifically say they will. I wouldn't trust documentation, unless it specifically mentions these options since documentation can often be out of date, especially the en.wikipedia specific ones. (IIRC I found some confusing stuff on Echo before, I think one of the pages itself says it's out of date.) I'm not sure about muting in other locations. No one suggested muting in other locations until you brought it up AFAICT? Edit: Thinking about it a bit more, I guess the "mute emails" could just mean muting on Wikipedia notifications of emails from that editor. But prohibit these users definitely implies to me that it will forbid those users from emailing you. Also I forgot to mention that I suspect these only work on en.wikipedia. If you have an account somewhere else, e.g. commons they can probably still email you if they have an account on commons allowed to send emails. But we have the same problem even when we simply block them from emailing here. I think if someone is blocked from emailing here and goes on to email from some other project, it should be relatively easy to convince either that project or a global steward to take action although it's not something I have experience with. Nil Einne (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC) Actually I guess this was fairly obvious but both options are the same. I tried Special:Mute/Floquenbeam and muted emails. Next when I visited my preferences, Floquenbeam was on the list of "prohibit these users from emailing me:" despite not being there before. (Now removed if you're wondering why you can still email me.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC) @Nil Einne: You're not missing anything; I was. The problem was that I initially looked in preferences for a way to mute email from specific users next to the option to mute notifications from specific users. Instead it's in a different tab. Although I understand you missed it in the confusion I've caused by kind of thinking out loud on this thread, I did finally realize this in the post you responded to above. I didn't try Special:Mute directly. I'm sorry for contributing to the general confusion here, I should have followed the rule of "if you don't know something, shut up and let people who do know something talk". But the end result is that it is possible to mute email from specific users (on en.wiki), and it is possible to partially block someone (on en.wiki) to prevent them from using the "email this user" feature. I'm going to collapse my mess. Thanks and sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

VediKboy & Disruptive editing on BLP article

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

The user has been trying to edit the page of Arundhati Roy which is a biography of a living person. The insertions made by them are controversial and full of synthesis and original research. I provided them with links to the relevant policies and attempted to engage them in a dialogue. The response to the attempts were antagonistic, evasive and engage in battleground behavior. Diffs are as follows:

• Diff1 - First edit where they attempt to insert a controversial line to the lead. An editor reverts their insertion citing extraordinary BLP claim and WP:UNDUE.

• Diff2 - They re-insert their line. I revert it citing WP:BLP.

• Diff3 - They re-insert their line citing "ideologically motivated members". I revert it again citing WP:BLP with an explanation in the edit summary on how it is applicable.

• Diff4 - They re-insert their line citing "communist activists on wiki". I post a warn template (DiffA) with an additional note recommending them to read the WP:BLP policy as well as explicitly mentioning the relevant part.

• Diff5 - They re-insert a modified version as a section and not in the lead. They also post a message on my talk page (DiffB). I post a response once again explicitly stating the relevant part of the BLP policy. At this point I decide to not revert their edit but modify it to remove original research. During the entire episode the BLP Policy on controversial edits requiring consensus before insertion was explicitly mentioned to them, again and again but they showed no sign of adhere to it or even addressing the point.

• Diff6 - They revert my edit and post a response on my talk page (DiffC). In their response, they state that they'll keep re-inserting their edits and that "this will not stop". I post a response to them and decide to leave the article be and just wait for a response.

• After 2 days they don't respond and move on to editing other article at which point I revert their edit once again. They immediately restore their edit (Diff7). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted VediKboy's latest edit to the article and have partially blocked him from the article, indefinitely, for BLP violations and disruptive editing. El_C 18:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely wrong El_C. I didnt recieve the notifcation that a new edit was made to my talk page and therefore I thought User talk:Tayi Arajakate is at it again. The user User talk:Tayi Arajakate has been continously trying to edit my contributions even when I have talked to him on his page and he had no answers about when the said authors clearly stated her position on the subject. I have included all the links of reputated websites. There is no fake link or anything. The user due to his knowledge of wiki norms, is trying to muzzle the information to hide the embarrasemnt. Please reconsider this and allow the correct information to flow. Censorship of ideas, even oppositie to your point of view, is not a good norm. Thanks again! I hope you change your mind and allow true information to exist on this platform. Wiki should be for all not for the few who follow the statist narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VediKboy (talk • contribs) 18:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

VediKboy, please review WP:INDENT and WP:SIG. More importantly, please review WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. I have no view on the subject, but we take claims of BLP violations, whether these are the product of synthesis or otherwise, very seriously on the project. You still have access to editing the talk page, where you can attempt to gain the consensus for your changes. But as for undoing your block, or accusations of censorship for that matter, I reject these outright. El_C 19:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Anon and the Friday the 13th articles

This is in regards to 66.232.175.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and these pages.

Friday the 13th (1980) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th Part 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th Part III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Jason X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Freddy vs. Jason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Friday the 13th (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Their entire edit history appears to be connected to changings names on the Friday the 13th article. I have tried to assume good faith in their actions, because as far as I can tell they are adding first or last names to characters that received them in the novelizations of those movies. I have left 2 messages on that users talk page explaining that the film pages use the names as they are credited in the film, and requested that they stop changing them. They have not responded to any message, nor have their even left an edit summary on any of the pages they've changed explaining why they keep changing them. At this point, it just appears disruptive. Here are the pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've requested page protection for the character list. I suggest you do the same for the above-mentioned articles. MiasmaEternal^TALK 23:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Bulgarian Holocaust: personal attacks and canvassing

I stumbled across Talk:Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews#Requested move 17 April 2020 (RM to The Holocaust in Bulgaria) and I was confounded by some of the arguments I saw there. After some digging I've uncovered canvassing on the Bulgarian Wikipedia and some personal attacks that could merit administrator attention:

• [12] 6 March: User:Jingiby posts on the Bulgarian community portal a call to look at: Military history of Bulgaria during World War II; Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews. Contains personal attack: "this editor is definitely prejudiced
• [13] 7 March: User:Jingiby on Bulgarian Wikipedia ties User:GPinkerton to "Macedonian circles".
• [14] 6-7 March: User:Jingiby places 9(!) warning templates on User talk:GPinkerton. This warning of: "Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia" is particularly ironic given User:Jingiby's actions.
• [15] 6 March: User:StanProg responds on Bulgarian Wikipedia. StanProg then engages on the article, its talk page, and on User talk:GPinkerton: [16].
• [17] 9 March: User:Вени Марковски engages on Bulgarian Wikipedia, this after engaging on English Wikipedia article: [18], [19]. Вени Марковски engages in a personal attack on the Bulgarian Wikipedia, calling GPinkerton "abusive".
• [20] 18 April: User:Jingiby canvasses on the Bulgarian Wikipedia community page for participation in the RM. Quite possible Ilikeliljon, Петър Петров participate in the RM due to this, though they do not say so in the RM.

There may be more than this going on (other pages? DRN?), but the above is alarming by itself.--Eostrix (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eostrix: There is also this discussion about Bulgaria during World War II, where involved Bulgarian editors quibble about inclusion of mention of the Holocaust altogether - see the page history. There is also the edit where Jingiby tried to have a whole page on the several hundred-strong Bulgarian component of the SS deleted as a "hoax"! GPinkerton (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eostrix: Also, in answer to your question, there is also: this and I posted here "'Rescue'_of_the_Bulgarian_Jews"._Talk:Rescue_of_the_Bulgarian_Jews#Requested_move_17_April_2020. GPinkerton (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please @Eostrix:, explain what is the problem with my actions?--Ilikeliljon (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We've certainly had a particularly high level of tag-team POV pushing from the Bulgarian faction in the last few weeks, so I'm hardly surprised there was this kind of canvassing involved. I'm not surprised to see Jingiby at the center of it once more either. He's got a block log as long as my arm for national POV disruption, was indef-blocked between 2014 and 2017 and probably shouldn't have been allowed back after that. High time to reinstate a ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Plus, the sheer amount of special pleading and stonewalling shown by StanProg in the section linked to above ([21]) and multiple related discussions should be enough to earn that editor a sanction too. Seriously, this many words because you don't like to see Nazi-allied Bulgaria called "Nazi-allied" in an article that discusses how Nazi-allied Bulgaria collaborated with the Nazis? Give us a break. I know the revisionist discourse that wishes to whitewash Bulgaria's fascist WWII past must be popular in some quarters in the country, but we really shouldn't be humouring it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In the source that supports the claims it written "Since Bulgaria was a German ally", while the editor added Nazi-allied Bulgaria. He added then another source for the same sentence [22] in which is written: "The government was also pro-German.". I think it's not a violation of any policy to ask the user to show me where in the source is written that, and to provide a quote from the other non-publicly available (paid) source that he added. Unfortunately, I hit the wall on both as he was quite uncooperative, later calling me "ignorant of the source material" (I said "I have read all your public sources" in the previous edit), because I don't have access to the non-public paid sources that he (possibly) has access to. A coin has two sides and unfortunately some people see only one of them. --StanProg (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The comment above is false. I did not add that source, it was already in the article. As I pointed out, "allied with Nazi Germany" is the wording used by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of the Holocaust and as everyone knows, Bulgaria was allied to Germany and Germany was run by Nazis. Moreover, Bulgaria participated in the Holocaust, a Nazi plan. GPinkerton (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to be pinged on my talk page and I read the accusation above. I did not know what "canvassing" means in Wikipedia terms but I have found Wikipedia:Canvassing and it says (in nutshell): "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." I did not find big number of notifications, much less to preselected recipients anywhere. Sounds to me "canvassing" is used here trying to provoke a rubber-stamp response. --Petar Petrov (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

For Wikipedia:Canvassing there are four points. What I found may not be "mass posting", however: posting on the Bulgarian Wikipedia is to a partisan audience, is non-transparent without a notification on English Wikipedia, and this post referring to an editor as "definitely prejudiced" is a biased message. So "scale" is OK, but this fails: "Transparency", "Audience", and "Message".--Eostrix (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"posting on the Bulgarian Wikipedia is to a partisan audience" -- very strange assumption that all editors of bgwiki are prejudiced on a particular topic. --Petar Petrov (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi everybody. There is probably some misunderstandings on my side, on both sides, or maybe all the three or more. Firstly, I believe that there was a Holocaust in parts of some territories ceded to Bulgaria. These were territories occupied by the country during the war. There have also been repressions against the Jews in the country. At the same time, I think that the bulk of Bulgarian Jews were saved and for that should be a separate article, or at least a separate section. In recent days, my opinion has matured to the extent that there should be an article with a compromise name or to build two separate and because of that I have changed my vote on the corresponding discussion. Now on to the specific charges against me. Initially, I really considered GPinkerton to be part of a group that periodically registers new users and is active by provocations against Bulgarian position, especially on the Macedonian issue. So were my initial reactions on the article about the WWII. In this way I have warned several times GPinkerton. Subsequently, I became convinced that this was not the case and that I had made a mistake. Indeed, my initial impressions here were inaccurate, for which I apologize. Moreover, I became convinced that he had some good hits and a lot of knowledge on the subject, which I admit, I do not have and remained passive. However, when I later saw that GPinkerton initiated a discussion to rename the whole article about the salvation of the Bulgarian Jews directly to Holocaust in Bulgaria, I disagreed. Because of that I have informed the Bulgarian community about the case. By the way, I did not express any opinion there on what to vote for. I think this is not forbidden. I repeat my position again: I just don't think that the whole article should be called in this way, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the Bulgarian Jews fortunately survived the Holocaust. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: The vast majority of Jews in France also survived the Holocaust. Nonetheless, we have The Holocaust in France and no-one claims a Rescue of the French Jews. Actually it's better you don't answer the question of why you think Bulgaria is exceptional and unique in this respect; just accept that it is not. GPinkerton (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you listed my comment as “abusive”. The word in Bulgarian, which i have used (злоупотребява), has several meanings, and I didn’t use “abuse” (which has quite a negative connotation). I checked Google translate, and saw that it indeed translates it as “abuse”, but a) it also has other meaning, and b) as you can see from the comments we have exchanged with the user in question on my talk page, that I treat him/her with respect, and thank him for engaging. Hope this clears the matter. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

злоупотребява has its own page on Bulgarian Wikipedia. It links to Abuse on this wiki. Moreover, the examples on that page that illustrate злоупотребява are Iago and Judas Iscariot. злоупотребява might have several meanings but I don't see these comparisons as remotely favourable; "abuse" doesn't seem quite strong enough. GPinkerton (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I am terribly sorry that a word in Bulgarian that has been used in another context, is being interpreted not in the way I meant it. I could go on and explain the six different meaning of this word in Bulgarian, and point to the one I had in mind, but there's a better way than that. I am sorry, I never meant that your edits are abusive, and I hope you'd accept my apology. I also hope that we could continue to contribute in a civilized manner to the articles we both try to improve. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I knew it! Needless to say the problem editors are the "editors" I mentioned in the RM text. I find it particularly wry that I'm called "anonymous", given my user name, but even more hilarious that Jingiby (entirely lacking any sense of irony) accuses me of being connected with Macedonia with which I have no relation whatever; yet he plainly thinks of little else! Accusations by StanProg that I have a "specific agenda" and an "anti-Bulgarian" position are not backed by anything and are even more absurd; I had no position on the Holocaust in Bulgaria until I read the "Rescue of the Jews" article and found it, as has been pointed out elsewhere, a hagiography. I should not have been surprised there was backhanded collaboration going on; "rescue" approaches the status of state religion in Bulgaria. I shudder to think how the Bulgarian Wikipedia covers this topic, with these editors on hand. Needless to say, none of them has made any positive contribution to either the article on "rescue" or the "Bulgaria during WWII" page, instead using the most casuistical and tendentious "arguments" to resist well-sourced edits I made and promote instead this ridiculous "professor-colonel" Nedyalkov and his antisemitic views on how "arbeit macht frei" and the slave labour saved the Jews from the Holocaust (for a full 18 months after the supposed "rescue" "event" and until Allied tanks literally crossed the border). And of course, Bulgarian Wikipedia is highly partisan on the subject by sad fact of the generations of communist and post-communist governments (and then the Church) that aggrandized themselves with precisely this distortion in official propaganda; this official line is now cherished on a folkloric basis despite repeated denunciation by (what is left of) Bulgarian Jews, Holocaust survivors, sections of the Bulgarian press, and the world's historians as a whole. | This idiot and President of the Republic clearly believes the myth and has no qualms about propagating it earlier this year, we must forgive the Bulgarian editors for being led astray. GPinkerton (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You classified the President Rumen Radev as an idiot for believing in "a myth". How will you classify then the current President of Israel Reuven Rivlin "There is a special place of honor in Jewish history, reserved for the Bulgarian people who proved in their many that individuals have the power to change the course of history, and who helped to save the vast majority of Bulgaria’s Jews from the Nazi killing machine" [23] & the former Israeli president Shimon Peres "The saving of Bulgaria's Jews is a badge of honor for Bulgaria and that will stay with you forever[24]? Obviously they also believe in the same "myth". The so-called "repeated denunciation by (what is left of) Bulgarian Jews" is as well fake news as we can clearly see the official statement of the Organization of the Jews in Bulgaria "Shalom" [25] "During the years of WWII the Bulgarian Jews were rescued from deportation in the Nazi death camps. The rescue comes as a result of the actions of the larger part of the Bulgarian people, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian non-fascist public. The Jews will be forever grateful to the Bulgarians for this act of kindness." It's pretty clear who wants to force a specific POV, who is a denier of something and who instead of helping the article to be improved and working along with the other contributors is trying to make it "in his image, in his likeness". --StanProg (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@StanProg: You are misinterpreting the words of of Rivlin. He refers to 20 or so individuals, ("the Bulgarians who ...") not Bulgaria as a whole. Neither of the Israeli presidents quoted could somehow overturn reams and reams of historiography which acknowledges the active role of Bulgaria in the Holocaust inside and outside the pre-war borders. In response to the lies immediately above this comment, I quote (again) the recent statements, as reported, of Shalom this very year on this very subject and already quoted on the Talk page:

Statements by Shalom

“We, Bulgarian Jews who are Holocaust survivors, joined in this call by our families, insist on an immediate end to attempts at distorting the history of the Holocaust in this country. We are gravely pained by events such as the “national round table” held on January 17 on the false question whether the labour camps for Bulgarian Jewish men during the Second World War were a repressive measure or a “rescue plan”. We know the question is false because there is only one answer – they were a repressive measure. Everyone who endured them knows that. We see such events as part of a disturbing wider pattern of Holocaust distortion in Bulgaria. Attempts to turn key figures in the pro-Nazi regime of the time into “rescuers of the Jews”. Attempts to deliberately ignore the fact that more than 11 000 Jews from the “new lands” in the territories of northern Greece, Vardar Macedonia and the city of Pirot, then under the administration of the Kingdom of Bulgaria, were deported to be murdered at Treblinka. We stand ready to give our testimony, that everyone, must hear, in the interests of historical truth. In this month of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, we will not remain silent. We will be heard, even by those who want to ignore our voices for the sake of spreading falsehoods.“ and “We are disturbed, and highly disappointed, to note that the Institute for Historical Research at the Bulgarian Academy Sciences has agreed to lend its name to an event that seeks to distort history by giving a platform to the false interpretation that the forced labour camps, to which Bulgarian Jewish men were sent during the Second World War, were established to shelter these men from becoming victims of the Nazi death camps of the Holocaust,” Shalom said. “By doing so, the reputation of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, built up over the more than 150 years since its founding, is being put at risk by association not only with fake history but with outright Holocaust distortion.” By associating itself with this so-called “national round table”, it is also putting at risk the name of Bulgaria, not only in regard to the truth of the events involving the country at the time of the Holocaust, but also considering that this country is proudly a member of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and as such has a duty to uphold and promote accurate knowledge of the events of the Holocaust, the statement said. It is equally disturbing to note that the names of other Bulgarian institutions have been associated with this event, including – going by the notice on the website of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences – the Ministry of Defence, Sofia University St Kliment Ohridski, the GS Rakovski Military Academy and the Veliko Turnovo University Saints Kiril i Metodii. “Whoever involved them in this ill-conceived project is also complicit in putting at risk the names of the Republic of Bulgaria and their own names,” it said. “Linking this event to International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which is marked on January 27, is a mockery of the survivors of the suffering and the victims of Nazi ideology,” Shalom said. On International Holocaust Remembrance Day, in Bulgaria we remember all six million Jews murdered, including those more than 11 000 Jews deported from the territories of northern Greece, Vardar Macedonia and the city of Pirot, administered by the Kingdom of Bulgaria, as we honour the deeds of the Bulgarians who genuinely played key roles in the rescue of the Bulgarian Jews from deportation, the statement said. “We will never forget that the Jewish labour camps were nothing other than a part of the antisemitic repressive apparatus of the time, characterized by acts of violence and inhuman conditions,” Shalom said.

Your resorting to political comments in public by non-historians shows how desperate your lack of sources is. GPinkerton (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

See also: [26], wherein these words appear: "Bulgarian Jewish organisation “Shalom” has sharply rejected a claim by Russian historian Konstantin Mogilevskiy that there was no Holocaust in Bulgaria and this was an achievement of the then-monarch Tsar Boris III and his government." GPinkerton (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I never claimed that there's no Holocaust in Bulgaria - right on the contrary I proposed the creation of The Holocaust in Bulgaria in Bulgaria.[27] I never claimed that Bulgaria did not deport the Jews from Thrace/Macedonia/Pirot - Right on the contrary I agreed that this information should be mentioned in the article (as more detailed could be added in other more related articles).[28][29]. Regarding the Labour Corps/Camps - "Shalom" are speaking of a conference report, while I added just 1 sentence from the "resume" of the this report (I don't have the whole report) that "Shalom" does not agree with. The report is an academic source (by full professor and Doctor of Sciense). Shalom opinion is relevant and could be mentioned as well. And let's stop here, because this is going offtopic. That's my last comment, unless some administrator requires clarification on some aspects of the issue. --StanProg (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

As evidenced by the comment above, the editor does not even trouble to read the highly contentious (and, according to Shalom and WJC, antisemitic) documents on which he based his lacklustre position and a whole section in the article. I think this speaks for itself. GPinkerton (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, if I may just add some advice here, it's probably not a good idea to engage with the other editors in debate on this page. It only diverts attention away from the actual substance of the complaint. The more "squabbling" there is among involved editors, the less is the chance for any insightful (let along decisive) input from outside observers and admins. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• With the above comment by GPinkerton, I hope this whole matter could be put to a rest here, and the conversation should move to the relevant talk pages. The statement "Needless to say, none of them has made any positive contribution to either the article on "rescue" or the "Bulgaria during WWII" page..." is not supported by the facts; it's enough to see the contributions being made. While one editor may consider them "negative", that's her or her opinion, and not a fact. The other fact, that in GPinkerton's comment there's an insult to a person (the president of Bulgaria), who is not part of the conversation, also gives some idea as to why I suggested that some of the more "heated" contributors take a break. Since editing on Wikipedia is being done in my spare time, which is not that much these days, I couldn't get more active engagement in the discussion on the talk pages of the articles, which is the right place to have this conversation. Of course, without insults, innuendo, etc. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Вени Марковски: This section on this noticeboard exists because of those edits, their editors, and their stated intention. This is not a noticeboard for reporting positive contributions. The only additions made either 1.) uncritically present the revisionist myth that "forced labour saved the Jews" [arbeit macht frei], 2.) reword the article to make the Holocaust in Bulgaria seem anodyne and the "rescue" intentional while keeping inline references in place that state precisely the opposite, or 3.) outright delete sourced material (negative edits). If Rumen Radev also makes these baseless and ahistorical claims, he's contributing to the conversation. GPinkerton (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, and a long series of citations, which I do not oppose, intended to strengthen the claim Macedonians welcomed the Bulgarian occupation in 1941, added by Jingiby (of course). GPinkerton (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, you claim that "none of the editors" have made "any positive contributions". This is your opinion, to which you are entitled, but you are not entitled to your facts. The facts are that you have contributed to the article, as have others (including myself). What you incline is that if someone is a Bulgarian, he or she must be biased, which is not a fact. Some of the most detailed studies of the Bulgarian antisemitic legislation is being done by Bulgarians, and their books are quoted as sources. If you don't speak Bulgarian, perhaps a google translate of this article might be helpful. For the time being, though, I don't see any facts, which support your opinion that all editors are not contributing to the article in question. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Вени Марковски: At no point did I say "all editors". Read again, slower. I will take as slander your allegation that I "incline" "that if someone is a Bulgarian, he or she must be biased". GPinkerton (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: You say "At no point did I say "all editors". Read again, slower." But just above I have quoted what you have said earlier: "Needless to say, none of them has made any positive contribution to either the article on "rescue" or the "Bulgaria during WWII" page..." Now, we can argue about many things in the article, but I hope you won't argue that when you say "none of them" (the editors) you actually didn't mean "all", but just "some"? Because, I hope you'd agree, if you didn't want to put all of the editors in that category (of not positively contributing), you would have not said "none of them", but perhaps "some of them". I don't find this argument costructive, and I don't have time to follow every comment you make, but after this one, I don't see a reason to do so, if you can't just say you're sorry for saying that none of the editors have made any positive contribution.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Вени Марковски: Please don't try to misrepresent my words in this way, it's pure quote-mining. What I wrote about not making positive contributions applies to the "problem editors" to which all my remarks refer. At no point did I say "all editors". GPinkerton (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• PS. I want to express some additional views. To apologize once again to User:GPinkerton for my initial treatment of him. At the end, however, he really has made a mistake above as he called the President of Bulgaria an idiot. Especially since the link to which he refers, is dead maybe. I can not open it. Regarding the Eostrix remark that when I informed the Bulgarian Wikipedia's community, so I have publicly violated the principle of transparency. I would say the following: If I had written personal messages of the editors, it would have been a lack of transparency. Perhaps I should have informed in some way the colleagues of the English-language version of what, and it was really my omission, but not a lack of transparency. As for the comments of Fut.Perf, unfortunately I am his favorite target since years. The very fact that, before I have expressed my opinion, I was condemned by him, is a clear sign of a some bias and personal attitude. I urge this administrator's introductory opinion to be disregarded. Thanks in advance. Jingiby (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: The link is fixed. GPinkerton (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes GPinkerton, I have read it now. By the way, I have seen on TV many similar statements of Bulgarian Jews and I have also read similar opinions of such people. Some of them really believe in that, they were rescued. People are really different. It is difficult to put everything and everybody under one denominator. Some of them have the same opinion as Radev. Jingiby (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Veni Markovski's (Вени Марковски) use of злоупотребява to describe GPinkerton

Let's refocus this discussion on user conduct, not content. In diff User:Вени Марковски (Veni Markovski) describes User:GPinkerton as "..., но е и факт, че анонимният редактор злоупотребява" which google-translate renders as: "..., but it is also a fact that the anonymous editor is abusive". Veni said above that "злоупотребява" has several meanings, and he did not intend "abuse". Veni did not clarify what exactly he meant. I looked "злоупотребява" up on wiktionary where it is described as an inflected indicative form of "злоупотребявам", which wiktionary describes as a perfective form of злоупотребя́ (note Bulgarian Wikipedia page) that has the following meanings:

1. (intransitive) to abuse, to misuse (to make improper use of)
2. (intransitive) to take advantage of, to exploit
3. (intransitive) to misappropriate, to defalcate

While some alternate meanings are different from "abusive", they are also personal attacks. Could Veni please explicitly clarify his statement?--Eostrix (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

DRN on Bulgarian Jews

There is mention above that there was a DRN thread on this subject. It was discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_188#Rescue_of_the_Bulgarian_Jews and was moderated by User:Rosguill, and the editors were User:GPinkerton, User:StanProg, and User:Вени Марковски. Rosguill then closed it so that the editors could resume discussion at the article talk page, and said that any issues about source reliability should go to WP:RSN. It appears that this is now a conduct dispute. Survivors can resume discussion at the article talk page or at WP:RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert McClenon. Agree with your comment. In tne meantime, I have continued with small edits of the article in question, as I don't have enough spare time these days, and have to choose where I should use it. Happy to continue the discussion on the article talk page, as explained in the discussion, moderated by Rosguill.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The DRN had to be abandoned because User:StanProg went and made a whole series of tendentious edits to the article, which I was then advised by Rosguill to revert. I consulted with Rosguill if a Request Move would be a step forward; and proposed this RM when advised that would be a positive move; Rosguill closed the DRN. The RM continues, with further special pleading by StanProg and User:Jingiby, and other editors likely to have responded to the canvassing on Bulgarian Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The DRN was closed because: "there are several different issues that are being contested" (05:30, 16 April 2020). I did the changes one day after Rosguill said he will close the DRN (though he waited 2 days for more comments before actually closing it). The "whole series of tendentious edits" [30] that GPinkerton revered were done in the period (16:48 - 18:21, 17 April 2020‎): - 2 sources requested, one sentence changed according to the source that was already there and was not added by me plus one added by GPinkerton himself. One more sentence was made shorter - which I'm not sure if it's an improvement or not. --StanProg (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The edit is especially tendentious in the change of wording to "all the 48,000 Bulgarian Jews by the pro-German government" from the earlier "about 48,000 Jews living in Bulgaria by the pro-Nazi government" - manifestly a case of denialism and special pleading in completely ignoring the ongoing dispute over content and title. GPinkerton (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

VANDALISM 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.

---

• I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hello, I would like to talk about the user, who has already scheduled more than 15 beauty queen entries for removal, when previously they had already been reviewed by other Wikipedia without encountering any problems. The user was already announced on his talk page by the user Praxidicae but he did not obey and continues to do so. thanks (talk)
  • Please provide DIFFs for some specific instances of vandalism. Simply nominating an article (or even a group of articles) for deletion is not WP:VANDALISM. Making unfounded accusations of vandalism without evidence is, however, a violation of WP:NPA. John from Idegon (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's see. In their Wikipedia-space contributions, I see a lot fewer than 15 articles nominated for deletion, and I see another AN/I thread where they were accused of vandalism. The Moose 08:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(AN/I thread) The Moose 08:28, 25 April 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 mass welcoming users with obscene images

The following discussion is closed. 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 has been mass welcoming other users with obscene images. Someone needs to put a stop to this immediately --Dps04 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - user has placed sexual images on many new users talk pages. Kori (@) 18:54, 25 April 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.

"Welcomes" have been nuked. Acroterion (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Also nuking contribs by Special:Contributions/Potential414. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make this a nukkake? DarkKnight2149 04:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

StayatHomeBot

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

---

Approved by the Arbs. Do they have nothing better to do? I propose that StayatHomeBot be blocked from the English Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I did so based on a report to UAA. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know enough about how bots work to bring forward any diffs, but shouldn't the user that created this be blocked too? I get enough Big Brother from my government. I don't need it here too. John from Idegon (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's an LTA. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Despite the claim on the bot's talk page that the bot was "approved" by the Arbitration Committee, we're not in the business of approving bots. That's up to the Bot Approvals Group. Even the bot that does only arbitration-related tasks had to be approved by the BAG: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArbClerkBot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I fell for that. Perhaps the Arbs need to do some PR so it wasn't that easy to believe they would approve a bot out of process. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:07, 25 April 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 User followed me to my Instagram

The following discussion is closed. 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 not sure if this violates a rule or not, but after reverting multiple edits by 2600:8800:6000:1210:A927:4773:3ADD:B048, the user found my personal Instagram using my Wikipedia username and commented on it. A screenshot with both mine and the IP users identifying information blocked out is located here. Needless to say, I'm extremely uncomfortable that a user would even bother finding my personal social media from my Wikipedia username. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 04:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-adminstrator comment) I think Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment#Harassment on external websites is applicable here, but it's a behavioural guideline, not a policy. As creepy as this is, in my experience, Wikipedia generally takes a stronger intolerance to WP:DOXING (I.E. posting someone's information on Wikipedia without their consent). Administrators might see it differently, though. DarkKnight2149 05:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

ThadeusOfNazereth, I will warn the user for off-wiki harassment. Kori (@) 05:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Koridas That's much appreciated - I suppose I'm at least partly to blame for using similar usernames across my socials. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 05:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The IP range has also been blocked for vandalism by NinjaRobotPirate. DarkKnight2149 05:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - User has been warned for harassment and blocked for vandalism. Kori (@) 05:27, 26 April 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.

AmThBeautifulScotThBrave disruptive editing / warring / personal attacks

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

---

This user is repeatedly making the same edit, against consensus, and responds only with personal attacks and original research / opinion. The edit takes place on the Conor McGregor page. As per WP:MMA, the style parameter is clearly defined. The editor first made this edit. I reverted the edit, as per the guidelines, and notified the user here. The editor has made the same edit on these occasions, 1 2 3 4 5] 6 7 8.

They were reverted by another editor here and a discussion was opened here, in which the disruptive editor did not participate, although consensus was clear.

Attempts to discuss are clear on the user's talk page

The user has responded with personal attacks and a bludgeoning of their opinion (which is both contrary to the guidelines and completely unsourced) on these occasions. 1 2 (with a personal attack) and 3 (which insults several editors).

Other edits show a highly offensive transphobic vandalism edit here and equally offensive justification for the edit (following a warning from another editor), here.

Warnings have been delivered here, here and here and I have notified them on their talk page of this report.

The user's history shows that they have no interest in editing or discussion and have made the same edit many times in spite of clear MOS guidance stating why it's not agreed. They have been warned about changing edits to their opinion on another page and their only other edit is deeply offensive. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:43, 26 April 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.

@SharabSalam: making bogus accusations against admins

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

---

• [31] SharabSalam attacks @Bbb23:: "Bbb23 It is not a mess and try to be nice with other editors, just because you are an admin doesnt mean that you can disrespect editors work like that, he obviously worked hard to write all of this. You just survived a report about abusing your adminship."

• [32] SharabSalam attacks @El C:: "You have been anti-Iran by supporting a terror group like The People's Mojahedin Organization. I have tons of evidences i saved in Notepad. You are totally unreliable to be an admin."

• [33] SharabSalam attacks El_C again: "Why do you need the adminship? I haven't seen you making any constructive edits at least since I have been here in Wikipedia. You only reverts, something that bots are able to do, the one time I saw you making an edit was disappointing, the problem is that it was obviously recent in that article, second, it says "In October" the Houthis did something bluh bluh. However, the time you made the edit was 28 September and after I reverted you, you went and added it to another article with the same mistake. I honestly wonder how can an editor who has so little contributions in the main space get promoted to become an admin and claim to fix disputes between editors. If I were you I wouldn't ask for adminship or withdraw my adminship."

This caused El_C to step away from helping in some WP:GS/IRANPOL pages. El_C had been providing valuable assistance there, and it is my belief that having El_C step away from there was SharabSalam’s desired outcome.

• [34] SharabSalam attacks @Vanamonde93: (also involved in assisting IRANPOL disputes): "Vanamonde93, based on the comments you have made in this talk page, youe clearly WP:INVOLVED in this discussion. You can't use your admin tools in this topic or that would be reported and considered as admin abuse and you would basically end up losing your adminship.-"

• [35] "I am saying that Vanamonde93 is acting like the authority here and he is always against Mhhossein. He shouldn't act like that. He shouldn't patronize other editors. If this admin used admin tools in this article, I will report it to the WP:AE and I will list all the posts where this admin has interpreted policies and guidelines differently from Mhhossein."

• [36] "You should have not closed that RfC. Do you think there isn't any other admin or editor to close that discussion? You know this is a highly controversial topic as this terrorist group that is supported by Americans is responsible for killing millions of innocent people. Your provocative close of that RfC should be your last close of RfCs in that talk page."

• [37] SharabSalam makes bogus accusations against BD2412: "You have used your admin tools in articles where you are clearly involved. You have called an editor in that discussion a single purpose account under every single comment he has made. You should apologize to SeriousIndividuals and remove all of your comments except the one under the !vote"
• [38] "You have violated multiple guidelines here. You have repeated your comment that this editor is a single purpose account under every comment he has made. See WP:TALK Avoid repeating your posts: Your fellow editors can read your prior posts, so repeating them wastes time and space and may be considered WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. Your repeated, unneeded, unproductive comments make me thinks that you are trying to bite newcomers, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade). WP:BITE.--"

I did not say anything when SharabSalam made bogus accusations against some good editors here on enWikipedia, [39] [40], or against me [41] [42], but these recent attacks on admins (who have been trying to resolve nasty disputes) are starting to cause admins to keep away from articles that very much need admin supervision. Barca (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned, I'm lenient, perhaps overly so, so I have not chosen to apply sanctions, but I do believe there are grounds for these, for tendentious editing and battleground conduct. Mostly, I find SharabSalam is simply too close to the subjects he contributes to, which causes him to lose perspective. Take this, from two days ago, on Vanamonde's talk page: You should have not closed that RfC. Do you think there isn't any other admin or editor to close that discussion? You know this is a highly controversial topic as this terrorist group that is supported by Americans is responsible for killing millions of innocent people. I think we have a problem here. El_C 14:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

They're emotionally invested in the topics they edit on. It wasn't that long ago that Vanamonde93 advised them that you need to dial it down immediately. Comparing anything to ISIS is unacceptable without solid evidence, followed by the pretty unequivocal if you're unable to separate your opinions about them from how Wikipedia discusses them, then this is a topic you are likely to be removed from). This is possibly where those attacks above come from. It was March when another admin, Liz, warned SS on their talk that they were being unnecessarilly antagonistic at noticeboards. Then there was January, when Drmies had to advise them against personal attacks

Their approach is, as BarcrMac has established often abrasive, and occasionally verges on WP:BATTLEGROUND (if not actually into it). ——SN54129 15:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The attacks on BD2412 were particularly specious. He said they'd been "warned" about their behaviour (they hadn't). Hwe said they'd used their tools in a dispute in which they were involved (a recurring theme with this editor, and guess what - they hadn't). And he criticised them for marking the comments of an obvious SPA with a SPA tag (I note the SPA was a Hidden Tempo sock, surprise surprise). Obviously there is no big rule that says one can't criticise the actions of admins (indeed, one would hope that editors would do so if there were obvious problems). However, simply making up accusations (the Vanamonde93 ones are ludicrous as well) when an admin does something they simply don't like is not acceptable, and they need to quit doing it, right around now. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Black Kite and #54129. SharabSalam, too many people have lost patience with your approach. I defended you, your good faith, and your edits, but will not continue to do so. Bbb23 is a friend, and one of the fairest and hardest-working admins around, and El C, in the last few years, has proven to be like the oil that keeps the gears in a machine running smoothly. Sorry, but this has to change, or I will not be able to speak up for you when a call for sanctions comes, and I think that call will come. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

BarcrMac, despite SharabSalam being on ANI all too frequently and would have likely seen this on their own, you still need to notify them of any discussions involving them (see the big red box at the top of the page). I've done it for you. Pings don't count. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Wherever there's a fight these days, SharabSalam seems to be in the middle of it, and often to have started it himself. Guy (help!) 16:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment I reported SharabSalam in February 2020 for personal attacks, namely, taunts and other unproductive comments at an article talk page. This is habitual pattern. I do not think the way this user currently behaves or has been behaving is a net positive for the project. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I will also note that, I generally agree with the assessment that SharabSalam has "strongly held views" on the issue areas where they tend to focus and these views come out in their talk page comments, editing patterns, and treatment of other editors. I find this diff where SS lashes out at someone applying SPA tags to a user who agrees with them in a content discussion pretty ironic given their treatment/tagging of this editor who happened to disagree with them at another page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

My criticism was about using the tag multiple times in one discussion not about using it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion. The tags were appropriately applied, and this user turned out to be a sock. I doubt you would have been so concerned, or as critical of the tagging editor, had the SPA editor disagreed with you in the content dispute. I also encourage admins not the buy this "apology" note. This user has been blocked for violating NPA before. I've been the recipient of personal attacks from this editor, and we will assuredly be here again in a few weeks unless more severe sanctions are applied. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologize

• Black Kite, Drmies, I apologize to all admins that I have been mean to them. If you want I will apologize to them in their talk pages. I am so sorry for what happened. I am not going to justify what I have done. I am going to promise that I will never repeat this again. I have been editing on politics-related areas in Wikipedia and I made some comments that I wish I havent made. I am so sorry. I have apologized to BD2412 before yesterday. Some of what I have said is unjustifiable. I am a human being, I do a lot of mistakes. My overall contributions to Wikipedia were mostly helpful to Wikipedia. My mistakes are like 0.0001% of my contributions. Not that I am trying minimize my mistakes but I am just asking for another chance so that I can continue helping this project. I am interested in articles about Yemen and Yemen-related politics. I have been editing in some American-politics but its not really my interest. I am not going to make any mean comment towards any editor or admin. I promise.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SharabSalam: the thing is, I think it's the politics, generally, that;s the issue—not because you hold the views you do (after all, we all hold political views, even those that say they don't!) but because you bring them into article and talk spaces and, perhaps, let them dictate your actions. Look, how about writing about the history of the places whose politics interests you? We're crying out for good history content, and we're even more crying out for good history content outside of the Anglosphere. That area of writing might help keep you away from contentious discussions while holding your interest in Wikipedia. What say you? ——SN54129 18:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, okay fine. I will try to avoid the political area.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• My old NPA block: When I joined Wikipedia, my English language was very basic. (I have never been to a non-Arab country) One time I was exploring some old discussions and I found this discussion Talk:Tunisian campaign and saw this comment. There was a phrase there that grabbed my attention. It was Stop acting like a whiney bitch. I googled it and I found some sources like Vice : "Why Is Ray J Acting Like A Whiny Little Bitch?" I assumed that it means to act aggressively or inappropriately towards other people. It sounded really cool. It was very weird and unusual phrase to me. I then wanted to say it in Wikipedia. I was waiting for a chance to say that word. Until one day an editor in Wikipedia called me "anti-Arab", I told him that it's not his first time to act like a whiny bitch. [43] then Oshwah reverted me and blocked me (and the other editor who turned to be a sockpuppet) for personal attack. I was shocked, I thought it was okay to say that phrase.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

In the proper context, practically any phrase can be said on WP. However, you directed that phrase directly at a user. When intended to do harm, even the most innocent words will result in negative responses. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if there is a language barrier, this is not reasonable behavior. This user's English language skills have grown more sophisticated since then, which is laudable, but their attitude and approach to others remains the same. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Not so fast--I find the comments cited above troubling in a few ways, but it's not like that. I will take their comment above in good faith. SharabSalam, what SN# was saying about "the history of those places" is spot on. That is what we need more than anything else, IMO. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I will absolutely avoid politics from now on. These days I have been working on many articles that are not related to politics like Kawkaban or the new article I created, Al-Sahul.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessary to avoid American Politics, just stop making comments in the vein of those above. Your contributions would be welcome absent that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The greatest concern is articles covered by WP:GS/IRANPOL. Conduct at that topic area has been, at times, highly problematic. El_C 23:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Which is why I am going to change. I have made lots of good faith, and productive edits in that area. I made few mistakes, I admit, I am more interested in Iran-politics than U.S. politics or U.K. politics. In any case, I will leave politics in general and start editing in history and geography area.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, what am I missing that we don't topic ban them from IRANPOL? They have volunteered for such a thing and given the disruption I don't see why we don't formalize it. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, Barkeep49. I have logged the topic ban on WP:GS/IRANPOL. El_C 02:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

El C I think given how bureaucratic GS/DS is, you probably need to formally notify Shar'abSalam on their talk page including notifying them of their appeals options. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I appreciate that, but I think them participating in this discussion saves me the trip. As for their appeal options, the usual 6-month standard duration is what I had in mind. El_C 03:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't be lazy. PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

No need to send me a post in my talk page. I don't want those who hate gloat over this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:44, 26 April 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.

Paid editor

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

---

User:Sambhil32 contributions seems to be like undisclosed paid editor, also he is undo'ing edit on my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by DROOLmugs (talk • contribs) 11:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to say that User:Sambhil32's contributions do look very PAID (a German enterpreneur, the President of the "Syrian Civil Collation", a journalist from Manchester UK, a Nigerian academic, a British hearing aid specialist, and a retired psychotherapist? Also, regardless of the OPs editing, they're edit-warring on their userpage, which is clearly a big no-no. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Almost certainly paid (e.g. Sheri Jacobson), and all with material notability issues. Pinging MER-C who might be familiar with them. Britishfinance (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• I have made declarations of COI on my userpage. I do not have any COI with the rest of my contributions. But I am certain that User:DROOLmugs is not a new editor. Sambhil32 (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That's bollocks. Blocked. I wouldn't be surprised if OP was also a spammer reporting their competition. MER-C 13:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Nor would I (hence my "regardless of the OPs editing"). I've deleted one of Sambhil32's creations as G4 (they recreated it under a different name) and some of the others have bypassed AfC as well. Some can go to AfD, also. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm new on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by DROOLmugs (talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and threaten by Havsjö

The following discussion is closed. 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 Havsjö is continuing do vandalism on article Nguyễn dynasty and Empire of Vietnam to his own without warning, caused a edit war. Please notify or ban this user. 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:E03B:9F6D:1F64:5239 (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I never threatened you in any way lol. Nor did I partake in vandalism. The only interaction Ive had with you is in this Nguyen dynasty talk section, where I explain why reverted your edit. And in the case of Empire of Vietnam, the only interaction between us has been me explaining how the 1 word you added did nothing on the page except add an anachronistic internet ISO 3166 code to this historical pre-internet country. --Havsjö (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment from Koridas - Havsjö didn't do anything. He literally explained why he was reverting and making edits. 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:E03B:9F6D:1F64:5239, please check talk pages and edit summaries instead of making frivolous ANI reports. Kori (@) 20:00, 26 April 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.

Misconduct by user: Magnolia677 and John from Idegon

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

---

Hello Administrators of Wikipedia I am coming to you today to report two editors on Wikipedia who have engaged in highly inappropriate actions on the Wiki. I will post links to the discussion and highlight comments of them being vicious, making personal attacks and no being conducive to Wikipedia.

Most recently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sanjev_Rajaram#November_2018

John from Idegon told me "shut your yap" and then threatened me by saying "try me."

You can see from Magnolia677 talk page where I brought up this issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magnolia677/Archive_15#Rude_Edit_Summaries

Magnolia677 engages in words and statements that are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjev Rajaram (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The import of that silly slap fight took eighteen months to bubble to the surface of your tortured consciousness? Come on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that you, after 1 year and 3 months of inactivity, wake up, decide to log in to Wikipedia again, and then report a comment from 2018 boggles my mind. It makes me, in fact, wonder whether you are here to build an encyclopedia. --MrClog (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Yup, I'm having a hard time seeing this as a good faith posting. One incident was from 18 months ago, and the other more than two years ago. I'd ask if there were some more recent interactions, but the OP has not made an edit prior to this ANI in 15 months. Meters (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC).

It's in the past. It's from a year ago. Let it go dude. Kori (@) 20:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This is dumb, revert. This is dumb, revert.

My dog stole my password and made those impolite comments two years ago. He has his own account now--and obedience training--so I can assure you this won't happen again. My apologies and thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia677, Is this some kind of sick joke? Or are you trying to make an excuse? Kori (@) 20:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Koridas: It's obviously a joke, though I'm not sure why you would characterise it as a "sick joke". --MrClog (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

MrClog, I know, I'm joking too just to get a serious comment that questions both the jokes, but just one, and determining if the other is a joke. Kori (@) 20:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia677: Just because the behavior reported here was long enough ago that taking action against it is not appropriate does not mean that you behaved well at the time; in fact you did not, and your response here might have reflected some humility instead of making a bad joke about it. "I'm sorry" would have been a better response than "My dog did it." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any action to be taken here, at least not against those editors named in the complaint. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Boomerangs were made for this. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't insult Magnolia's dog. He literally worked his tail off sniffing that password. Dawnseeker2000 21:18, 26 April 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:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's signature

The following discussion is closed. 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.

---

I believe that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's signature is breaking the WP:NOTADVOCACY rule of Wikipedia. I think the signature is political in nature, especially the "Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong" part.

As of this edit the signature reads: "The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! "

Due to the nature of this board, please ping me if there is a reply since I am not watching this page as I don't want to be alerted for every change to this page.

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I see you posted on his talk page about this, and then came here three minutes later. I think you should have at least waited for him to respond before bringing it the drama boards. Number 57 16:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Number 57, I wanted to know where I stand with such signatures. I will delete this and wait for his response. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Tyw7: please also see this discussion from a couple of years ago, particularly Jayron32's close: If you're offended by his signature, you're allowed to personally ask him to change it. He's also allowed to refuse to do so. No sanctions will come from this. Suggest this is closed (not removed after people have replied) as preempting a time sink. ——SN54129 17:07, 25 April 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.

Re opening discussion

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is Wikilawyering over the wording of the policy. He specifically mentions that They agree that NOTADVOCACY does not extend to signatures, although it "can be extended" to them.. I argued to him that it applies to Userboxes too and he removed that comment with the edit summary ("over" means "over"). Therefore, I am continuing this discussion here. I think his signature, particularly the "Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!" part breaks the WP:SOAPBOX portion of Wikipedia policy since it is political in nature. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I glanced through their last 50 edits (which go back to February) and they don't seem to be engaging in any political talk page discussions currently. They are participating in a lot of XfD discussions. Are any of the discussions being hindered by their statement in their signature? If so, you should provide diffs to back your position. Otherwise, while technically I see your point, you might not gain enough traction to have anyone take any action. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Bison X, I was specifically talking about the latter part of his signature. It is political in nature since it advocates freedom for Hong Kong. WP:SOAPBOX says no advocacy statements on Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we get that, but please do feel free to keep repeating yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(e/c)I know what part of the sig you mean. But even if it is policy, you aren't showing where the harm is being caused. You haven't even said it has caused you distress, unless what irks you is that the letter of the law is not being adhered to. Even usernames are ok if they stay out of the area they appear to have a CoI. Context of SOAPBOX matters when seeking sanctions; show where the harm is being caused. That seems to be the general consensus on their talk page, too. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Bison X, so does that mean I can stick a userbox with some political slogan on my page or advocate voting for a particular party in my signature as long as I don't edit political-related pages?

PS where did it say that? I tried to search discussions and I couldn't find people OKing political messages as long as it doesn't cause COI. I looked at WP:USERBOX, which says {{tlq|WP:USERBOX states All userboxes are governed by the civility policy. * Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks. * Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. * Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. - -Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Tyw7, consider this a warning. You are at risk of being blocked for disruptive editing if you persist in repeating yourself over and over and over again. Go do something useful to improve the encyclopedia instead of pursuing this quixotic quest of yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, suit yourself. I still think he is going against policy but if you are OK with this disparity, then I will drop it.

I had a search of any related discussion but regarding this matter, but I can't find any. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's not causing harm, it's a non-issue. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. El_C 20:47, 25 April 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.

Accusations of racism and using developmental disorders as a form of slander

The following discussion is closed. 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 involves talk page comments at Talk:Pacifica High School (Garden Grove, California). Tl;dr version Keizers attempted multiple times to add inflammatory information involving a nazi salute scandal at a HS against consensus. The information had been routinely removed in the past and consensus was also clearly demonstrated by John from Idegon and myself's recent comments in response to the user. I believe John and myself extended a great deal of AGF even in spite of subtle jabs in comments and evident WP:SOAP concerns in the users continued edits.

This eventually culminated in Keizers in his most recent statement here in which they point out that "white supremacism" is "tacitly (sic) endorsed" by world leaders and how we (John and I) should be commended for doing the same.

User also showed prejudice in using developmental disorders as a form of slander in saying "I suppose Wikipedia editors would tend to me (sic) slightly more autistic on the scale (sic) or one could also say lack empathy"

I normally let stuff like this roll off my back, in thousands of declines over at AfC, baseless accusations of racism and what not inevitably happen, but typically from angry UPEs or very inexperienced editors. However, neither is the case here. Keizers seems to have enough experience to know better. Also, the accusations of being a white supremacist while also employing a prejudicial slander of those with developmental disorders is so far beyond the pale (and weirdly ironic).

There's also the concern that these statements were made in a very public area of Wikipedia, that many casual readers may come upon. It's also not a stretch to assume many children (such as those attending the HS) would view this and comments like this are a bad look for Wikipedia and thus I feel concerns about protecting the Wiki are very much in play here. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Keizers, this is your only warning. Please tread lightly, or you will be sanctioned. Please also observe WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 02:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: our conversation here last week. This right here is what incivility is. You're going to allow an editor to attempt a POV hijacking of an article (tying the need for the content to the erroneously labeled "75th anniversary of the Holocaust".), referring to two experienced editor (escalating the NPA as he goes) as first editing in bad faith, then being racist (like that applies...no race discussion whatsoever except from him), then to being autistic (I've been dealing with my autistic son all day...my three autistic grandchildren are with their mom. Trust me, Sulfurboy isn't autistic. I am, a bit, ADHD). Frankly, I would like the entire thread revdel'd. I don't recall ever dealing with this guy before, but the name's familiar. I won't be again. You could spit in my face, or call me racist. The first one might get your eye dotted. The second one always will. I'd never slug someone over foul language. Being repeatedly demeaned in ways most foul...not so certain on that. And frankly, when people refer to others in a way that could incite physical violence...that's a big problem. Action is required. John from Idegon (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I partially blocked Keizers from Pacifica High School (Garden Grove, California) and Talk:Pacifica High School (Garden Grove, California) indefinitely. I think it's best they move on to another article, considering the attacks and disruption involved there. El_C 05:25, 26 April 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.

All my editing has been deleted

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

---

First I was welcomed as a new contributor. Then I was thanked for making improvements and adding text to the bio of Lois Gibson. As I stated in the comments portion of my changes, all of the changes/additions I made were approved by Lois Gibson. I spent many hours on this contribution. The day after I completed my work, all of my changes were deleted. How frustrating. I have authored 6 books and 30 magazine articles, and as a favor to Lois, I improved on the clarity and quality of the writing. Most of the changes were of this nature. I added 2 paragraphs myself (her experience at the San Antonio River Walk and Holocaust Museum work, because they were important aspects of her career (of which I was familiar) that were missing from the bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlharbor1 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It should be noted that Pearlharbor1 has only ever edited at the Lois Gibson page, and their contributions were reverted by LuckyLouie and Kind Tennis Fan on the grounds of WP:COI and WP:VERIFY. DarkKnight2149 18:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You added a large amount of unsourced content, which was in part written in a tone not suitable for an encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:41, 26 April 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.

Purging of images

User @Surtsicna: has been purging the portraits of Popes en masse. By my calculations, starting from the second Pope, St Linus (1st century AD) all the way up to Gregory XII (15th century), without counting the anti-popes, all together 204 Popes have had portraits that have stood for more than a decade completely purged, with the exception of perhaps around 10 popes at most. This method has made it all but impossible to discuss these changes, since one would have to literally start 180 talk pages. Not only have these depictions stood for more than a decade, not only are they featured in all major non-English Wikipedias, not only are they found on our on article that lists the Popes, but more importantly, these depictions are found on the official Vatican website. It does not get more official than that. We include depictions of Scottish kings. Surely, depictions of Popes that are featured on the official website of the Roman Catholic Church would be a big deal. And under no circumstances, should such purging be done without consulting anyone.

Given that this is the second time this same user has gone on this purging spree, I would recommend treating this as a case of vandalism. --172.250.146.43 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see Pope Adrian IV. ——SN54129 16:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a stunning expansion. It is now by far the most detailed biography of a medieval pope on Wikipedia. Impressive! Surtsicna (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Surtsicna, you're very knd! The problem is, MOS:IMGLOC wants images to "look in" to the text, rather than away from it: and that will certainly get pointed out at the future FAC. ——SN54129 16:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So you think popes should face versus populum? EEng 20:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Servus servorum meh, EEng :) ——SN54129 11:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the papal biographies have been purged of obscure 19th century doodles which do not appear in modern academic literature and which were inserted en mass without discussion. The content of Wikipedia articles, including the choice of illustrations, should resemble the content of scholarly biographies and reference works. See MOS:LEADIMAGE and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for details. Surtsicna (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There is currently an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#RfC on non-contemporary images of popes and AN/I is a highly inappropriate forum for an uninvolved IP to be litigating a content dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

On if the official website of the Roman Catholic Church should be a big deal in this context. Not necessarily. It's obviously not independent, and will display popes as the catholic church wants them displayed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This dispute, about non-contemporary images of popes, came to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard two weeks ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_187#Biographies_of_Medieval_people_(mostly_popes)

I saw that it should be approached at two levels. The low-level question is whether any particular non-contemporary image is appropriate in any particular Biography of a Dead Person. The high-level question is that the guidelines in the MOS need to be clarified as to exactly when non-contemporary images of dead people are appropriate. I recommended discussion at the MOS talk page for images. I also tried to mediate the dispute, but failed it due to incivility. It appears that there is an RFC in progress concerning images of popes in particular. Non-contemporary images are also used for kings of Scotland, Christopher Columbus, and others, but an RFC concerning popes is a reasonable way to resolve the issue with regard to popes.

I have not researched the more recent course of the dispute. I would urge the editors to resume using either an RFC or some other constructive method to deal with it. I strongly disagree with the unregistered editor who calls the removal of the images vandalism. It is not vandalism. It may be disruptive editing, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism, and the unregistered editor may be right to report it, but should not Yell Vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

172.250.146.43 I want to second what Robert McClenon said above, the edits were made in a good-faith effort to further the project's purpose and so can definitionally not be vandalism. I understand this specialized usage of the word is not necessarily widely known outside the Wikipedia community, so I encourage you to review WP:VANDNOT to better understand what is and what is not considered vandalism. Now, non-trivial mass changes without a preexisting consenus are usually a bad idea, and very often disruptive, but this was already being addressed in ongoing discussions and it's unclear what prompted you to escalate to ANI right at this moment, without first waiting for those to resolve. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This was also raised a couple of weeks ago at the Teahouse of all places; there seems to be some concerted forum-shopping going on here. I stand by my comments there. There are many times when it's appropriate to use a non-contemporary image of someone or something (either because no contemporary image exists, or because we want to demonstrate how perception of the subject has changed over time). However, when using an image that we know is likely to be inaccurate the onus is on those who want it included to make sure it's appropriately captioned to put it into context, so readers understand that they're seeing propaganda and not an actual illustration of the person or event depicted. Somebody removing an image that we know to be misleading is never going to be "vandalism" even by the broadest meaning of the term, let alone by Wikipedia's narrow definition. ‑ Iridescent 18:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, there's no concerted forum-shopping going on. I brought the issue to dispute resolution and was leaning towards having a third opinion provided before dropping it after an editor weighed in on Surtscina's talk page supporting the removal of the images. I began the RfC after an editor came to the talk page criticizing their removal and because I thought that the issue was significant enough that a decision needed to be reached through consensus. I did not bring the issue to ANI or the teahouse. Two separate people did and I had no involvement in that. I wasn't even aware of the Teahouse discussion until now and didn't find out about this discussion until somebody posted about it on the RfC. So there's certainly no concerted forum-shopping. Rather, what we have is a group of editors who at various times have come across one or more of the 200-some pages that have had their lead images suddenly removed and who have launched disconcerted and independent responses at different places. It's kind of a mess, but that's what you get when you make so many changes to long-standing content with no prior discussion. Display name 99 (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• They are the conventional images by which the persons are known and recognized in traditional religious and artistic discussions and presentation and images. They 're appropriate for our articles. most people involved knows they're a convention, though this should be made clear in the captions for those who do not . Trying to change the practice insidiously one-by-one is not an appropriate way of editing Wikipedia . DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I do find it disruptive (although perhaps I am in the minority judging from responses to the ongoing RfC), but I don't see a deliberate intent to degrade the quality of the articles and agree that it should not be treated as vandalism. I expressed openess on Surtsicna's talk page to what Iridescent and DGG said about adding captions indicating that certain images are apocryphal, but editors on the other side do not seem open to it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC) SergeWoodzing suggested something similar to this as well on Surtsicna's talk page. I could agree to adding authors and years in captions for images that are likely apocyrphal. Simply removing long-standing images en masse from hundreds of articles is not how Wikipedia should be edited. Display name 99 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with User:DGG that images that have been conventionally associated with their subject should continue to be used, although they should be labeled as to their origin. I think that the guidelines on images should be clarified to deal with this situation in cases where no contemporary representation is available but where a particular image has traditionally been used, such as for popes, some Kings of Scotland, some Kings of England, Christopher Columbus, and others. This dispute arose because there is no guideline addressing this situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no guideline, because quite likely there is no consensus. There's the essay WP:PORTRAIT (written by me), which some of the "pro-removal" commenters have cited in this discussion. It too describes some situations where imaginary depictions may be suitable, but the popes and kings of Scotland most certainly don't fall into that class. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I removed the images precisely because they are not conventionally associated with their subject. They are completely alien to modern scholarship (unsurprisingly). We do have a guideline, WP:LEADIMAGE, which says that the lead image should be the type of image found in high-quality sources. Surtsicna (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth I also noticed the purge in progress, and was a little perturbed, but I wholeheartedly agree with the banishment of the near-mythical early popes' portraits. They are a particular 19th century image of ideal sanctity; they ought not to be Wikipedia's impression. The question posed though, is how contemporary is contemporary? Within a century? Within the individual's lifetime? Is the article about the person themselves or their subsequent impression on the world and echoes in culture, art, &c.? GPinkerton (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

FPAS. the essay you wrote includes the section

"Conventionalized, imaginary depictions of religious figures, for example in Christian hagiographic art, can be suitable for Wikipedia even if they come from a much later cultural context, since in these cases the history of the religious veneration of the figure in question is just as much part of the topic of the article as their actual historical existence." This is exactly the category for the popes. And there's another consideration, where I must go by analogy, but it's a very close analogy for a subject I know much better--: For English medieval kings, the standard modern academic biographies include fully referenced elaborately detailed sections on the available images, with considerations of their authenticity--or, even when clearly not authentic, their their derivation. Our article on Edward I, for example, has 6 of them, but doesn't give a detailed discussion--see also https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?LinkID=mp67807. There are probably similar discussions for most of the popes. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither these nor these are conventional portrayals of the popes. They are obscure 19th-century depictions never found in modern academic biographies. That is why they should not be in the lead sections of papal biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) DGG: For that to be applicable to the pope images, they would first of all have to be recognizable. The point about religious hagiography is that saints have individual, conventionalized visual attributes that make their images or icons identifiable. Nobody, not even the most ardent and knowledgeable Catholic worshipper, could possibly look at this or that or that one and say: "Oh, yes, that's Anacletus, of course, and that one must be Marcellus II". They are just random bearded guys. The same is true for those late medieval galleries of king vignettes and their early-modern-era derivatives. If there is sourceable academic interest in such galleries and how one image derives from another, then that can of course be reflected in an article – but that would have to be a sourced section of text; it would still be silly to just paste any one of those images in the infobox without context and comment, or even plaster a whole list article with them. (Actually, I shouldn't be saying "it would be silly", but "it is silly", because unfortunately some people are actually doing exactly that.) But be that as it may, this belongs to the RFC, not here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, according to "Date" the file-pages you linked, those portraits are actually contemporary. Seems unlikely to me, but I'm no art expert. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

No, they're obviously not. That's just mistagged on Commons. San Paolo fuori le mura was only built around 400, so the first 30 or so pope portraits couldn't possibly have been contemporary. Moreover, the church burned down completely in the 1840s and was rebuilt and redecorated after that. What we're seeing in these pictures is evidently the mid-19th century "reconstructions". How similar they may be to whatever was there before that is anybody's guess, but everybody can see that they are stylistically thoroughly 19th century. I've found no clear sourcing on what the chronology of the gallery before that date may have been and to what extent it can be reconstructed at all, but apparently even in the pre-1840s state, everything before the 18th century had been fantasy depictions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: Sorry, this is now really very much on a tangent and doesn't belong on ANI, but since this was brought up, I found there are actually some of the original (pre-19th century) fresco versions of those popes in San Paolo preserved. They look like this: [44]. Now, that's clearly a high-quality artwork, from the early original history of the church in question, i.e. possibly 5th century or thereabouts. Still nowhere near contemporary to the (1st century) figure depicted, but clearly artistically and historically a significant work. That's certainly an item that I could accept as legitimate under WP:PORTRAIT. Needless to say, it bears no similarity at all to the 19th-century doodle for the same person; the comparison only throws the latter's ridiculousness into sharper relief. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

So, can we close this thread now? There was clearly no "misconduct" here as the thread title still falsely claims. There's a legitimate content dispute, which is now being worked out in an RfC and seems about to be resolved in favour of the editor being complained about. So let's move on now; just a wikitrout to the admin/arb who should have known better than to make that baseless and AGF-violating personal attack of calling that editor's work "insidious" and we're done here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Block review request

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

I am requesting a review of my indefinite block on Hushpuckena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I explained in revert edit summaries here and here about piping in links per MOS:NOPIPE. They posted on my talk page asking for an explanation and I pointed them to the appropriate guideline. I warned them three more times on their talk page after seeing them continue to pipe in links to avoid redirects, and after still continuing, I issued a 24-hour block. They responded by saying I've misused my administrator tools. They requested unblock twice, calling my block "retributive" and my claims of MOS violations "specious" (both unblock requests were declined). In the three days since the block expired, I found 12 instances of NOPIPE violations and blocked their account indefinitely. As I'm sure they will say this block is punitive and abusive, I am asking for community input since this editor has 40,000 edits and 10 years of experience here (with little to no collaboration with other editors). Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite uncomfortable with this block. I'm comfortable with imposing an indef on a user with one or zero previous blocks if the user's vandalising or spamming, but not for MOS issues that don't affect the rendered text. This edit, your second "here" link, is small enough that I can't support blocking a human at all for making it, let alone letting it play into an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Nyttend. I don't think that any block was justified, let alone an indef.

Yes, the piping was redundant. But it was also harmless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nyttend: @BrownHairedGirl: WP:NOTBROKEN makes a convincing argument for these edits being disruptive. I regret only explicitly posting two diffs in my initial post of their typical edits, here are a few more: [[Catholic]] to [[Catholicism|Catholic]], [[unincorporated community]] to [[Unincorporated area|unincorporated community]], [[nerdcore]] to [[Nerdcore|nerdcore]]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Important elements of NOTBROKEN are things like [[Specific Neighborhood]] to [[List of Neighborhoods in PLACE|Specific Neighborhood]], or [[Italian Renaissance Revival architecture]] to [[Renaissance Revival architecture|Italian Renaissance Revival architecture]], where it's good to know what's being linked as an indicator of things like future article topics. We're not going to have separate articles on Catholicism and Catholic, for example, and Nerdcore and nerdcore aren't even separate pages. No harm whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: these edits don't help. But per Nyttend, they are not disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Without evaluating the justification for the original block, I think the jump from 24 hours to indefinite is hasty and unwarranted especially for such a long-time editor. If you truly felt the editing was disruptive (and there is disagreement here that it was), I would moved to 96 hours and then to a week. But at this point, I would have let another admin take over. It never hurts to ask for a second opinion and I think it is commendable that you brought it here for evaluation, Eagles247. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• The block is fine. WP:NOTBROKEN is not some esoteric MOS quirk, but a guideline on editing behavior in articles. It is not negotiable, it is literally behavior that is prohibited by the community. Once a policy is brought to a user's attention, and they continue violating it in bad faith, that's objectively blockable. On the contrary to those saying "it's harmless", this case quite literally ticks several boxes of WP:DISRUPTION; repeating a penalised edit, accusing others of malice, repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits, repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. Indefs are not "escalation" but simply blocks with no expiry, they can be as long or as short as the blocked user likes, provided they resolve the issue. Given the fact that a time-limited block had no effect whatsoever it's understandable that immediately provoking a second block would not have an expiry. The purpose of NOTBROKEN is that the systemic removal of redirecting links is generally a net negative to the project. That is the standard for the project set by the community, and it is inappropriate for admins to ignore that and say "it's harmless" or "not blockable". The user should simply request an unblock and agree to abide by the guideline going forward. Unblocks are cheap. However I do not agree with validating this behavior. If the block were to be overturned without resolving the underlying problem, and the user continued breaching the guideline in bad faith, we would have little choice but to indefinitely reblock them anyways. Best just to resolve this now. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• While recognizing that some find MOS violations disruptive and even aggravating, I just couldn't see myself blocking over it. Maybe bringing it here to be gnawed on first, as I've seen done in the past. On the other hand, user's persistence and continuing to violate the MOS after repeatedly being educated is disruptive and probably blockable. Indef is fine. All the user needs to do is agree to stop being disruptive. A time limit would not ensure compliance. Agree with Swarm's conclusion above. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Posting Hushpuckena's new unblock request and reply to points raised here: @ user:Eagles247 @user:Swarm Amongst the edits cited was one which was posted as follows: unincorporated community. If this piping is regarded as redundant, fair enough--I shall refrain in future--but why am I being singled out when I am merely doing as many others have done on analogous pages? What, exactly constitutes redundancy in an edit? Is this an arbitrary distinction, to be applied capriciously? Swarm has called me out for assuming malice, while in his turn presuming negative intent in my patterns of editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) In terms of moving forward, they seem to have now recognized the original complaint and promised to amend their behavior: If this piping is regarded as redundant, fair enough--I shall refrain in future (diff). So whether or not the block should have initially been indefinite, it seems reasonable for the issue to be resolved now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking on the merits of their unblock request noted by MarkH21 above. Agnostic on the appropriateness of the initial block, mostly as it doesn't matter anyways if we unblock them now because they have agreed to modify their behavior that was in question. --Jayron32 19:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Ambivalent on initial block; I can't say I would not have blocked but I might have tried something more collaborative first; nonetheless WP:NOPIPE is accepted practice and the block was within admin discretion. However, if the user thought the initial block was inappropriate they ought to have said that, and just that, in an unblock request. It seems they chose personal attacks and recidivism instead, and so I 100% endorse the second indef block per WP:RECIDIVISM. If you're blocked for doing a thing and when your block expires you immediately continue doing the thing, expect to be blocked again and for much longer. With that said I support unblocking: I think the point has been made. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Continuing the disruptive behaviour after an expired block is still disruptive, and since the indef block is less than 24 hours old, I would suggest to revise it to a time-limited block of, for example, 1 week. If the user continues the disruptive behaviour after that it would warrant an indef block (three strikes and you're out principle). --Marbe166 (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Just to note that giving a time-limited block for the purpose of "driving home our point" or whatever purpose you have in mind smacks of a form of punishment, and blocks are not meant to be punitive. If we believe the user in question intends to change their behavior, there's nothing to be gained by keeping them blocked longer. If we believe the user in question does not intend to change their behavior, then there is nothing to be gained by letting the block expire on its own (for them to continue their disruption). In this case, as I've noted above, their unblock request offers sufficient assurances. --Jayron32 19:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've unblocked, with a rationale here: [45]. FWIW, I think this could have been handled better by both Eagles247 and by Hushpuckena. I really think the damage caused by using the block button so quickly on an established good faith editor is far worse than the "damage" caused by not following WP:NOTBROKEN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Looks good. --Jayron32 20:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: Thank you for taking care of this. For the future, how would you handle this situation? I undid two of their edits on an article with rationale pointing to MOS guidelines, they asked about it on my talk page, I pointed them to the guideline again, they continued to pipe in links incorrectly, I warned them on their talk page, they ignored my message and continued, I warned them again, they responded by brushing it off and asking why I warned them, I responded with further clarification, they continued doing the same thing, so I blocked for 24 hours. That was all within a span of a few days. Yes, I could have easily dropped it entirely, but since they primarily make very minor edits to a large group of sparsely-watched articles I wanted to ensure this enormous batch of articles was being edited properly according to guidelines approved with community consensus. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing something. It's easy to ignore a marginal problem that others would not have used as a reason to block, but allowing people to make undiscussed mass changes of any kind is rarely desirable. That is particularly true when the editor is working against MOS and is unwilling or unable to engage in discussion, for example, at User talk:Hushpuckena#WP:NOTBROKEN. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: I'll answer your question, but first I want to make clear I don't think you were wrong and Hushpuckena was right; I just think you both could have handled it a little better. If you did the things below and Hushpuckena still did exactly what he was doing, it's not like the problem would have been solved. But I guess I had in mind things like:

• Be less abrupt initially; that might have made him less abrupt in return
• Rather than just saying "See WP:NOTBROKEN", explain in words why what he was doing was actually harmful.
• Let the small stuff go; to be honest, the links he was changing weren't really the type of links where he was actually hurting anything; he just wasn't helping either. It's like blocking someone for adding 5 spaces to the end of every paragraph.
• Ask another editor/admin to try to talk to them first, before blocking
• For long-term good-faith editors, blocking for low-level issues seems a case where the cure is worse than the disease.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Troublesome editor at Belgian monarch's page

Having trouble with @Helsing90: over at the Albert II of Belgium article. He continues to delete Albert II's illegitimate child from the infobox, even though he didn't get a consensus for it back in February & now. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Helsing90 may need an application of the cluebat at some point (since the user's only purpose seems to be to argue over this topic), but I think this issue is currently in the "content dispute" realm rather than the "administrator action needed" realm. creffett (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrative eyes would be welcomed at that article. Note: My report should've been at WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry GoodDay, You are republican, against the monarchy, as we can see on your profile, your goal is to denigrate it by lying! Delphine Boël is not legally her daughter, the law prescript the filiation and not the biologie. Currently, king Albert II is only the genitor of Delphine Boel. The person who write the opposite is a liar and does a defamation, WP cannot modifies filiation or disregard adoptions. Otherwise, the English (Canadian, American or British) website that you used do not translate correctly the fact Press release :

• «His Majesty King Albert II took note of the results of the DNA sample which he lent himself to at the request of the Brussels Court of Appeal. Scientific findings indicate that He is the genitor of Mrs. Delphine Boël.»
• «The request for recognition of paternity must be debated at a hearing before the Brussels Court of Appeal. This hearing will be held on June 4.»

To be the «child of», it is the law that decides and not the DNA but you do not accept it! I am adopted, my parents are those who adopted me AND NOT those who gave birth to me. It is the Belgian law! --Helsing90 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You're the problem. You've no consensus for what you're trying to do & won't accept it. You're being a disruptive SPA. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus to have, it's about the facts; you just don't speak french so you don't translate correctly. You mix "biological father" and "father", in Belgium it's very different. The earth is round, not flat, there is no consensus to have. --Helsing90 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Helsing90, can you back up "your goal is to denigrate it by lying!" in diff? That's a serious accusation.--KasiaNL (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I have no intention of getting involved in the content disagreement, but I'll just offer a few reminders of things the participants need to be aware of:

1) No personal attacks please, and that includes accusations of lying.

2) Content disagreements are decided by consensus, so please try to gain one.

3) Wikipedia articles go on what reliable sources say.

4) Wikipedia is not bound by Belgian law.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that ANI is not for content disputes; you can go to WP:3O or WP:DRN if you disagree. Either way, it is clear that Delphine Boël is the biological daughter of Albert II, and that their articles should clearly indicate this because it's scientific fact, unconstrained by the laws of man. However, both articles should still note that Delphine is not legally Albert's child. Said and done, both pages require RFPP. This is the second time Helsing90 has engaged in this dispute, as proven by this talkpage thread, and since the user is editing exclusively about these topics, I'd recommend a partial block from, or extended confirmed protection of, Delphine Boël and Albert II of Belgium for two months (after which the legal dispute will be solved). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

user talk:2601:240:8101:E440:7CC3:7381:C7:E7DE

Its clear that they aren't listening to what has been said to him by Yamla or me (to read the declines) as they keep ignoring them and posting unblock messages that don't take in what has already been said. They are continuously disruptively using unblock requests to request unblock when they are not actually blocked (at least directly), they have been asked to provide the full block message or follow it's instructions and have so far refused to do either, instead opting to spam unblock requests that don't actually help. They were warned by Yamla that continued abuse of the unblock request would lead to them being blocked directly. They have ignored the warning and have actually now started removing the previous unblock requests. As they have continued despite multiple warnings I believe that it needs to be dealt with by directly blocking them (possibly with TPA revoked, but it depends on what others feel. As I am clearly not an admin so can't block I am bringing it here to be dealt with (I am also at 3rr with this IPs IDHT behaviour if it helps). Tknifton (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Tknifton: Not sure why any of you guys are edit warring with this IP to begin with. It's their talk page, they can delete whatever they want. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, I see, excessive unblock requests. My bad. However looks like they stopped now and are just trying to blank their page. They're apparently not even blocked, so we can just leave this be if nothing else happens. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

Salmanalpy12 keeps removing information from various pages arguing that the references are not 'reputable' or that they are misleading.[46] Even after a large-scale re-diting by a third user on Kurdish calendar.[47]. However, the issue does not seem to be verification, since one edit targeted sourced sentences while the unsourced section remained. [48]. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: Can you let us know what were the results of the prior discussions you had with this user? What kind of results did you get when you tried to talk with them about their concerns over the sources? Can you link to those conversations so we can read them ourselves? --Jayron32 15:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: This is the same type of editor I've seen for about a year now (I call them 'edit and run'). They come and go and I don't have the energy any longer. If you believe my report was premature; fair enough, I retract it. Also a similar new account[49][50] where interaction quickly turned to "You clearly have a hatred for Assyrians and it shows."[51]. --Semsûrî (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The edits of Hi.mariam on that talk page definitely need administrator attention. They appear to say that they are canvassing cross-wiki to scrutinize Semsuri’s edits, which could easily lead to meatpuppetry. This, because as they seem to imply, their editing of pages related to the Assyrian people (“our pages”) and removing original research, as a non-Assyrian, is tantamount to vandalism. Semsuri was very collegial in that conversation, and communicated the need for secondary reliable sourcing, and how we can’t accept original research. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Semsûrî:, while I’ve pinged them, you need to inform Hi.mariam on their talk page that you’ve mentioned them on this noticeboard. I’ve taken the liberty of doing so. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think that this is at all an appropriate first notification to give to a new user who was adding much more sourced information than you say they deleted. I may have been inactive on this site for some time, but even I can tell that's a borderline bad faith assumption and newbie-biting. When you are personally linked to heated ethnopolitical issues in any fashion, you should take care to maintain some decorum on a site like this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Lothar von Richthofen I don’t disagree. I think Jayron32 asked the correct questions in his initial response. One needs to engage every editor in good faith, even if they’re perhaps an SPA. There are exceptions to this of course, but it’s always better to give the benefit of a doubt. Taking an editor to ANI without attempting substantial discussion isn’t a good move. And I don’t disagree about his initial comment. They’ve been BITE-y, yes. Regardless, that doesn’t erase the clear problems with the second user that became clear throughout the rest of the conversation, where Semsuri gave clear policy reasons without any further vitriol. I think guidance is needed here for the users mentioned, and a logged warning for the second, as they’re straddling WP:NOTHERE. Given that Semursi has agreed to disengage, and recognized their fault here, I don’t think further action is required beyond that. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus:@Lothar von Richthofen: My own behavior has probably not been the best on Assyrian-related pages like mentioned above, but one cannot be anything but frustrated with the behavior taking place. I'm ignoring the personal attacks, but sourced information keep getting removed and the adamant push to keep unsourced section is perplexing. Nonetheless, this edit this morning is hopefully one of the last edits of mine on Assyrian-related page[52] I'm going back to constructive work on Kurdish-related topics and remove most Assyrian-related pages from my watchlist. I just hope that other users watch these few dozen pages that tend to be disruptively edited since I don't have the energy anymore (especially Alqosh). --Semsûrî (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note: User:Hi.mariam has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE. It’s clearly a good block, especially given their subsequent unblock request, which was followed by accusations of racism and threats against the blocking/reviewing admin(s) (it’s not clear to whom they were referring). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think @Berean Hunter: made a bad block here actually. Anyone making detailed contributions like this reverted content can't be claimed in good faith to be "not here to build an encyclopedia", that's a little rich. Aside from some minor points of tone and needing some sourcing (not an insurmountable issue), that's the kind of content which enriches this resource, and should be given guidance rather than immediately penalized. What happened here is that a well-established editor, with respectable contributions but a POV of his own, snapped at a newbie, who took offense and likely made sense of the situation as being yet another inter-diaspora online attack directed at her and her culture. If you know anything about the topic area and the online circles around it, that's not an unreasonable assumption from her point of view. The newbie, feeling angry and not being hip to the codes of behavior on here, went and did some not-smart things which escalated the situation. But if you go up to a stranger and bite them, they're going to get mad.

The net result is that this incident is going to blow back into her online circles, which no doubt contain folks just as passionate and knowledgeable about their own culture and history as Semsûrî is and who could legitimately improve this site, and is either going to put them off of editing entirely, or else give the impression that this place is as much a nasty bare-knuckle arena as any other they know and encourage more hostile editing. In the long run, this is the kind of gratuitous gatekeeping that deprives this resource of good content and poisons the social well here. I took an extended break from this site after getting burnt out from similar bad environments allowed to fester here, lurking and spectating for a while, but seeing this situation spurred me to log back in and say something. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking through contribs and found this amazing, well-sourced expansion. "Removal of sourced content"? "Not here to build an encyclopedia"? Yall must be joking! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this by clicking the above user's contribs - I saw him on the page in question as he also joined the edit war. The content which had many issues, was not created by the indeffed user he mentioned, but by a different site-banned sockmaster - they simply restored the banned sock's edits (they were not the creator of the "amazing" content mentioned above). Puduḫepa 18:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hot take, but in this case I'm less concerned with in-wiki-universe concerns about sock/meatpuppets, but how we got to a point where individuals legitimately trying to make productive edits and improve the quality and coverage of this resource end up getting swatted around into breaking WikiLaws they haven't even had adequate time to learn to lawyer around like the rest of us. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn’t about whether they made worthwhile contributions. It’s about their behaviour, and that they’ve clearly expressed a desire to contravene policy, “go after” and besmirch other editors and administrators, and have made personal attacks. I’m sorry, but calling those who disagree with you or are enforcing policy racists, saying a person’s ethnicity makes them unqualified to edit, canvassing across other Wikis to encourage meatpuppetry, and making attacks both there and here against others is unacceptable. I’m blown away that you’re glossing over all of this. Perhaps their behaviour isn’t intractable. Perhaps mentorship is a path forward. But first, they’d need to file a proper unblock request. You know, without threatening the administrators involved, and acknowledging their own problematic behaviour. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This particular user may be a lost cause at this point, I left a message on her talk gently enjoining her to pursue more conciliatory and patient habits, but I doubt that it will change anything. However, I still do think that we arrived at that point first and foremost by fostering hostile editing environments which are intolerable enough for long-term editors but deathtraps for newbies. One's ethnicity shouldn't be a disqualifier, but how many ARBCOM cases has this site seen in contentious topic areas from all around the world where members of opposing historical-cultural communities engage in escalating, tit-for-tat tendentiousness until something goes very wrong? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This is yet one more reminder that by using essentially dishonest language, as so much of wiki’s newspeak is, we are interfering with our ability to think clearly. How many more reminders do we need before we do something about it? Qwirkle (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Lothar, "this reverted content" is not Hi.mariam but is another editor that was IP socking. You've made mistaken conclusions based on that and credited the wrong person. Also, as pointed out above, this is a restoration of a banned sockmaster's version of the page and you've credited the wrong person for that, too. I didn't block until she ignored another admin's warning and reverted a fourth time and did not respond to the admin's request. There is a battleground mentality apparent in this reply that illustrates that she is NOTHERE. There is more to it than that but not for public discussion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm less concerned with individual authorship and more about contributions which legitimately improve this resource. As someone with close familiarity with much of the material, I think a lot of that is legitimately good stuff, and a marked improvement on the skeletal list of redlinks which the page seems doomed to remain for now. Moreover, I've yet to see substantive discussions anywhere on how to make the content better rather than just clear-cutting it on procedural grounds. Don't want to get into a revert war over it, so I've moved it to my own spaces to tinker with.

I am assuming you are referring to certain discussions on other sites. I agree that these do nothing to improve the environment here, and seeing them I took the step of coming out of retirement to step in and see if I could bring some sanity. No such luck it seems, but I think the quietly but persistently tendentious actions of established editors in the topic area have contributed equally to the toxic environment. Had they not taken the hostile, BITEing, wikilawyering approach they have for so long, I do not think we would have ended up here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

That’s fine. I can respect that. But your most recent comment seems to be trying to make a point. As in WP:POINT. I don’t disagree with what you say, but this isn’t the place to raise those issues. And comments supporting socks and problematic editors are questionable. Regardless of who made the edit(s), like I said before, it’s the behavioral issues that are examined here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The main difference between the two "sides" here, as I see them, is that one has well-established editors here who know how to navigate this site, and the other thinks—erroneously!—that this place is regulated more like Twitter or Instagram. They both count many passionate, well-read young folks among them who should have a lot to contribute to a resource like this, provided they learn our internal language surrounding conduct and content requirements. And although the newbie side has engaged in some demonstrably obvious no-no's by WP standards, we should consider that this might just be because others do their offsite coordination in things like private DMs, which are only occasionally leaked to public view (not unheard of here).

Most of us here can rattle off seemingly basic codes and policy on this site, even after extended breaks from the internal world, and have long since figured out how to assimilate to the editing culture here. It is perhaps difficult to think that all the alphabet soup, shibboleths, and taboos we take for granted here may not be easily intelligible to total outsiders. But that has a real impact on our ability to provide comprehensive and balanced coverage for this project. For new editors entering this site, particularly those interested in entering underserved, undersupervised, and unbalanced areas of real-world contention, that can be a steep and brutally immediate curve with no room for error or redemption.

I doubt anyone will be unblocked, or even any content restored just because of anything I've said here. But I just wanted to register that as someone who has actually put in time on this site, who has then spent time out of here, and who knows this particular topic area well, I don't think this has been handled well at all so far, and I stand by that. I *do* think that a few established editors have engaged in subtle but substantive tendentious editing in a topic area with thin Wikipedia oversight, using their more advanced grasp of this site to avoid obvious violations while cornering new editors into fast and hard punishments over rules they don't really "get". This site is not a vacuum—off-siters use this resource, our editors are active off-site. That feedback loop can translate into a snowball effect here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam ownership of 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.

---

Hi, while his sources have been labeled as being unreliable by the relevant noticeboard for the ethnicity of Averroes (and the issue extensively discussed at Talk:Averroes#He is an Arab and Talk:List of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars), the reported editor shows an ownership behavior and is actively edit warring against several editors on List of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars in order to keep his version of the article : [53]. This editor has also been recently reported here by another user for irrelevant behavior towards other users ([54]). Administrators' input might be useful. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment The reported editor just self reverted after this report.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani, I self-reverted before the report. You have mentioned the previous ANI thread about me while reverting me. It seems that you were acting like a provocateur agent. Also, the name of Averroes has been in that article for years. You will have to get consensus to remove the name from the list. You reverts are in violation of WP:BRD and WP:QUO.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Also note that there is a RfC in the talk page and Wikaviani has chose to editwar and to implement his edit and change the long-standing version without consensus via editwarring.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Provocateur agent" : I thought you were able to respect your own words (in the above report) and desist from making baseless accusations, seems like i was wrong ...

I quote you : "I am not going to make any mean comment towards any editor or admin. I promise." (above report, "Apologies" section).

The status quo version is not a version that has to remain forever and ever, unsourced content may be removed and the sources you tried to add have been labeled as unreliable by the reliable sources noticeboard (and an extensive discussion also occurred on the talk pages of Averroes), thus, i removed Averroes from the list, but if that RfC concludes for inclusion, i'll have no problem with adding Averroes back to the list.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• The longstanding version included his name. Could you tell me why did you show up today and started reverting me? You have voted in the that RfC while the name was included there. What happened today that you started reverting me? You started reverting me and citing that unfortunate ANI report, it was provocative to do that. Also, there was no "extensive discussion" there were me and you and the other editor who we had dispute with. There are no reliable sources that dispute that Averroes is an Arab and all reliable sources were saying he is an Arab. The other editor told me to find sources for his tribal origin (which isn't related to being an Arab) and then started changing the goalpost and I just felt bored from that discussion. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Could you tell me why did you show up today and started reverting me?" : Sure, i hadn't notice that the name was still in the list while the reliable sources noticeboard already debunked the so-called sources needed to support inclusion ...

"There are no reliable sources that dispute that Averroes is an Arab and all reliable sources were saying he is an Arab." : So why weren't you able to find a single one that is supporting the Arab claim ? I see no reason to keep discussing with someone who refuses to get the point. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

When you voted in the RfC the name was in the article, you didnt notice the name?

I have provided multiple sources for the Arab origin including encyclopedia of Islam by Brill. There is not a single reliable source that dispute he is an Arab, thats what the WP:RSN editor said.

I can find tons of sources that support the Arab ethnicity like [55] (info about the author [56]. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"The other editor told me to find sources for his tribal origin (which isn't related to being an Arab) and then started changing the goalpost and I just felt bored from that discussion."

• You're misrepresenting my points for the millionth time. I said, "Arab philosopher/writer/poet, etc are just generic designations. It can mean anything from an arabic-speaking Iranian to an Andalusian with unknown tribal affiliations. Are there any sources that talks about the Arab origin of his family? His tribal claims (Tanukh, Kinda, Zuhr, Taghlib, Qays, etc)? You know that the majority of people in Al-Andalus were claiming arab tribal affiliations, but they were muladi/Berber/Saqaliba in origin? It's like claiming that the Hammudids were Berbers (by using tangential mentions of Berber in reliable sources), but finding that they were Idrisids when using more detailed accounts of their origins." and Even reading about his grandfather Ibn Rushd al-Jadd shows that little is known about them, "Ibn Rushd al-Jadd was born in Cordova in Shawwāl 450/December 1058. Little is known about the origins and activities of his family. To judge by the short genealogy provided by early biographers, it seems that he was the first member of his family to gain renown. It is not until IbnʿAbd al-Malik al-Marrākushī (d. 703/1303) that we find a short entry on Ibn Rushd’s father included in a biographical dictionary: “Aḥmad b. ..... b. Rushd, a man of science, excellence and integrity (ʿadāla), was still alive in 482/1089.” Subsequently, the Maghribī historian al-Maqqarī provided what appears to be the complete genealogy of Ibn Rushd al-Jadd: Abū l-Walīd Muḥammad b. Aḥmad .......... b. Rushd. This suggests that it was the grandfather of Ibn Rushd’s great-grandfather...who converted to Islam. Assuming that the average lifespan in al-Andalus was forty lunar years, and that twenty-five was the average age of conversion, Ibn Rushd’s ancestors would have converted to Islam about the middle of the 3rd/9th century, approximately two centuries after the Muslims arrived in the Iberian Peninsula."

• In the RFC I gave one of the most reliable sources about his life/works/ideas, Averroès et l'averroïsme, XIIe–XVe siècle: un itinéraire historique du Haut Atlas by the authors (Andrés Bazzana (Archaologist), Nicole Bériou (Medievalist), Pierre Guichard (Medievalist)), where the authors says about his family, "La famille des Banu Rushd est une famille des juristes, probablement d'origne indigène (muwallad), très réputés...." (trans. The Banu Rushd family is a family of jurists, probably of native origin (muwallad), very famous....").
• But you're still persisting that "There are no reliable sources that dispute that Averroes is an Arab and all reliable sources were saying he is an Arab. The other editor told me to find sources for his tribal origin (which isn't related to being an Arab) and then started changing the goalpost". Your attachment to the supposed Arab origin after giving you all the evidence is concerning! -TheseusHeLl (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  You firstly asked for a source that calls him Arab then said Arab philospher/writer/poet, etc are just generic designations. It can mean anything from an arabic-speaking Iranian to an Andalusian with unknown tribal affiliations. Are there any sources that talks about the Arab origin of his family? His tribal claims (Tanukh, Kinda, Zuhr, Taghlib, Qays, etc)?. Then you said sources are old. Also, please dont make those long links. I cant really read them.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have provided tons of sources that proves that he is an Arab. Your "archaeologists" authors are not experts in the subject of history. I have provided sources from notable historians and just few mins ago I provided Albrecht Classen [57]. You have cherry-picked a non-English source from non-experts or notable figures in the subject? Non-Arab claim seems to be fringe here as there are more sources that support his Arab origin than your non-English source.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so you're saying that the authors (Andrés Bazzana (Archaologist), Nicole Bériou (Medievalist), Pierre Guichard (Medievalist)) are not experts in the subject of history. and your professor of german studies is an experts in the subject of history. You have cherry-picked a non-English source from non-experts or notable figures in the subject? Non-Arab claim seems to be fringe here as there are more sources that support his Arab origin than your non-English source. Wtf are you talking about? I rest my case -TheseusHeLl (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Albrecht Classen is a German Medievalist, Encyclopaedia of Islam is written by multiple experts. [58] Rémi Brague a Historian. Jon_Stewart_(philosopher) a philosopher and a historian of philosophy [59] and more and more sources you have rejected.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Jesus! Now you're trying to change people's minds. 1.professor of german studies. 2. old edition of EI. 3.philospher and historian of philosophy. 4.philosopher and historian of philosophy all of these sources mentions Arab superficially. For the billionth time, can you gave a source that goes in detail about this supposed Arab origins? You know that the article is a good article for a reason? And your claim that "You have cherry-picked a non-English source from non-experts or notable figures in the subject? Non-Arab claim seems to be fringe here as there are more sources that support his Arab origin than your non-English source." doesn't hold water. The book is multi-authored monograph that goes in detail about his life/work/ideas... You JUST DONT LIKE IT -TheseusHeLl (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Why is this very obvious content dispute being played out here? Should it not be on the talk pages of the relevant article(s)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:Just a quick question are these three authors (Andrés Bazzana (Archaologist), Nicole Bériou (Medievalist), Pierre Guichard (Medievalist)) not experts in the subject of history'? and is this a valid concern in the case You have cherry-picked a non-English source from non-experts or notable figures in the subject? Non-Arab claim seems to be fringe here as there are more sources that support his Arab origin than your non-English source' -TheseusHeLl (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Again, these are not relevant concerns on ANI. Discussion on article talk pages or at WP:RSN is what's called for. ANI is not the proper venue for content disputes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I reported SharabSalam because of his disruptive behavior (edit warring against several users, refusal to accept the reliable sources noticeboard's decision, etc ...), not because of the content dispute.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"I reported SharabSalam because of his disruptive behavior ... not because of the content dispute." Nevertheless, the content dispute is what's made up the largest part of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the issue here is the disruptive behavior of the reported editor, not the content dispute (and according to me, there is not a content dispute any longer, since the user failed to provide reliable sources that support an Arab ethnicity). Not all editors engaged in a content dispute behave disruptively, but SharabSalam often does.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I have provided reliable sources. There is an ongoing RfC in the talk page. You're the one who is violating WP:QUO here. You are calling me disruptive, basically because I disagreed with your removal of Ibn Rushd. This seems clear WP:BOOMERANG. And the rush to admin noticeboard with the reference to my above thread multiple times and in the edit summaries etc seems suspicious.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If you provided reliable sources then WHY DID THE RSN SAY THEY WERE NOT ???

And again, the discussion about Averroes' ethnicity ended up on talk:Averroes with YOU quitting without having been able to provide reliable sources for inclusion, thus, the status quo version was not relevant any longer, this is why i reverted you. Also, please desist from conspiracy theories like "the rush to admin noticeboard with the reference to my above thread multiple times and in the edit summaries etc seems suspicious."---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I didnt quit because I wasnt able to provide sources. I have provided multiple high-quality sources. I quit because I felt bored from that discussion when we went to impasse. Also, that RSN only one editor participated, do you think that is enough consensus? Also, it didnt address the sources from the medievalists etc. You are clearly trying to implement your removal without going through consensus building but instead you thought it is a good idea to revert now and rush to the ANI as I had a problem in ANI just yesterday.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani, there is an ongoing RfC. The longstanding version included his name. You have violated WP:QUO and WP:BRD. Also, I made 2 reverts and self-reverted before your report. Can you tell me why did you start editwarring today with the reference to my ANI thread in your edit summaries?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I already answered to that, just read my above response.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is your response?. The longstanding version included his name. There is an ongoing RfC since like one week, you came and reverted me. You have violated WP:QUO which says During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo. I see a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG here. And it seems based on the fact that you started talking about my ANI thread and quickly run into this noticeboard that you were trying to report me so that admins say oh this is the same user from yesterday etc etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

My response was here. Again, inclusion needs reliable sources, thus no reliable sources = no inclusion.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani, the sources I brought were reliable. This is the dispute. You have violated WP:QUO which says During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo. There is an ongoing request for comment in the talk page about whether to include or to remove. You are implementing your preferred version through editwarring not through consensus building.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"the sources I brought were reliable." So why the reliable sources noticeboard said they were not ?? This is not a content dispute anymore, and since we have not been able to find reliable sources to support inclusion, the removal of Averroes' name from the list sounds legit. Good night.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani, what? Thats one editor who said that. Thats not consensus. I have also added more sources. It is a content dispute and you are reverting the long-standing version while there is an ongoing RfC. WP:BOOMERANG?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"the removal of Averroes' name from the list sounds legit"

It may sounds legit to you but its not to me you cant implement your preferred version through editwarring. Wikipedia handles content dispute through consensus building.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the RSN said that your sources were not reliable : [60] but you refused to accept that and kept esit warring. For your information, Wikipedia rules also say no sources = no inclusion ( WP:VER ), thus, the status quo version was not relevant any longer. Won't waste my time repeating 10 times the same things. Done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There was one unrelated editor who participated in that discussion about one source. Do you think thats consensus? There is an ongoing RfC I have provided multiple high-quality sources. You are clearly trying to implement your removal without going through consensus building but instead you thought it is a good idea to revert now and rush to the ANI as I had a problem here just yesterday.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is how RSN works, and you should know that. Also, i came here in good faith to report disruption, your conspiracy theory sounds like a baseless accusation, just like the ones you "promised" to desist from 24 hours ago ...

And as soon as i noticed your self revert, i came here to mention it. All i want is to stop the disruption, nothing else.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is what happened:

1. There is an ongoing RfC that started one week ago in the talk page of the article. Wikaviani had participated in that RfC. This was like one week ago.
2. Today, Wikaviani reverted to the disputed removal twice while referencing my ANI unfortunate thread which I had apologized for without any delay.
3. I made only 2 reverts and I self-reverted before Wikaviani's report because I felt that Wikaviani wants to make the report so that Admins say this is the user from yesterday etc from the edit summary he wrote, Wikaviani rushed to the ANI thread.

• I really hate this place (God knows) but what should I do?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:53, 27 April 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, overt POV Edits of Richard K. Morgan 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.

---

Since Dec. 2019, Tarnval Kovacs has repeatedly edited author Richard K. Morgan's page to allege that he is transphobic. Multiple editors have reverted the edits (and, since this is a BLP, I feel this has been the appropriate response.) This editor has never edited any page other that Morgan's page. We've tried explaining things on the Talk page, to no avail. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Never mind...appears their account has already been blocked. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 14:14, 27 April 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 addition of unsourced info

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

---

Despite a previous block for this very reason, several warnings on their talk page and a final one issued only 2 days ago, Harry-Oscar 1812 appears to believe WP:V does not apply to him. Some examples of their unsourced edits can be seen here, here, here, here & here and their only response to date has been a rather sarcastic "Ok, don't get your panties in a twist!". I'd be most appreciative if a willing admin would remind this user of the importance of reliable sourcing as warnings on their talk page seem to have little effect. Robvanvee 09:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 27 April 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 "Vidya Vox" page

Editor Sharon009 continues to make edits without explanation or sources to the "Vidya Vox" page, specifically editing the subject's birthdate/year. Myself and two other users have attempted to engage with this user both by initially reverting and asking for edit clarifications and sources as well as messaging the user on their Talk page, to no avail. The user has not responded to our attempts to engage or reach out whatsoever. I warned the user that if they continue doing so without engaging with us that I would post on a noticeboard and unsurprisingly they still are edit-warring. I don't want to break the three-revert rule and even if I reverted their edit, I am sure they'd continue this behavior. I'd appreciate your help! Apoorva Iyer (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Warn - User is only a day old, it would be better to warn the user than block the user in a day. Kori (@) 18:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay! How do I go about doing that? And if they continue with this behavior, what should be my next steps? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Apoorva Iyer, The user has been warned, if Sharon continues their actions, then it would be a great idea for an administrator to block them, so the next step is to wait until an administrator comes in. Kori (@) 19:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Understood, thank you! Apoorva Iyer (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Attempted outing

I'm reporting this here because it isn't actually WP:OUTING, just a poorly misplaced attempt. Oldschoolboxing (talk · contribs) left this comment on my talk page. If I was "Mr. Briggs", then this would be a clear violation of the aforementioned policy. Fortunately for the user in question, I'm not "Mr. Briggs", but I still believe some kind of warning is needed (from somebody other than myself) to prevent such actions in the future. – ².O.^Boxing 21:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Mr. Briggs" is an insult. --MrClog (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a new (and odd) one. Not really quite sure how that would relate to me reverting his edit, but ok (I think? Lol). Any idea who the "Benji" in that apparent insult would be? – ².O.^Boxing 21:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as a google search of "Mr. Briggs insult" brings up nothing of the sort, and there's only one entry with three likes on urbandictionary, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree and say that was an attempt at outing. – ².O.^Boxing 21:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I asked them on the talk page. It may be an attempted outing, by the way (I had never head of the insult before either). We'll see what they have to say. --MrClog (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suspect the urbandictionary entry may have been written by someone who disagreed with the grades his teacher gave him ... Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Benji and Nick (Briggs). It's just silliness. Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, thank you. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 05:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just looked through my edits and noticed one of my most recent edits before the comment on my talk page was to an article created by somebody known as Benji (not outing, he has the details on his user page. Bennyaha). He has two excuses to use now because of you pair anyway lol no bother. It's done no harm to anybody, might as well forget about it. – ².O.^Boxing 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Mr. Briggs may refer to a song by Blur, which quite literally says "Is deaf and dumb to what you say", and "He walked around in circles but only in his head". Although it might also not be what Oldschoolboxing was referring to. Kori (@) 19:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Imitation account CanterburyHead

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

---

Towards the end of last year ago I reverted an edit by OrtusOrigin (talk · contribs) on the article Chai River Reservoir which they said was based on their personal experience of fishing with their grandparents. I reverted it due to there being no sources for the statement. Fast forward to just over a week ago and OrtusOrigin was blocked indefinitely for vandalism by Keith D (this was completely separate to this point.) Anyway a few days ago my reversion on the Chai River Reservoir was reverted by an IP, 138.75.140.6, so I reverted it as block evasion of OrtusOrigin. They reinstated 4 days later and I reverted again, same reason. Now today a brand new account entitled CanterburyHead (talk · contribs) (clearly based on my account name) was created, reverted my edit, and posted profanity on their user page. Clearly block evasion, clearly an account created just to harass me. I could just outright block them, but there could be an interpretation of involved going on here. So I'm asking someone else to do the necessaries. Note: I have not posted a notice on their page in order to deny them the attention they're clearly after. Canterbury Tail talk 11:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: an abundance of caution indeed. But I think, per WP:INVOLVED, an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role...is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor, and as such, wrt blocking them any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. All the best! ——SN54129 11:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup and normally wouldn’t hesitate. However once it became account impersonation I decided to back off. Canterbury Tail talk 11:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done I can understand that either thing can be done. I've blocked the account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks zzuuzz. Canterbury Tail talk 11:40, 28 April 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.

Administrator for Indigenous people in video games

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

---

Hi, A group of us are trying to update the wikipage Indigenous people in video games as well as create pages for various Indigenous game designers. A user is wholesale deleting sections citing "self-promotion". We have reverted their changes but they continue to press even though it's obvious that this is a page in desperate need of updating. This user has a history of targeting new pages and users and deleting their content. We would like to request an admin for this page so that we can resolve any issues like this without bogging down our volunteers who are trying to help update information on Indigenous video games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ByrneOuts (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

ByrneOuts, there is a big red banner at the top of this page saying that you have to notify other editors when you raise a report about them here, but I'm not seeing anything on Creffett's talk page from you. For the convenience of others, the article is Indigenous people in video games. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not an administrative matter. It should be resolved in the usual means of article talk page discussion. El_C 14:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with El C, I'm seeing nothing here that warrants any administrator intervention just yet, but to be clear, there is nothing wrong with what creffett has done. They removed a lot of content, explaining why they were doing so in their edit summary; rather than discuss it on the talk page, ByrneOuts and Dnakmigziwnan reinstated it. Creffett did not then revert you again, but started a talk page thread to discuss the matter. There is nothing wrong with creffett's conduct; the OP needs to engage in discussion, find a consensus, and then proceed accordingly. I'll notify Dnakmigziwnan of this discussion now. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm WP:INVOLVED, of course (wow, I think this is the first time someone has reported me to AN/I!), but yup, content dispute. No objection to extra input to the discussion in case I did go overboard with my removals, there's a reason my edit summary said I was BOLDly removing - that's usually my way of saying "I think this big action is the right thing but am open to challenge if you think otherwise." creffett (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, hold on a sec: "this user has a history of targeting new pages and users?" That was a little uncalled for. creffett (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

ByrneOuts - creffett makes a good point - why did you say that about them? Unevidenced accusations about other users' conduct are not acceptable - you should either provide evidence to support your accusation, or retract the statement. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

ByrneOuts, the way to retract a statement is far from obvious, so there's no blame attached to your not knowing how to do it, but it is to edit your previous comments to use the <strike></strike> tags, for example content that you want to retract. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been resolved with reasonable discussion on the article talk page, and I'm happy to forgive ByrneOuts's comment above as being out of frustration, so I recommend closing this. creffett (talk) 12:53, 27 April 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.

Disruption by IP

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

---

This is a simple one. Static IP, 172.127.114.212 (talk · contribs) continually edit-warring over their preferred version of the plot section of Shazam! (film), continually bloats the plot with the same irrelevant detail despite multiple talk page warnings and being reverted by myself and a couple other editors (example 1, example 2). The IP has done this half a dozen times or more over the past week and a half and has never attempted to engage in conversation despite multiple warnings (has never made an edit in talk space, in fact). Since it's a static IP, they can easily be blocked to curb the disruption. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As it's a static IP and seems devoted primarily to disrupting that one page, I've just done a 3-month partial block to prevent them editing that particular page. If their disruption extends anywhere else, by all means let me know and I'll make it a full block. ~ mazca ^talk 15:11, 28 April 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:TFBCT1

The following discussion is closed. 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 uninvolved editor just closed Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing with a weak consensus on proposal 5 which reads "Keep and rank all reliably-sourced entries, per general Wikipedia policy. Bring this article in line with national lists of oldest people." I have been reverted more than 3 times now for re-ranking the names on the list accordingly by this one editor. He/she opposed the proposal, and reverted with this rationale: "strong recommendation for further discussion, adding any other source other than GRG may need additional editors consensus" The problem with that is the closer wrote "editors should discuss the reliability of sources either here or at RSN before adding them", as in the sources already added in the article are assumed to be already reliable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure longevity us under DS. EEng 00:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That it is, I am looking for a solution as I was trying to implement a consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The closer wrote “ There is a weak consensus for proposal 5, which would allow for the use of sources that generally meet Wikipedia's reliability standards to be used to support the addition of ranked entries to this list. Examples of such sources were not discussed here in detail, so while this opens the door for the use of sources other than the Gerontology Research Group, editors should discuss the reliability of sources either here or at RSN before adding them, and it is entirely possible that the GRG will continue to be the only source able to win the approval of enough editors to be used here.“ Knoledgekid87 did not follow this at all with discussion before adding them on the talk page or an RSN and took it upon themselves just to add them contrary to the decision of the RFC.TFBCT1 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There was no issue with the sources already present in the article though, the proposal was in favor of "all reliably-sourced entries". You keep missing the "before adding them" part for new sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I may be completely not understanding this then. You’re saying the closer only meant for future entries, not current ones. My apologies, I will change it back.TFBCT1 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes this is what the closer meant, and no worries it happens. Nobody here wants a badly sourced article so as long as the sources used are reliable then it can be ranked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The edit has been undone and this can now be closed as a misunderstanding. Sorry for the heated exchange. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 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:Fabulouers and User:Courrecx

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

---

Fabulouers and Courrecx are both newly created users whose edits to date are overlapping vague/non-policy-based keep nominations at various AfDs and the recently-created article Don Manson. I suspect there is some sockpuppetry, possibly related to the now-blocked LTA Cabeyi, per this diff, this diff, and the !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marly (Almir Leka). I could use another set of eyes on this. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging TonyBallioni as the one who blocked the LTA account mentioned above. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Kinu, it seems we saw the same stuff and chose different venues - I raised an SPI case - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akelrimla. Cabayi (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I considered taking it to SPI originally, but figured someone else would eventually do so if my logic was indeed sound. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:23, 28 April 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

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

---

Ulughu Khan started editing barely 5 days ago and has been already warned by 6 different admins not to engage in disruptive editing, copyvio, original research or else he would face a block or topic ban.[61][62][63][64][65][66] After all that he has finally got edits like this to offer. The user is absolutely WP:NOTHERE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• I can second that complaint (as an editor who has reverted some of their edits). Despite the various warnings and advice that can be seen on their talkpage and attempts at discussion at Talk:Vedas, the user seems intent on edit-warring and using wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. Pretty disruptive. Abecedare (talk) 15:58, 28 April 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:Taresantia

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

---

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

A "new user", could an experienced editor/admin please look at this talk page—specifically, Taresantia's contributions to it—and then have a word. Or do something else. Many thanks! ——SN54129 17:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

After someone reported me here for entirely spurious reasons, I took it up with them. And that now results in another report here. Clearly, improvements to the encyclopaedia are most unwelcome here. Taresantia (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Plz block I have no idea what Taresantia's dispute with Qwirkle is, but Taresantia removed a post from Qwirkle on my talk page in violation of WP:REFACTOR. I reverted and issued a level 3 warning; Taresantia did it again, anyway. I don't see anything useful coming from this guy, so please block. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Make that three times. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

What would be really helpful would be if someone told the guy who just randomly decided to troll me by reporting me here spuriously then making a series of absolutely baseless personal attacks to not do that. User:Chris Troutman has taken it upon themselves to interfere, and now demands that I be blocked. I have never previously interacted with them. They have clearly never looked at the contributions I've made to the encyclopaedia. This whole situation, this whole absurd nastiness that seems now to be developing into a random pile-one of aggressive passers by, arose because I removed some badly-written text from an article. So you want to hound someone out for having the temerity to make an article better? Absolutely amazing. Taresantia (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

And yeah I removed a most obvious personal attack against me, as the rules say I can, and should. Taresantia (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The aggressive and often insulting tone of this user's edit summaries seem vaguely familiar. Compare them with this for example. Number 57 18:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Quite so, Number 57. Favonian (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

And there we have it. ——SN54129 18:38, 28 April 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:Lowercase sigmabot III is repeatedly archiving my open merger 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.

---

See Talk:Microsoft Office and Talk:Microsoft Office/Archive 4. My merger discussion should not be archived as it is open. How do I make sure the bot does not archive it again?--Officer781 (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I added Template:DNAU for you; it will stop archiving until you remove the tag. See here for more details. bibliomaniac15 02:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!--Officer781 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Personal attack through Labeling

A user (User:Flix11) attacked me personally by reverting my edit and harshly saying some terrible stuff, Should this user to be warned or banned in order to prevent similar attack in the future? Thanks for any responseQzxv5 (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Outdated issue reported by a clearly politically and ideologically non-neutral editor. Flix11 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Flix11 This is an old issue, dating back to January, but we have been through this at length in the CVUA course - vandalism is not the same thing as POV editing, and even in the case of true vandalism you should not insult editors through edit summaries (I find it hard to read 'rebellious jihadi' as anything but a personal attack). I have no view on the content, but surely you know by now that you shouldn't conduct yourself like this? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I have refrained from that behavior lately. I do not know his agenda to up this issue after 3 months. Flix11 (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Flix11, if you check the user's contributions history, they've made hardly any edits since that revert - it's likely that they've only just noticed that you said that, there's no need to assume that they have an agenda in raising it. I've looked through your contribs over the last few weeks and I'm not seeing any recent edit summaries like that, but you and I have discussed that at length in the past, and this isn't the first time it's been raised here at ANI. It has to stop. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit It has been stopped. Flix11 (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"rv PoV edit" would've sufficed. Juxlos (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Flix11, that's bad enough to warrant revdeletion. It's maybe water under the bridge for some, but having this edit summary is a violation of the BLP and a host of other things. Girth Summit, I appreciate the coaching you've been doing--but if I were to see this right after it happened, I'd consider blocking for it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, in fairness to Flix11, their more recent contribs don't show any other edit summaries like this at all, I do think they have stopped doing it. Flix11, I hope you appreciate how serious this is. You say it has stopped, and I believe you - but it has stopped before, and then started up again. It needs to have stopped permanently, or people will lose patience. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Girth Summit. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Girth Summit, Drmies. I will keep my patience to the best of my ability. Flix11 (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Jbuigat's dubious edits on Cagayan-related articles

• Jbuigat (talk · contribs) made an article about a certain man, Niño Kevin D. Baclig (probably him), and their group, Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society. The latter may pass as a valid Wikipedia article but the former one got deleted.

• Kept on quoting an inexistent references written by Niño Kevin D. Baclig (the article he created) and putting it in the following articles: Isabela (province) (here), Camalaniugan (here),Allacapan (here), Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Tuguegarao (here), Tuguegarao Cathedral (here), Aparri (here), Historiography of the Philippines (here), Gonzaga, Cagayan (here), Gattaran(here), Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya (here), and Ilocano writers (here).

• Put an edit note [67] which might have been the start of his editing pattern.

Check his contributions on the following articles on the second bullet. I already did the reversion of his edits together with SciPunk (talk · contribs) who notified me of his editing behavior.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

He has been editing these articles and adding unsourced terms to some of the articles, like this one. Kori (@) 18:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

User:HAL333

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

---

Yesterday, F. Scott Fitzgerald passed WP:GAN. In my opinion, the review was lacking and it appeared to have passed simply so the reviewer could add it to their Wikicup tally. I offered a very lengthy review, here, of why I thought it was not worthy of being a GA. The article was so bad that I only managed to complete one section. I left a note for the reviewer voicing my concerns that they were passing a low-quality article, simply to boost their qualifying statistics for the Wikicup. Then along comes HAL333, the nominating editor, who issues this personal attack on Starsandwhales's talk page. I revert it, but it gets put back by Starsandwhales. Meanwhile, back on the article talk page, HAL333 makes another personal attack. They then publicly deride my work (also see previous diff), referencing some of the FAs on my user page that I have worked on. When I correct Hal333 about them not being "circus freaks", but rather music hall artistes, HAL333 finally issues this piece of casual xenophobia. Not good, especially since I took a lot of time to review an article they had worked on with a view to improving it. This was not something I was obliged to do, but I chose to, dispute our differences, in order to work alongside HAL333 in order to help improve it, at least to GA standard. HAL333 then tells me that they are "done with this conversation". Clearly not "done with [the] conversation", HAL333 pings me today and offers this very curt and evidently ungrateful response to my review. I reply appropriately about the article, not the editor, and ask them to leave me alone and to stop pinging me. HAL333 ignores my plea and pings me again, almost immediately after.

No stranger to these shores myself, I resent having to post here at all as it is quite often the most unproductive time of my day. I fling it, so I can take it. People are free to criticise the articles I work on, and even to challenge my reviews, respectfully. I don't even mind being called all the names under the sun. I do, however, object to being subjected to xenophobia and harassment. That, in my book, is well and truly crossing the line. Cassianto^Talk 16:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to defend my actions.

• Throughout these two discussions, I admit that I was was too harsh. But I did not initiate this interaction and it was Cassianto, who first began attacking Starsandwhales. I did not feel obliged to be courteous to an editor who was impolite from the get-go.
• I understand that Cassianto has a sort of "style" of interacting with editors, so I didn't take offense to his jabs. Such as when he said it was "hilarious watching (me) make a fool of (my)self" or when he described something which I did intentionally as a "schoolboy error." I apologize for attacking the merit of his articles, but I would like to point out that he did this to me first and I was simply countering. He first told me to "Go back to fiddling around with (my) boring Epstein article. He also told me to go back to "obsessing over infobox discussions". I find that peculiar as whenever I did it that, he told me that I should make contributions to attention-needing articles, which I did. Cassianto is a more experienced editor, but I don't appreciate his attacks on the quality of my editing. I am still somewhat of a novice and I'm trying to become good at creating GA articles.
• Since our past interactions on the Stanley Kubrick article, I have tried to mostly avoid Cassianto. Let sleeping dogs lie, right? But I believe there is an element of wikihounding. Back in March, he reverted one of my edits on an obscure Polish surname disambig. That was not an improvement and I can't imagine him visiting that article purely by chance. As Cassianto admits, he has no interest in the F. Scott Fitzgerald article, he only came "when (User:Starsandwhales) congratulated HAL333 (on what, I don't know)."

• I strongly reject the accusation of xenophobia, or racism as they initially called it. As I previously pointed out, my own father is British and if one were to visit my userpage, you would find my admiration for many British people and things, including Arthur C. Clarke, Monty Python, Mr. Bean, the BBC series Walking with Dinosaurs, and the expatriate Stanley Kubrick. I don't think my comment was a direct attack on the British people, but rather on their vernacular, hence "pompous semantics". I meant no ill will, it was meant more as a humorous prod, and I apologize if they found it upsetting.

• The only reason I returned to the conversation is that I made a DYK nomination for Fitzgerald, but the DYK won't be reviewed until Cassianto's grievances are resolved. I feel that if Cassianto involves himself with the GA process, he should finish helping me improve the article or at-least give some closure to his comments. At this point, all he has done is interrupt the DYK process, simply because he has a dislike for me. I would appreciate if we can get back to ensuring that the Fitzgerald article is good for GA, as I tried to do this morning. Thanks. ~ HAL333 17:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• "I understand that Cassianto has a sort of 'style' of interacting with editors" -- more bad faith. Cassianto^Talk 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• As a Brit, I don't mind being accused of using pompous semantics if anything that I have said can even remotely reasonably be interpreted in that way, but the difference between music hall and circus is enormous in any culture. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Good for you, but we're not talking about you, and the fact you see no problem with it, being British, doesn't make it all okay. If I'd have singled out Africans, Indians, or the Chinese, for example, for the same, I wonder how long it would be before I was blocked, irrespective of support from fellow countrymen? Cassianto^Talk 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm finding it difficult to understand your reply. Surely it was HAL333, not you, who equated music hall with circus? If this is the sort of reply that I get when supporting your position then I hate to think what would happen if I opposed you. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think it's clear what part of your comment I was opposing. Cassianto^Talk 18:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Then I can only conclude that you don't understand the word "if". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city. El_C 18:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• No great surprises in most of this. While the majority of people enter the WikiCup in the spirit in which it is meant, there are always those who will shortcut their way through the process. It's either that, or they are just not good enough to write their way out of a wet paper bag; I suspect we've got a combination of both here. When the battlefield approach and insults are expected from Hal33, it is a bit tiresome to see them yet again. Calling stage performers "20th century circus freaks"?? FFS - that language is a step away from a much darker and out-moded side of thinking of other people by genetic make up. - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that implication, but I am not a eugenicist. I had no intention of offending Cassianto and I apologize if I did. From my past interactions, such as when he suggested that I was a snowflake[68], I figured he was someone with a thick skin. ~ HAL333 18:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm such an arsehole, HAL333, that I volunteered off my own back to review an article you were connected with. I didn't have to. I didn't need to. I chose to, despite you being involved in it. We've butted heads at Kubrick, sure, but without any vindictive intention, I came to you to help out on an article you seem to care about. Why did I f*cking bother! Cassianto^Talk 19:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, I just want to state that I hold no grudges against you. I was just a little irked by your blunt message to Starsandwhales. We're both a little hot-headed and that can be bad recipe. I say we both try to be more gentle in our interactions and I would really appreciate if you could help me with that article. ~ HAL333 19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we can close this with a warning to HAL333. Cassianto is, indeed, often harsh, but is also incredibly productive. But as far as harshness go, I think HAL333 has crossed the line several times with at least two unfortunate mentions ("Brits," "circus freaks") as well as pinging Cassianto right after they've asked HAL333 to not ping them again — you cannot complain about hounding when you do that. Also, Cassianto is not obliged to do any further content work whatsoever in this regard. They are entitled to offer critical input into editorial processes as they see fit, per se. El_C 18:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Chill. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of even-handedness, we should either warn both or warn neither. Both Cassianto and HAL333 behaved like children during the Fitzgerald discussion and I can't believe anyone is really buying that Cassianto was genuinely offended by the 'pompous semantics' remark. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Stupid comments like this is why ANI has the name that it's got. CassiantoTalk 19:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Stupid comments like this are why I struggle to believe that you've suddenly joined up with the PC police. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC) I think you're efforts are best spent adding {{CatAutoTOC}} templates rather than making troll-like remarks here. CassiantoTalk 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC) I find it somewhat hypocritical that Cassianto takes offense to my (admittedly unfair) slight against his article interests, yet he proceeds to attack another editor for how they choose to contribute. ~ HAL333 19:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) ~cough~ AGF ~cough~ SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC) The second sentence of this thread contains a blatant assumption of bad faith. Get back to me when you've scolded Cassianto for that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Nice BATTLEFIELD approach you've got going here. When someone tries to dampen down the fires, is there any need to pour petrol on? Mind-blowingly crass piece of idiocy.... (And as for "stop attempting to abuse power than you don't even have"... you'll have to do better than that to get a rise. - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC) It looks a whole lot more like you tried to hide my remarks after myself and HAL333 drew attention behavior from Cassianto that you didn't want highlighted. If you are really trying to de-escalate, you're doing as poor a job as possible. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding the behavioral aspects: Everyone (and I don't mean just HAL333, though I do include him too) just stop being rude, and it's probably best for everyone to disengage with the people who have angered them in this thread. Regarding the content/GA aspect: there are mechanisms (WP:GAR, it looks like) to challenge a GA. Since I wouldn't know a GA if it came up to and stamped a big green plus sign on my forehead, I'll leave it to you all to read that process and figure out how it works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• To add to what Floquenbeam said; a lot of people are being bloody rude at the moment, and there's no cause to be. There's not much purpose served in examining in detail who was more rude and sooner. A fair number of Cassianto's objections are ones of style and preference that may be good ideas, but are not necessary at the GA level. A fair number are genuine issues of prose clarity, which is a GA criterion; but they can't be fixed if they are not raised by someone somewhere. A GAR is one possibility; a less formal talk page discussion is another. As a Wikicup judge, I will be taking a close look at Starsandwhales' contributions, but that's not a matter for ANI. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup? first I've heard of this item. Interesting. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by 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.

---

An IP user, 128.106.224.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been vandalising various pages related to Singapore, like leaders of Singapore as well as the Coronavirus page on Singapore with racist remarks and other test edits. Please do something. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. Please use WP:AIV for vandalism reports. Sandstein 08:01, 29 April 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.

Targeted harassment by User:Kingshowman socks

Since the closing of this SPI and my undoing of their edits, this user seems to have made me the target of harassment. The latest first wave was by the socks User:Fabulouers and the similarly-named User:Fabulouars and User:Fabuloures. The hounding is now taking the form of creating accounts similarly named to mine, including User:Kineu, User:Kiinu, and User:Kiinu, which are being used to undo my edits (for example, see the recent editing history at this AfD. Obviously the editor is able to circumvent the block, but if someone else has the tools to help mitigate this, I would appreciate it. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Also, I have semiprotected the AfD mentioned above, with my justification noted there. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Also, see this Afd, where Passengerpigeon is now being similarly targeted. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Would a sleeper check be of any help, or does Kingshowman exclusively use brand-new accounts? Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Block open proxy

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

---

39.114.168.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is an open proxy. It is running OpenVPN on port 1739 and 1569. It is currently blocked for 31h by Enterprisey for vandalism. Please block it for 3 months (ACB, not AO) with block reason {{blocked proxy}}: <!-- OpenVPN: 1739 & 1569 --> (for future reference). --MrClog (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

MrClog, done - correctly, I hope. What's the Twinkle setting for AO? I know it's an API parameter but nothing in the interface seemed to match. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: I'm not an admin, so I don't know what Twinkle's blocking interface looks like. However, your block is not anon. only, so it is done correctly. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: On Twinkle, you apparently checked the "Block logged-in users from using this IP address (hardblock)" box. Since AO (anon-only) is the opposite of a hardblock, checking this box turns off AO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, AO=anon-only, which is the default. Extending the block to logged in users=hardblock="not AO". You got it right, Enterprisey. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:22, 29 April 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.

Violation of community imposed topic ban by Edit5001

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

---

Edit5001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Three months ago, Edit5001 was topic banned by the community in this discussion from edits relating to American politics, race, and abortion.

Since then, he has edited the article on US political commentator Nick Fuentes pretty regularly ([69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]) and the US section of Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors ([77], [78], [79], [80]). He has also commented on the article about white supremacist Stefan Molyneux, where he continues to spew the same "both sides" bullshit to defend white supremacists that he did leading up to his topic ban.

As we have previously debated in an RfC on Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory (where he wanted us to include "evidence" for the racist conspiracy theory), I'm going to avoid accusations of involvement and let someone else pull the trigger. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's probably clear from my comments on the user's talk page, and the Fuentes talk page, but I consider Edit5001's recent edit to cross the line into vandalism or intentional trolling. Edit5001's change would replace transgender people with transgenderism. This term is uncommon outside of medical contexts, and is widely used in political contexts by anti-transgender activists, such as Fuentes, as a concealed slur (per GLAAD and others). Considering the implications and obscurity of this term, and Fuentes history with pedantic trolling, this was vandalism. The only reason to insist on this would be to prove a nasty point, or to use a slur in Wikipedia's voice. Grayfell (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As I respectfully told you, the source cited used the word transgenderism which is why I saw it more fitting. Edit5001 (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I was absent from Wikipedia for a few weeks and forgot the limitations of this topic ban, I meant to appeal it before moving forward. I apologize to the admins. I will mention I have also edited several other articles outside of these topics without issue and done fine with other users. Edit5001 (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't bother appealing, you've proven that the restrictions were only necessary (if not insufficient). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, you spent pretty much the entirety of January fighting the topic ban (before and after it was enacted). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'd propose an indef block. The previous discussion was closed by Bishonen with the imposition of these topic bans, as opposed to an indef, on the grounds of WP:ROPE - I'd suggest that with multiple violations of the TBAN, the rope has run out. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  If we're gonna !vote on it, then yeah, I'm obviously for an indef as well but I really posted this because I feel like any uninvolved admin can just go ahead and get to it without a 24 hour discussion of almost everyone stating the obvious. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been over 3 months since the topic ban was enacted and I intended to appeal it. I had an oversight and have apologized. An indefinite block would be very extreme. Edit5001 (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Over a dozen oversights that were the same behavior that lead to your topic ban to begin with, after spending the whole of January fighting said topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would also draw the community's attention to Simon of Trent, an article about an anti-semitic incident in 1475, which Edit5001 has been editing today to contest sourced material as dubious. Any commonsense understanding of a topic ban on "race" should surely extend to antisemitism? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The article isn't tagged in regards to Antisemitism. I also politely explained my issues with your changes on the Talk page and didn't violate any policies. Edit5001 (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked. It's been "over 3 months" so you forgot all about it? Right. Blocked indefinitely for persistent topic ban violations and not being here to build an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 11:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC).

Good block. This talk page discussion which was going on while Edit5001 was also writing in this thread rather proves the point that they had had sufficient rope and were also being disruptive in other areas of the encyclopedia – and if this and this are examples of what the editor considers respectful, well. --bonadea contributions talk 11:45, 29 April 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.

Recalcitrant user threatening to "en masse revert every article" I have touched

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

---

It is with heavy heart that I come here to request help from user:Neutralhomer. We have been having a dispute over the silliest thing, but he has become increasing unhinged, finishing with a threat to "en masse revert every article you have touched". He has threatened to come to ANI because I continue to change coordinates from (for example) 41°39′26.00″N 83°36′57.00″W to 41°39′26″N 83°36′57″W. This is in keeping with WP:CALC policy, and guidance in many other places. When I showed him that editors at his project long ago decided the issue, he plays the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card and threatened me, "tread very lightly", ANI, and mass reversion. Please let him know that his behavior is not conducive to building the encyclopedia. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 04:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Where does WP:CALC say to drop the decimal? (I know next to nothing about coordinates)--v/r - TP 04:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's rounding, a routine calculation. There is no carveout for coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 04:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@TParis: There is nothing "routine" about these calculations. These are the exact (or near exact) coordinations of radio station transmitters directly from the FCC database. What Abductive what's to do is input his own coordinates he has taken from Google Maps (see the history of WYFI, November 18, 2019) and that is clear OR. Not what we do here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:57 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I thought you were in the Air Force!? In this particular case [omit fascinating technical explanation related to how far from the equator you are] .01″ is roughly one foot. So what's with these ultraprecise values? Is someone planning a missile strike? The .00 were almost certainly simply tacked on and represent false precision. EEng 04:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a navigator.--v/r - TP 13:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Nor the bombardier, I hope. EEng 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Nope. I'm a 3D0X4...Computer Programmer. Haven't even left the United States (except for a Wikipedia hack-a-thon).--v/r - TP 01:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The Air Force has some really weird codes for job specialties. I'm a former Navy brat and my Dad was honorably discharged (after serving 14 years) with the rank of MM2, Machinist's Mate Second Class. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:32 on April 23, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@EEng: I think the FCC gives a margin for error of like 1,000 feet or something when it comes to their coords. Sometimes I'll look for a tower and it's dead on top of a coord. Sometimes, it's half way across a road in a field somewhere. I think the FCC gives it a "eh, close enough" margin. As long as it's not in the next county. :D - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Abductive has a habit of mismatching discussions, how they happen. This is one of them. This discussion is about Abductive's continued need to put the geocoords in radio station articles to the coords he finds on Google Earth. This is NOT how we do this. We use FCC documents. Numerous editors have told him this.

So today, April 22 of all days, he comes to me with an discussion from 2010 and tries to say that Dravecky, Closeapple, and I somehow came to an agreement that his way was how we were going to do things 10 years prior to him showing up.

Now, as most of you know, tomorrow, April 23 is when Dravecky left us 4 years ago. We at Wikipedia, we on this rock, are lesser for it every day. I miss talking science, talking radio, talking TV, just talking with Ed. He wasn't just someone I worked with, he was my friend.

So, for Abductive to bring up the name of Dravecky in his warped attempt to get his way, to change Wiki history, to change Wiki policy, is just disgusting and is a disservice to everything good about Dravecky. Yeah, I lost my temper, but all the good faith went out there along time ago for him and his "heavy heart". He can play the victim, fine. But he can do it away from the good name of Dravecky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I have no idea who the other editors are. The real question is, why do you care so much between 26.00 and 26? The articles you are exerting WP:OWNERSHIP over are the only ones like this on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 04:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The abuse continues. Abductive (reasoning) 04:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Dravecky was an editor and admin on this project, mostly radio and TV stations, sci-fi too, from June 7, 2007 (with his first edit, fittingly of Starfleet International) until his last on April 23, 2016, the day he passed away. That's all you need to know.

He taught me that the FCC Database is the end all, be all database, it is a highly notable reliable source and none other is more reliable. When it says 26.00, you put 26.00. If it says 25.65, you put 25.65. Because a Federal Government Database is the end all, be all and in radio and television, the FCC is the top. That's not OWNership, that's what I was taught by an editor who knew exactly what he was doing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:45 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Dude, you literally just said above that the FCC is erroneous: "Sometimes I'll look for a tower and it's dead on top of a coord. Sometimes, it's half way across a road in a field somewhere. I think the FCC gives it a "eh, close enough" margin." Why then do we believe that it is so precise? Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Because it's the FCC and it's a source. Plus, 8 times out of 10, it's dead on top of the coord anymore. :) We still don't do original research regardless if a tower is in the woods 500 feet from where it should be. That could be a station lying to the FCC (it happens more often than you think). You don't get to pick and choose what policies you want to follow. OR is a biggie, everyone follows it. What you see on Google Maps, doesn't matter squat. FCC is golden. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

It's a primary source and clearly incorrect in some cases. But that doesn't matter to rounding what they say to remove superfluous zeroes. Abductive (reasoning) 05:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: Where is it incorrect and who says to remove superfluous zeroes and round? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

You said above that the FCC gives a margin for error of like 1,000 feet or something. In light of that, giving decimal seconds (which translates to /- 1 foot) is absurd. EEng 13:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Please, you're gonna have to explain decimal seconds and their "translation" into feet, I don't understand it. :( I was force-passed in Math 11 because I just didn't "get" adding decimals. Anyway, I said I think the FCC gives a margin for error. I pulled a number out of the air (among other places). The towers I looked at could have been mis-coorded by the station (again, it happens more-often than you think) and it was off because of that. I don't believe there is an official on the books margain for error at the FCC, just when you look at the towers, it seems that way. That could be the NAD27 to NAD83 coords, everything going to GPS now (along with NAD83). I don't know. It was my belief there was. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:15 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Without going into a long song and dance, if you move from 41°39′26.00″ to 41°39′26.01″ you've only moved one foot (roughly); moving to 41°39′26.02″ is another foot away, etc. [81] So two questions arise.

First, even if a coordinate like 41°39′26.00″ is exactly right, what real purpose does it serve to give something so precise i.e. precise to /- 1 foot? If you leave the .00 off i.e. just say 41°39′26″, you're giving the location to /- 100 feet, and isn't that good enough?

But second (and more important), all those .00s are almost certainly not correct. It's like if a computerized list of people's heights listed 67.00 inches, 72.00 inches, 69.00 inches, 70.00 inches. Would you conclude that these four people were really measured to the nearest hundredth of an inch and that -- just by chance -- every one of them, when measured, all happened to have heights which are an exact, precise, whole number of inches, with no hundredths? Or would you conclude that the stupid computer just added the .00 because of the way it's programmed? Obviously the latter, and that's why including the .00 in these coordinates makes no sense. They're a computer artifact, not real data -- in technical terms false precision. I hope this helps. EEng 16:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Where were you when I was in 11th grade? :) I think the purpose has been to quote the source exactly as it is written to avoid OR and V/RS issues. Now, let me give you an example of where the issue lies there. Take WINC-FM for instance, currently showing the transmitter coords as 38°57′21.0″N 78°1′28.0″W. Well, according to the FCC database, that was correct...under NAD27. Under NAD83, their coords are now 38°57'21.30"N 78°1'26.90"W. That's far more exact. Instead of putting WINC-FM's tower somewhere in the woods, maybe near a cell tower. It has it dead next to it's actual tower. Most, if not all, pages, need to be updated to NAD83. That would make this entire discussion completely moot. That's a LOT of radio stations and typically it's Mlaffs, myself, and a few dedicated others doing the gnome-ish work around here. We would need help, a bot maybe. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:15 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

When I was 17 years old, (decades before GPS) because he wasn't into latitude and longitude and maps, my boss had me fill those co-ordinates out for FCC applications for repeater type radio transmitters. Whatever I wrote on the form became the official FCC coordinate listing for the transmitter.  :-) North8000 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I only responded to your abuse. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:47 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

• I just looked up "recalcitrant". adjective: having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority or discipline. noun: a person with an obstinately uncooperative attitude. I'll take that as a compliment. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Wow has it really been four years already... :/

This seems like something that could be resolved by getting a couple other people involved in the dispute. Just to try to drill down to the specific issue: FCC vs. Google Maps. AFAIK we allow use of Google Maps to produce coords for articles on basically every other subject, so I guess it's probably considered a fine source for that? I think it's pretty standard to not even include a source, since it can be verified by clicking on the coords and seeing the subject? The how-to at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates doesn't include adding a citation and I don't see anything about citing where you got it at Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates (maybe I've missed it). Putting aside the other issues here for a moment, I'm struggling to see why we would need to rely on the FCC specifically for radio towers, if they're sometimes imprecise, when we have other data available? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Abductive: You've not demonstrated that there was a previous consensus for your view and WP:CALC is so generic that it's a mile long stretch to argue that it requires your viewpoint. You two need to go get a third opinion. Quit bickering and leave each other alone. And quit the mass changes until an actual consensus is developed. Start a formal request for comment if neccessary.--v/r - TP 13:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Warning: @Neutralhomer: I'm considering blocking you for a decent chunk of time for returning to the battlefield behavior that led to all your previous blocks (and which resulted in a block this past January). I thought we'd turned the corner on this; it is not acceptable to resume that. I very strongly suggest that you stop editing for a few days to regain perspective. Several of your comments above, and in diffs presented by Abductive, are beyond the pale. I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute; for all I know, you're right. That can be determined when you've regained perspective. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Also, yes, TParis's suggestion that both stop with any mass changes until a clear consensus is formed is spot on too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: I'm man enough to admit that I might have over-reacted...but I miss my friend. You know I found out on my birthday in 2016? So to have Abductive come up with a discussion that him and I took part in a little over 24 hours before he passed away 4 years ago, it really struck a nerve. I believe that was what it was meant to do. I fell for that.

Moving on, anyway, I have never used anything other than FCC documents to make changes to radio station (and other media) pages. That's just how I was taught. Plus, since that is our primary source, it is the Federal Government, it's always been considered something that's been allowed to exist as a unicorn (for lack of a better word, I just woke up) within CALC, within other rules because anything else could be considered OR when viewed beside the FCC source.

Generally, I don't make masses changes to radio station pages when it comes to their coords (ie: changing just the last couple numbers, rounding). I only change them when they have been updated (the FCC is doing that in their en masse update to NAD83 (and so there isn't towers 500 feet from where their coords are), when a tower has been moved (see WNOR), and when I'm updating a page (doing a page refresh, it's rare anymore). I don't mess with coords. I just don't do it. As I said above, I use what is on the FCC website, I take that as gospel, and that's it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:05 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

• Just a comment here. I can see Neutralhomer's point. We report on what others say. What should be the coordinates of a tower is what the FCC says they are. Their databases are used for navigation by many commercial, government and private interests. For radio transmitters, it's what we should use. In other fields, yes, tenths and hundredths of seconds are completely superfluous and should be rounded. If your a matter of tenths of a second away from whatever you are locating, you are there. However, if you are 75 miles away from one transmitter you are triangulating off of and 100 miles from the other, those rounding errors multiply geometrically and now the location you've triangulated for yourself is off by thousands of feet. John from Idegon (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • One other point: for most locations we give coordinates the worst end result is they are wrong. Radio towers are frequently used for navigation (air land and sea). Incorrect location information on them could be life or death information. John from Idegon (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

    Because a pilot might check Wikipedia to navigate while flying IFR? Seriously? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

    Levivich, on our airport pages, the layout and runway images all?? say, that they are not for navigation or pilot usage. When a pilot starts a flight, they check the NOTAM's and any information they need for the flight. They don't check Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

    Those NOTAMs Sir Joseph mentioned are based off FCC coordinates. They aren't always correct. Even FAA coordinates for radio/television towers are based off the FCC database. Those coords come from the broadcasters themselves. Here's an example of a station broadcasting from where they shouldn't be and getting busted for it back in 2018. So, while the FCC is almost always correct, it does rely on broadcasters in an almost honor system. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

    If you're navigating based on a set of coordinates you imported from Wikipedia, you richly deserve the controlled flight into terrain that will probably follow. Choess (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

    Yeah, perhaps, but given wiki’s powers of citogenesis, it might be soon possible for someone to have that sort of error made for them. Better, always, to be right than consistent if it is a choice that has to be made. Qwirkle (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

    Actually, I would counsel sprinkling in intentional errors here and there, and advertise that we do so, as a way of convincing people not to fly their planes off our data. EEng 15:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

    I read Wikipedia while high, but I never use it to navigate. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

    • Did it ever occur to any of you that there is a need to navigate things other than aircraft? I've found my way out of rugged territory on foot using radio triangulation, and a radio and compass were the only nav tools I ever used crossing Lake Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      • So you're saying Wikipedia was not one of those nav tools. I think we can agree nobody is using Wikipedia to navigate anything anywhere, so if our coords are off, it's not a life or death mistake. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• The underlying content dispute here would probably best be addressed at some other forum, perhaps WT:WPRS though there may be a better one that I'm missing. I will add briefly that WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed as long as they are used only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I will also add that rounding is covered by WP:CALC. Ultimately the choice of what degree of precision to display is an editorial one, and there is room for good-faith disagreement among well meaning people on that question. If there are concerns over the reliability of sources in context, that would probably be best addressed at WP:RSN. Finally, going forward remember to comment on content, not the contributor. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Popping in to add my two cents, just because I was name-checked earlier on. Is it worth going to the mattresses over whether or not transmitter co-ordinates should go down to the feet if the co-ordinate ends in "00"? Of course it's not, and this didn't need to escalate like that. Am I, personally, especially fussed if the "00" isn't included in a co-ordinate? No, not really, I guess – I'm just trying to stay alive right now. But would it be easier if there were consistency from radio station article to radio station article and they all used full NAD83 co-ordinates, including any "00"? Of course, because we can verify those co-ordinates with the FCC database, which is our gold standard in reliable sources for this information.

All that said, I'm not sure that I'd interpret WP:CALC as the policy to back up an edit to remove a "00" if I were asked to step in as an uninvolved admin, but okay. But more importantly, I don't see how removing the "00" adds value to the project and if WP:WHYWOULDYOUBOTHERDOINGTHATJUSTBECAUSEYOUCAN doesn't exist as a guideline, it probably should. I haven't reviewed the edits that kicked this off, Abductive, but if the only edit being made in those cases is the removal of the "00", and it's not just ancillary to other additive edits that you're making to the article, I just don't see the point. Again, I don't know if that's the case. Mlaffs (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have been fixing other stuff, mostly removing the type "city" and making the coordinates appear both inline and title. This is my Wikignoming. People should appreciate other people's efforts to make the encyclopedia better. Abductive (reasoning) 03:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: What do you mean you've been removing the type "city"? You shouldn't be removing the "city" field from any page, period. That is standard in all Template:Infobox radio station infoboxes. Please explain.

A radio station transmitter is not a city, it is a landmark in the coordinate parameter markup. I got this from your own Wikiproject talk page. You have ignored other people on that talk page for years. Abductive (reasoning) 20:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: The city field in Template:Infobox radio station infoboxes is for the city or community of license. It has nothing to do with the actual location of the station's transmitter. Once again, this is dictated by the FCC license, per the FCC database, and not some information you pulled from Google Maps. Also, please link to this discussion.

Not the city field within the infobox, the type:city parameter within the coordinates template. That parameter (which may not even do anything anymore) tells the map what sort of object it is looking at. Others are "edu" for a school, "isle" for an island, etc. City means zoom out a lot, landmark means zoom in a lot. Abductive (reasoning) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's used in transmitter coords, it shouldn't be there. That we can agree on. City coords, like actual cities (ie: New York City, Metropolis, Illinois, etc.), it should be used there. For transmitters, it should be "landmark" because for lack of a better parameter, that's what we got to work with. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:35 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Floquenbeam, would you like to deal with the above behavior from Abductive...or should I start my own ANI thread? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I don't understand what you don't understand about this: deal with content disputes using the steps outlined at WP:DR. Admins don't solve content disputes. What you're complaining about is a content dispute. I suspect at this stage, after all these wasted electrons over the last few days, if you open a new ANI thread complaining about a content dispute, someone will block you for WP:IDHT or WP:TE or something. It won't be me - even though I'm not technically WP:INVOLVED, it's clear you think I am, and it's not worth the headache of arguing about it - but this is an honest warning. I believe you are much closer to a block for resuming the battleground behavior than you think you are. In the mean time, I have muted pings from you, so don't expect them to work anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: What you are not understanding is this is not a content dispute. Never has been. It has to do with Abductive not adhereing to the policies of Wikipedia, specifically OR, RS, and V. Now, since you are threatening me with a block, refusing to discuss anything, and have a clear bias against me and for Abductive, perhaps I need to start an ANI thread for you. I've tried to be nice, tried to get you to see both sides here, tried to get you into this discussion. But you clearly refuse to be anything but biased toward me. You are more than WP:INVOLVED here. So, block if you will, but it will be overturned in violation of INVOLVED. Also, your self-admitted evening gin isn't something you should use tools on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:30 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

A couple examples of Abductive's use of Google Maps (ie: original research) in coords can be found here and here where he says in the edit summary "Tower now visible on Google/Bing/OSM maps." Clearly a violation of a OR. In this case he removed marked NAD83 coords, ones correctly sourced by FCC documents, for ones he "found" somewhere. It's clear original research. There is no backing source to his edit. If I wasn't the subject of this ANI discussion, I would revert that edit, probably with an OR warning.

This is clearly the behavior that has pushed me to the end of my rope, my patience to the very end, and exhausted my good faith. I urge Mlaffs, Floquenbeam, TParis, and others to take a look at Abductive's edits as there is clearly an issue here. Yes, I may have lost my temper, but that does not excuse Abductive's editing behavior. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:44 on April 24, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

It is unreasonable to be "pushed to the end of your rope" by edits like this. If you can't manage your emotions better than that, then please don't edit until you've regained control of them. Assuming for the moment that these aren't useful edits (I have no opinion, except to note that it would make us look silly to list people's height as 6 ft 3.000 in, or as 1.91000 m, and this seems, superficially, like a similar case), your battleground approach to content disputes is still more harmful to the encyclopedia than Abductive's edits here. Get a third opinion. Ask at WP:RADIO. Start an RFC. But don't go seriously overboard, hurl personal attacks, threaten to revert all of their edits, and expect people to ignore that and focus on a minor content dispute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: How about, instead of "Neutralhomer has a problem and probably shouldn't edit, but I have no opinion on the current problem, which helps no one, let's throw the problem on someone else's lap", maybe just maybe actually help. Clearly there is an OR issue. Clearly there is an RS issue. Clearly there is a V issue. These are BIG policies here at Wikipedia. Now, I'm just an editor who "can't manage [his] emotions" because an editor brought up my friend on the 4 year anniversary of the death of my friend (no opinion there, either?) but, I think we should do everything possible to uphold these policies. Fight to protect these policies. If needed, warn and block people who disobey these policies.

So, yes, it is resonable for me to be "pushed to the end of [my] rope" by an editor who refuses to listen to the most basic of policies here at Wikipedia and basically do his own thing. It's also reasonable for me to get a little bit irked at an admin for allowing it and passing the buck.

So, I'm asking you, get involved in the discussion, have an opinion...please. You've made it very clear how you feel about me (repeatedly). But as an admin, your input about the heart of the this problem is what really matters. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:49 on April 24, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Yes, I do have an "opinion there". I think you should be 100% ashamed of yourself for assuming that Abductive intentionally brought up a conversation your friend participated in to intentionally hurt you. 100% ashamed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Like I said, we all know how you feel about me. Since you don't have an opinion on Abductive's editing behavior, I thank you for your time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12 on April 25, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

This feud is not helpful to anyone, especially its two participants. I agree that the optics of [Added: Neutralhomer] invoking a dead Wikipedian as pertaining to this dispute was in poor taste. El_C 00:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

FYI, if you actually follow the links related to this accusation, that is not what happened. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I've been following along. I'm not sure what you think I missed. El_C 00:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I just said something stupid. For some reason I thought you meant Abductive somehow "invoking" him, which is what NH claimed above, and which I'm saying didn't happen. Upon reflection that was a weird assumption to make, particularly in the context you made the comment. I think my Saturday evening gin and tonic might be a little too strong (in the sense that there's not really any tonic in there). Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It's all good, Floquenbeam. Cheers — enjoy your drink! El_C 00:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Actually, Floquenbeam, in an odd twist of edit (more gin for you), got this one right. Abductive invoked Dravecky first. Yes, I said him by name first (I'm allowed, his my friend), but he linked to a discussion which he took out of sequence, and having nothing to do with his constant end-round of the rules (plus from 10 years ago, he dug for that one). So, Abductive is in the wrong here. I can talk about my friend all day, he was/is my friend. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

As Floquenbeam notes, there's no evidence whatsoever that Abductive was trying to be hurtful to you in any way with that. El_C 02:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: You'll have to forgive me, but with the clear evidence presented by Floquenbeam that he has a clear bias against me (for whatever reason), I would rather his "notes" be stricken from the record as they are not helpful in any regards. I hate to say that of a fellow editor, but he has shown clear, and completely unnecessary bias towards me, refusing to see both sides of this entire mess. He has actually threatened to block me, twice, even though he is heavily INVOLVED and biased.

Abductive has warped multiple discussions (including the one in question), blatantly ignored multiple policies (ie: OR, RS, V to start), and no one has so much has batted an eye. Floquenbeam considers that a "content dispute", which it isn't. It's never been about "content", it's been about following the rules set out by this project, by this community.

So, for Floquenbeam to say that Abductive to wasn't "hurtful to [me] in any way with that" (ie: bringing up the discussion involving Dravecky form 2010) is something that is unbelievable, which means I don't believe it. I don't believe the words of a biased editor who says another editor (who he is clearly protecting) isn't trying to get my goat (and admitted did). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:17 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Neutralhomer, on what basis do you assert that the mention was intended to be hurtful to you on Abductive's part? And on what basis do you assert that Floquenbeam "has a clear bias against [you]"? El_C 14:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I don't see the intent behind Abductive's link that you do. Abductive's link isn't substantial enough to call it "consensus" but it was an instance where this conversation was briefly had. I'm sorry about your friend. I love Doctor Who and I live in Texas and I'm now considering going to the next WhoFest if they have one. Maybe we'll meet up there someday.--v/r - TP 14:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@TParis: It wasn't anything in the link, it was the introduction of the link a day and a half before the 4 year anniversary of his passing. If they don't have a WhoFest, try FenCon. Usually if they don't have a WhoFest, they have some WhoFolk at FenCon. You'll see Dravecky there in spirit, they keep him there front and center. :) I actually haven't seen Doctor Who, now I have PLENTY of time, so you'll have to give me pointers as to where to start. 1st doctor or somewhere more modern? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:40 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@El C: First, the 10-year-old discussion was posted at 21:34 (or 9:34p EDT) on April 21. I was already feeling that pain. Anyone who knew even remotely anything about this project knew that Dravecky and I were friends (on and off Wiki), I took his passing hard, they knew when the date of his passing was just by looking at his talk page and the WP:WPRS page. For him to dig up a 10-year-old discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralhomer&diff=952416276&oldid=952400579 which had nothing to do with what he claimed it did, spin the timeline (again), and involve my friend. Yeah, it was meant to be hurtful. It was meant for me to lose my temper and I did. I completely admit that.

As for Floquenbeam, I guess we could start with where he threatened to block me above (and only me), but I'd rather start here. I mention that Abductive had changed the coords on two pages mentioning in the edit summary "Tower now visible on Google/Bing/OSM maps." In this case he removed marked NAD83 coords, ones correctly sourced by FCC documents. I pinged Floquenbeam among others for their input. He did respond, saying I need to "manage my emotions better" (apparently he hasn't grieved before), and attempted to pass the back onto RFC or WP:RADIO, still calling this a content dispute. Not a violation of rules.

In his previous post, Floquenbeam said "[he had] no opinion", I attempted to the force the issue with this post. To force Floquenbeam to have an opinion on the issue of Abductive and his edits. He ignored everything I said of substance, the OR, the V, the RS, and told me he though I should be ashamed of myself, 100% ashamed. After that, I knew there was no getting through to him and thanked him for his time.

After this post, which I admit I missed due to the chaotic nature of this thread, I responded to Abductive here, ping Floquenbeam. Now, in that response, knowing full well I wasn't going to get a positive response, I asksed "would you like to deal with the above behavior from Abductive...or should I start my own ANI thread?". He responds saying he isn't "technically INVOLVED" but "if [I] open a new ANI thread complaining about a content dispute, someone will block you for WP:IDHT or WP:TE or something." He first tells me to start a new thread to a content dispute, then threatens to have me blocked for starting a new thread for a content dispute....again taken nothing into account of what I have said. Then, in the childish sticking-my-fingers-in-my-ears "I can't hear you", he turns pings from me off. He admits he's been drinking later (gin and tonic) when getting a timeline all screwed up from clearly not reading things himself. I responded to that, setting the record straight and a minute later to his "I've turned pings off" post. Ironically, the pings went through just fine. It is proper WikiEtiquette to send pings/talk notes.

In a slight bit of irony, after this post from Abductive, him and I actually agreed on something. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:35 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@Neutralhomer: I’m sorry for your loss and the emotions that must have arisen on the anniversary of your friend’s passing. While you may have perceived the cause of this timing to be malicious intent, I don’t think it’s reasonable from an objective observer to assume that Abductive purposefully timed this content dispute link to an old thread to be 3 years and 363 days after the passing of an editor who was your dear friend but with whom they were not familiar. Even if you still internally believe that this was a malicious and purposeful mention, it would be best to drop that stick. If that was Abductive’s intent, there’s not enough to demonstrate that intent to anyone else. Many of us empathize with your loss, please do be well during these troubling times. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Thank you. You stay well and stay sane too. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:55 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Neutralhomer, regarding Abductive, I'd like to piggy-back on MarkH21's excellent comment directly above. Well said. As for Floquenbeam, my experience is that he is fair and even-handed. So, I would be surprised to learn that the, at times, harsh exchanges between you two were without basis. I'm just not sure what that basis is to make an informed evaluation. As for many of the links you provided, and the technical facets at the heart of this latest dispute with Abductive, I'm afraid much of that went well over my head. Sorry for the loss of your friend. Some say time lessens the pain. It does and it doesn't. El_C 16:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks. Time does. It's the lead up to that anniversary that gets me every single time. I don't know any other way to grieve. Couple days before, I'm an angry, pain-filled mess. Working helps. Such as this kind of work is. On that day, I get to the depression. I still want to work. I want to find something to gloss over the issue with...anything. The next day was my birthday, so I had something good to look forward too, otherwise, it would have been that long bridge back up and working through. I don't do grief well, being Autistic (I have Aspergers), but I try to grieve "normally", but sometimes I get stuck in the "anger" phase and I just can't help it, it's my fall back, it's where my brain gets stuck for a couple days.

That said, I still do not believe that this entire thing, long before him bringing up the discussion from 10 years ago, is a content dispute. This has been going on for awhile. It has to do with policy, not the content of the article. Right now, though, I just don't have it in me to continue this any longer. I'll leave it up to you, Floquenbeam, TParis, MarkH21, and other admins who took part in this discussion to do whatever you see fit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:55 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Having read through this discussion, as a completely uninvolved party, I believe the core problem is a disagreement over interpretation of policy. As demonstrated through this thread, this seems to be a reasonable disagreement; this issue is not a hard-and-fast rule like WP:RS (and even that gets into disputes about "reliability" of a source). It would be a conduct dispute if the consensus was for a specific interpretation but one specific user refused to honor that consensus. In this case, there's a reasonable dispute over how precise we need to be within the policy, so consensus needs to be achieved via our dispute resolution processes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I'm confused on what you are saying. Are you saying this is a policy dispute, a conduct dispute, or a content dispute? You mention all three, so I'm confused. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:28 on April 27, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Effectively a content dispute, based on differing interpretations of policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: If it's going to be dubbed a content dispute, which I highly disagree with (but I'm on the losing end of this one), then Abductive needs to stop making any and all edits until a determination is reached on who is correct in line with policy. Because, if he continues and is found to be wrong, that's a lot of edits that can't be reverted by bot. Those are going to have to be manual and that's going to be a pain in the butt. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:02 on April 29, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

What's going to happen is that the .00 at the end of coordinates, which are only found on US radio station articles, will be removed eventually. As you should be able to ascertain from the comments in this thread, people don't understand why these superfluous zeroes are worth keeping. The more editors that are brought in, the more likely it is that an iron-clad consensus will form to remove them. Nobody other than you bothered to revert my edits as I was doing them, which suggests that nobody found them to be problematic. Abductive (reasoning) 10:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: There you go reading only what you want, seeing only what you want to see. Actually, everyone has said this needs an RfC and all edits need to stop from both sides. So, no, there is no "what's going to happen" and no "eventually". There will be an RfC, then maybe that stuff will happen, maybe it won't, maybe you will be slapped with a wet trout for doing all this crap in the first place. Regardless, RfC first, everything else...maybe. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:59 on April 29, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Project much? Abductive (reasoning) 15:08, 29 April 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 sneaky vandal

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

---

Schiindler is a sneaky vandal who has been warned many times about vandalism[82][83] for edit such as this and now just he just made edits which also constitute vandalism.[84][85] Time to show door to this typical WP:NOTHERE. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Shashank5988, better to report to AIV. JavaHurricane 10:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

JavaHurricane generally speaking ANI or AIV is fine. –Davey2010^Talk 18:53, 29 April 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.

Unprotect Cropnew Page

Unprotect Cropnew This page. 2405:205:1384:3CF6:58F4:5F88:B472:A8A0 (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No. That page is being targeted by a block-evading user who is not permitted to edit here. Are you that user? --Yamla (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring by JzG

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

---

Note: This was reposted here after mistakenly being posted at AN3.

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

In July 2018, language was added to the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality by Contaldo80 that included the phrase "desecrated the Eucharist." In October of that year, Contaldo changed it to "desecrated a Communion wafer." I objected and reverted. A discussion ensued on talk and Contaldo, myself, and a third editor all agreed to use the word Eucharist. Stop the Church was then spun off in January 2020, more than a year after the issue had been settled. It included the word "Eucharist." On April 8th, Contaldo changed the text from Eucharist to wafer once again. Again, he was reverted and I asked him to gain consensus first.

In the new discussion, Contaldo requested a third opinion. That brought in several new editors, including Drassow, CoffeeWithMarkets, and JzG. On the talk page, Drassow, CoffeeWithMarkets, and I all favored using the word "Eucharist." Contaldo changed his mind and now prefers wafer, and JZG has offered several other suggestions, but opposes "Eucharist." It appears to me that there is a preference for Eucharist (four users supporting, two opposed) and perhaps a weak consensus for it. At best, there is no consensus. As I read WP:NOCONSENSUS, that means we should "[retain] the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." In this case, that means using the word Eucharist.

As part of a series of edits which otherwise improved the article, JZG offered a new formulation for the disputed sentence. In JZG's world, his version is now the consensus version and I have to gain consensus to make any changes. He continues to base his edit warring on the claim that "Eucharist" is a "Catholic term of art," even after a majority of editors have explicitly rejected this assessment. While I was obviously OK with the old version, I was mostly OK with his new language, except for the fact that it didn't include the word Eucharist. As a gesture of good faith I kept most of what he said, but reinserted that one word. JZG reverted.

On April 19th, after he again accused me of making a contested edit and needing consensus for it, I responded by saying "You know that isn't true. You introduced new text. I partially reverted. You edit warred your preferred version back in without coming to talk first. It is you who is making a contested change, not me." Two days went by where JZG was active elsewhere on Wikipedia but not on this article. Since he did not respond, I assumed he understood that I was correct. I reverted back to his language with my tweak. JZG swooped right back in and reverted to his preferred language.

Discussion continued on talk. I again pointed out to him that it was him, not me, who was making a contested change and that NOCON says we leave the original language in place in these situations. His response was that "The status quo ante argiument (sic) does not apply after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given." I asked him where I could find that policy and he pointed me to WP:ONUS. As I said to him, I don't find anything like that in ONUS.

JZG then again accused me of being the one to make a disputed edit. When I asked him to show me the consensus against Eucharist and again where it says to ignore NOCON after "after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given," he again went silent for two days. After another 48 hours where he was active on the project but not on this article, I reverted back to the last stable language. Only then did he become active on this article again, reverting to his preferred language. He also ignored, again, my questions about where there was a consensus against Eucharist and where it said to ignore NOCON.

Tied up in all of this is a second disputed sentence in the lede. It is partially in dispute because it uses the word Eucharist as well, but also because I think it should remain in the lede, as it has since the article was created, whereas JZG does not. Without a consensus one way or the other (and with considerable sourcing to show that it was a major controversy during and after the event), my position is that it should stay. Again, after days of silence on talk I have readded the sentence, only to see JZG revert.

I have offered on multiple occasions to work on language on talk, rather than edit war. I've even gone so far as to paste the text into talk so that we could work on something there. Those offers have all been ignored.s

Also, while it is not directly related to his edit warring, JZG has continued to use language that he knows is offensive to Catholics, and continues to refer to me as one even after I told him I don't identify as a Catholic or any other religion on the project. Indeed, a review of my edits will show significant contributions to a number of articles about non-Catholic religious organizations and even more to secular topics. As pointed out to him, though, I do find acts of sacrilege and language that is deliberately offensive to any religious group to be beyond the pale. I think he owes Catholics and all tolerant minded people an apology.

Finally, to preempt JzG's favorite defense of turning things around on me, yes, I was once topic banned. I have apologized, abided by the terms of it, tried to make amends, and tried to improve my editing. For those times where I have fallen short, I sincerely apologize once again. It in no way, however, excuses edit warring. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This is bizarre. It raises the question whether Slugger O'Toole's TBAN was too limited. He has been aggressive with weakly sourced material at Harvard Extension School, an article that's experienced some of the same problems we saw at Knights of Columbus. It doesn't surprise me to see this occurring at other articles JzG is trying to clean up. I'm not familiar with those and can't comment further on the diffs. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Slugger O'Toole repeatedly reverts to his preferred version of an article that contains a specific term of art used by some Catholics but has to be pipe-linked because it is not the common meaning of the word. I have tried numerous versions of compromises, his "compromise" is to insist that his preferred term of art must be used, and must be in the lead. He reverts from several different attempts to produce wording that more closely reflects the sources and removes issue of ambiguity between religious terms of art.

SPECIFICO mentions the TBAN. Here's the debate. Same prolix style. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025 § Knights of Columbus

Slugger O'Toole was topic-banned from Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for similar WP:OWN behaviour. It seems that when editing articles on his religion, harmony is achieved solely by Slugger O'Toole getting his own way. Needless to say, the constant reverts to reinsert his preferred content and refusal to accept any version of policy that does not encompass his preferred content going in, which were also a hallmark at the KofC article and a major contributor to the topic ban, are wearing and cause tempers to fray. Guy (help!) 22:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Even a casual review of the article history of article will show plenty of your edits which I have not reverted. I've praised you for improving the article repeatedly, including on your talk page. We've also seen a majority of other editors reject your wording, including Drasser who said "...JzG is being obtuse by trying to ignore the significance of the action through a poor vocabulary choice. It's not a "term of art," it's a religious practice." I'll also remind you, again, that it is you who has made a contested change to stable language, against consensus, not me. If a new consensus forms, I will gladly abide by it. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This would be the same Drassow that referred to a cardinal as His eminence and likes to drop casual anti-Semitism on the regular. This is the person you choose to back you up?AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool dude, but eminence is still the correct way to address a cardinal, and adding a source is anti-semetic? Sounds like some laughable strawmen to me mate, and don't invalidate the correct vocabulary to use. Eminence is the correct way to address a cardinal just as the Eucharist is the correct way to refer to the item at hand. Drassow (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I believe this is my first interaction with Drasser, as it is with you. I am not aware of either of your past histories. As noted above, however, he is not the only other editor who holds this position. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully this does not have to result in a new topic ban or an expansion of an old topic ban. Is Slugger O'Toole willing to walk back the behaviors that led to the original Knights of Columbus topic ban? Michepman (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Michepman, As I have said repeatedly, if a new consensus forms then I will respect it. I am not looking for trouble, only for longstanding consensuses to be respected. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• While I'm genuinely confused by the constant insistence by Guy that the simple term "Eucharist" is somehow verboten and must unconditionally be replaced by "wafer" or something else, editorial opinions of others be damned, I also don't understand what exactly is being advocated for in this post on this noticeboard. What's been going on appears to be a heated but unfortunately rather standard debate on how to phrase matters on an article about a political protest, which inherently will be controversial. This is clearly not WP:OWN behavior as other editors take both Guy's side in the debate as well as the position of Slugger O'Toole. I'd like to see a conclusion reached that's fair, but that likely requires more eyes by different editors on the page and not administrative efforts to sanction specific people. At least, that's my opinion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  CoffeeWithMarkets, I don't say it's verboten - in fact I added Eucharist in the Catholic Church as a "see also" because it does provide a specific perspective. I have explained on the Talk page why the specific phrase "desecration of the Eucharist" is confusing for a non-Catholic audience and indeed for a lot of Catholics. The Eucharist is generally seen in non-Catholic churches as the entire service of communion, and the protest was a disruption of this, so disruption of mass AND desecration of the Eucharist looks redundant unless you immediately read Eucharist in a specific way that most people simply don't.

  I'd note that I have tried a fair number of alternative formulations, and Slugger rejects all of them. Guy (help!) 07:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  CoffeeWithMarkets, My point is that there was a consensus. JzG made an edit that went against the consensus and was reverted. Instead of trying to develop a new consensus on talk, he simply keeps reinserting his preferred language back into the text. That seems like a classic case of edit warring to me. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The type of belittling seen in this edit summary - here - is harmfully antagonistic. We shouldn't be using language like that. We rightfully wouldn't tolerate editors referring to the Kaaba as a magic box. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that edit summary is weirdly antagonistic and doesn't reflect super well on JzG. Loki (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that JzG's general attitude through the discussion is belittling and discriminatory: "Your obsession with the magic bread is becoming tiresome" can be construed as harassment of those who think differently. Sanctions should be imposed. XavierItzm (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is interested - the discussion is continuing on the article's talk page [86]. This ANI thread might no longer be necessary Steve Quinn (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, While I am truly appreciative of all the new eyes looking this article, I am also a bit confused. It seems to me as if this is a clear cut case of edit warring. JzG made a bold edit against a perhaps weak but longstanding consensus. He was then partially reverted. Instead of coming to talk, he instead just reverted back to his preferred version. Multiple times. If that's not edit warring, could someone please explain to me why not? I am genuinely asking here. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

For one thing, it takes at least two to edit war, and in this case two were involved. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, Fair enough. Maybe I was in the wrong as well. If I was, I would appreciate it if someone could point out where I erred so as to be able to avoid doing it again. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Can an administrator please look into Slugger O'Toole - frankly I think his editing behaviour is not conducive to the spirit of Wikipedia. He has been coming into conflict with a range of editors (including administrators) on a range of topics. I honestly don't think he's learnt anything from Knights of Columbus and has not altered his behaviour. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:10, 30 April 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.

---

Let's solve the crux of the problem. I propose the @Slugger O'Toole: is banned from adding article content sourced to primary sources or sources closely related to the article subject without prior consensus on the article talk page. This applies to any article on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, That's not what is at issue in this case so I fail to see how it would solve the crux of any problem. Also, I wasn't going to address it, but I will now point out that Harvard Extension School gained Good Article status with largely the same sources as it has today. The independent editor who certified it as a GA didn't raise a single concern about the sources. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

OK I'll put a notice on the talk page there and we can get some more views from that article's editors. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole (former user name Briancua) has added over 50 assertions to the Harvard Extension School article that are sourced to 100th anniveresary commemorative volume published by the Extension School and written by its Dean. That's not the only such reference, just one that's easily identified. The article is full of promotional or UNDUE content of this kind. It's the same thing that happened at the Knights of Columbus article. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Yes, I did so seven years ago. I think I did so with care, but have already offered to work with you to improve them. I'll ask again: would you like to work on it with me? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I am only here because I see you making the same mistakes to this day, even after the Knights of Columbus TBAN. And apparently you think the Harvard Extnsion School article desrved the GA, even loaded with UNDUE promotional self-sourced content? I looked at the review. If I thought anything would change without a sanction, I certainly would not have proposed it. That's all I'll have to say here. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I suppose that's your prerogative, but I'd rather work collaboratively to improve the article. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Proposed excessive sanction is not even tangentially related to the issue at hand. Nice try, SPECIFICO. Cjhard (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Is this a joke? - What exactly is the point of bludgeoning a user for taking a position held by multiple editors in a content dispute? Where does this notion that it will somehow magically stop the dispute come from? Why is our time being wasted by this "proposal"? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, it's rather astonishing to have this general discussion constantly pretending as if we can't go and look pages ourselves. It's not as if it's difficult. We have eyes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Snowball proposals that have the sole purpose of intimidating the targeted editor are sadly over-tolerated here. Cjhard (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I needed that!

-EEng

We really need some kind of wiki-SLAPP rule. Loki (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm an uninvolved user but this seems like a ridiculous sanction. There's clearly no consensus, so why are we not following WP:NOCON and sticking with the original wording of the article? I have to agree with Cjhard, this seems like a sad attempt at intimidation that'll do nothing to solve the actual problem. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not involved, either, but a wide-ranging topic ban on the OP for acts unrelated to the current issue is the wikipedia equivalent of driving a tack with a twenty-pound maul. Come back with a suggestion that addresses the issue at hand, please. --loupgarous (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Also not involved, and I think the idea of sanctions against Slugger here is pretty ridiculous. Overall, I think JzG has been unnecessarily hostile to Slugger and to the concept of religion in general, but that Slugger appears to be overstating their claim to have consensus for their edit, as there's currently a section on the talk page where editors are basically split on the change. I feel like the thing to do here is for everyone to take a breath and calm down, and then hold an RfC for the proper wording. [failing that, I'd say default to the original wording of "Eucharist" but that doesn't seem like a great solution overall] Loki (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Also not involved. This proposal seems to have come out of left field and is not related to the original discussion. Also, Slugger has presented a reasonable argument (following NOCON) whereas Jzg has been making offensive remarks - perhaps as a way to be intimidating. Jzg's views in this matter do not speak for everyone. I think this proposal for a topic ban should be closed immediately because it is irrelevant and off topic regarding this discussion. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 17:05, 29 April 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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A missconduct complaint over a fellow user behavior

The following discussion is closed. 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 complaint is over MR. Elmoro's comment

https://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=موضوع:Vl5tww7scexssqjv&topic_showPostId=vlf2buv208o4to6u&fbclid=IwAR2jLAaphlTdPLS5s_F2LL5i1E5yg4FEwNaQQ-qGQgSnnp1gURwjS29zIj4#flow-post-vlf2buv208o4to6u

The literal translation is

"I don't have any contribution in this article, but be informed that any person either bosnian,croatian or icelander can edit any article. Wikipedia isn't a place for nationalism, patriotism, or " tatbeel" "

The expression Tatbeel in arabic means political propaganda, Mr. Elmoro assumed that we are motivated by political propaganda to request an edit which was already approved earlier.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shofolofo (talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. No one here has any authority over Arabic Wikipedia. You need to raise the issue on that Wikipedia. We have nothing to do with that project. --Jayron32 18:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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

More silliness with articles related to Joe Biden

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

---

Can an admin please keep an eye on the history of Sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden (the current title as of my writing this, but I expect it will change several times before I hit the send button). It's been moved to three different titles in less than 5 minutes, and there's no sign of the edit-move-warring ending. There was a move discussion barely started, but there's absolutely nothing resembling a consensus, it's just been moved rapidly several times. Can someone just put it back at the original title until such time as the discussion is resolved? Thanks! --Jayron32 17:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, that is some silliness (it has been moved again). I'd do it, but am I too WP:INVOLVED in these issues? (By the way, only 188 days left until the U.S. elections!) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse move protection (at the wrong title). This is beyond silly. Guy (help!) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Please note Volunteer Marek changed the name twice here and here in about 10 minutes despite an ongoing TP discussion and despite Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). Are sanctions in order? Also, will the title be frozen at the abusive 1RR change? XavierItzm (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  XavierItzm, admins don't get to pick the Right Version™ Guy (help!) 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Seems unlikely. As long as a person types in capitals the letter B, L, and P in their edit summary somewhere, they are immune from all sanctions for any behavioral violation.--Jayron32 17:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, the other title got salted too, therefore assuring the desired result. Maybe I'll write an essay on how to game Wikipedia. BTW, I would argue the current title is quite a BLP vio as now you have a Wikipedia article where the female victim's name appears immediately before "sexual assault." XavierItzm (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I considered that possibility. But when both are plausibly BLP violations but neither is a blatant BLP violation, the best we can do for now is just protect it at The Wrong Version^TM and wait for the RM to finish. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't much like the current title, but SOMETHING has to be done to stop the move warring. I think someone uninvolved should move protect, with redirects from all the other proposed names, until consensus is reached at the talk page. Or hell freezes over. Whichever comes first. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, there was an ongoing TP discussion when some decided to just skip the line, so editor's likes such as yours no longer count, especially with the salting and what not. XavierItzm (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• MelanieN, I predict people won't care on November 4. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I think Tara Reade would care. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I'm referring to Wikipedia editors, long term and drive by. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like your focus is on the election, but this story is about what happened to a woman and it will live on as evidence that mainstream media are often not RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

My focus is on the editing of Wikipedia articles, and it's not a stretch to presume that this will die down after the election, much as the crazy editing around Benghazi and Hillary's emails died off in November 2016. Your bias against the "mainstream media" is noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Move protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts: 1RR was broken and a controversial move was done without proper procedure. Why did you leave these violations in place instead of status quo? It's not about "wrong" or "right" versions, it's about clear violations of policy dealing with these situations. Also, citing WP:BLP in moving the article to a title that mentions an office assistant but not a US senator is one of the most desperate cases of WP:CRYBLP, ever. --Pudeo (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I misread MelanieN's comment above as support for the current title no matter what it was; she later clarified her stance in the RM. Anyways, it's been moved back by another admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note: When you bring up the name of a person or persons in an ANI discussion, you are required to notify them. I have done so for people who are named in this discussion but were not already participating in it. For anyone else, please remember to do so in the future.--Jayron32 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, you moved the page after it had already been locked down to stop the move warring. And now the main page and talk page are at different titles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And now the main page and talk page are at different titles. Maybe for the better? --JBL (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the talk page problem. (I swear I ticked the box to move the talk page too...maybe I closed the tab too early after confirming that I wanted to delete the redirect for the article and missed a second dialogue for the talk page.) As for moving a protected page, I stand by the edit summary. In general a rapid-fire move war shouldn't end with a title that hasn't achieved talk page consensus, particularly if the new title has potential BLP issues. ~Awilley (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Joe Biden#Allegations of inappropriate physical contact is a mess too. There are repeated edits in a direction favorable to Biden. The section header does not include "assault", and the 2nd and 3rd sentences from the NYTimes remain against consensus. This article needs admin attention. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No it's not, and admins don't have special privileges to decide content. - MrX 🖋 18:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

They can evaluate your arguments, and whether you and others have edited against consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:04, 29 April 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.

Range block requested to deal with persistent vandalism at Nick at Nite

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

---

• 2600:8805:1400:4CE0:BDE4:174D:461:1380/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Edits from this range have been vandalizing Wikipedia articles since December. Initially, vandalism from this range consisted of the user randomly changing dates in articles ([87], [88], [89], [90])

Since March, this user has been mainly targeting the Nick at Nite article, changing airtimes ([91], [92]). Over the last few weeks, this IP has consistently been editing the Nick at Nite article by amending the lede to falsely state that Cartoon Network is "the nighttime branding of Adult Swim" (which is false; Adult Swim is the nighttime branding of Cartoon Network) ([93], [94], [95], [96], [97])

The user also did at least one similar edit at Adult Swim (falsely stating that Nickelodeon is "the nighttime branding of Nick At Nite", which is obviously false given the name of the block "Nick at Nite)[98].

You can get an idea of the user's disruption most easily by looking at the edit history of Nick at Nite (link); most of the edit history of the last month consists of the editor making edits and other editors reverting them.

In this IP user's defense, it doesn't seem like anyone warned them about their behavior until this past April[99]. I also gave a set of escalating warnings at User_talk:2600:8805:1400:4CE0:BDE4:174D:461:1380.

Looking through the relevant edits, it doesn't look like there would be any collateral damage if the /64 was blocked, so I'm requesting that range be blocked temporarily. Much thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems with sourcing the time is it's literally just them looking at the on-screen logo at the time of day; I've restored the usual proper time range of the block (it was way too early for at least a few months, probably because of other past IP disruption making it seem like it was); probably best to institute protected changes on this page rather than playing IP Whack-a-Mole here. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. Much thanks for making the other corrections to the page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the IP is at it again. As soon as a frustrated user corrected the false information, the IP came back and restored the false information within 20 minutes. While I would be OK with page protection, I still believe a block on the /64 is in order as the person behind the range has targeted other pages in the past, as I noted in my diffs above. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

And yet again... Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As one of the users monitoring this situation since yesterday, I think the best course of action to take ASAP would be to lock the page to unregistered users. That would immediately solve the ongoing vandalism issue and then we can move forward with potential blocks. Popfox3 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The article has been protected, and contrary to what I said above, the disruption from the IP since the page protection has been minimal. This thread can probably be closed. Thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:13, 30 April 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.

Page moves by Louismuyalde1234

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

---

• Louismuyalde1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is renaming pages en masse without a discussion. I suspect that this is disruptive editing. Also a likely sock of User talk:Louisborromeo12; see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#ISIS_edits_and_socking.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Likely Done No sleepers immediately visible. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:20, 30 April 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.

Slur used

The following discussion is closed. 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.

---

Can someone take a look at this and perhaps just semi-protect my talk?[100]. --Semsûrî (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That IP address is blocked, so you probably don't need your talk page semi-protected at this time. However, if they come back (perhaps via another IP address), the protection would probably be warranted. Sorry you experienced those personal attacks (in the redacted edit summaries), they were completely inappropriate. --Yamla (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

2

The user has returned with an account and editing my talk-page again[101]. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked and protected. --Yamla (talk) 14:31, 30 April 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.

Trolling

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

---

An IP editor has been pushing fringe views at Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for some while, as I think we're all aware. I don't know the CIDR subnet and they flatly refuse to register an account, which has been a cause of drama in and of itself.

I would say that [102] is past the point of "enough already".

"None of this is the behavior of a normal Wikipedia editor. But it is exactly the behavior one would expect from a person who is planning, sometime in the future, on writing an article for an alt-right website about how many Wikipedia policies he was able to get away with violating by making an alternate account that pretended to be a leftist. Wikipedia's admins should be embarrassed that they've allowed themselves to be hoodwinked with this tactic, especially if it's allowed to continue even now that I've pointed it out."

This in reference to NightHeron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor in good standing. I mean, seriously, in that venue, to suggest that another editor is faking extreme liberal bias because they are really alt-right? Seriously?

I propose a topic ban. Guy (help!) 23:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Given that the topic is under arbitration enforcement, should this not be at WP:AE? By the way, the IPv6 range is massive, something like a /40, unsurprising as it's Verizon cell. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Black Kite as a general rule while Verizon ranges are massive they typically have relatively low collateral. It’s usually one person causing a ton of disruption because of the dynamic nature of the range, and in most of the “troublesome” Verizon ranges I’m familiar with its 1-2 people. I’ll also give my standard bit about people in the United States and Western Europe being able to create accounts on other ranges fairly easily. Not necessarily advocating for a block at this time, but Verizon ranges this wide have been blocked before over a limited number of bad actors. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    • FWIW it's clear from looking at the edits at Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 that there are at least 2 active editors, one who is obsessed with r&i and another who cares about hyphens and dashes. (They aren't the same because sometimes edits at different IPs interleave.) Maybe 3, if the college football person is different from the dash person. (I personally think the case for topic-banning this particular individual is strong, as is the case for selective blocks from r&i pages, but I have slightly mixed feelings about blocking college football guy and dash guy just for having the bad luck to share a range with r&i guy. Although I suppose they could always just create accounts.) --JBL (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Sorry if I wasn’t clear: I was saying there’s usually one or two bad actors and a relatively low amount of collateral on Verizon compared to some other ranges this size. There obviously will be some collateral for any range block. The question is if it’s worth it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
        • No, you were clear -- I just thought others might be interested in the specifics of the present situation (at least, to the extent that they can be gleaned just by looking over the recent edit history for that range). --JBL (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I'm no expert in these things, but I think the range is 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40. If you look at the Talk:, User talk:, and Wikipedia: namespace contribs on that range, there has been a great number of posts, including a lot of canvassing on user talk pages, all aimed at having the article promote a particular POV as mainstream. I agree the ARCA post against NH (who has probably been the editor who has engaged with this IP range the most) that the OP quotes was, as NH put it, a cockamamie conspiracy theory. A topic ban is long overdue but how do you enforce that against an IP range? After reviewing the contribs of that range in all namespaces, I'm in favor of a range block despite the large range (because I see almost no constructive editing on that range), or any lesser sanction. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Dangit Levivich, I help teach you how IP ranges work, and this is how you repay me? Constructively using that knowledge before I can swoop in and show off? creffett (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

So that's his full name -- Dangit Levivich? Fits. EEng 04:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Seriously this is long overdue. A partial block on the article Race and intelligence and its talk-page would be a minimal step toward improving the situation, but the level of shit-stirring by the IP (trying to hand-pick admins to close RfC, trying to goad at least a half-dozen other editors into going to AE, etc.) is really extreme and so I would support something stronger. --JBL (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have done this. El_C 01:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't do indefinite blocks on IP ranges.... I'll change it 3 months, which is plenty long enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not plenty. This block is for one, single article talk page. An indefinite duration is fine. El_C 04:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think the IP's posts to ARCA about editing this topic area because they are colleagues with Gerhard Meisenberg [103] [104] are tantamount to an admission of COI in this topic area. (Or at least WP:RGW.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Amazing, according to the article, Meisenberg "is a director, with Richard Lynn, of the Pioneer Fund" and those us familiar with the R&I debacle understand that means the IP should be indefinitely topic banned, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, good spot. I think that removes all doubt. Guy (help!) 09:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks. IP has since written at WT:RFAR: The only time I've ever directly interacted with Meisenberg was last June, when we discussed the problems in his biography that the Wikipedia community had failed to address, and I suggested that he raise them with the WMF legal team. Amazing, indeed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I commend all of the detectives on duty in that ten hour period. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocks v. bans

Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is blocked from this article. It seems to me from the above as if an uninvolved admin could also enact a TBAN on race and intelligence broadly construed, for the individual who edits fromt hat range. Guy (help!) 16:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The person behind this account is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. jps (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above discussion. The IP has been disruptive in their admitted quest to WP:RGW on behalf of their colleagues. One of the reasons I support a topic ban in addition to any partial blocks is that the IP's disruption has occurred at many pages: not just the article talk page, but also FTN, ANRFC, ARCA, RFAR, and many user talk pages. This user should be TBANed from discussing this subject on any page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. --JBL (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I just w ent through the discussion, and find a topic ban only fitting for the level of disruption caused. JavaHurricane 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support definitely NOTHERE. Seems to be on Wikipedia to only support their agenda. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• This my usual "formal-bans-on-already-blocked-users-who-we-all-already-know-are-de-facto-bans-so-why-are-we-wasting-time-with-this-again-but-oh-what-the-hell-support-even-though-I-still-think-we-don't-need-to-go-through-all-this-bureaucracy" support vote. --Jayron32 18:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jayron32, LOL! In this case though it's a pageblock only so it does make a difference. Guy (help!) 19:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per above - Given the amount of disruption I see no better solution than topic banning. –Davey2010^Talk 20:10, 30 April 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 edits and attack - block edit privilege

A user Kyle smith2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2 weeks fresh, and safe to say a disgruntled fan (pardon his writing), has been doing disruptive edits and posted an attack (sort of) on my talk page accusing me of being biased, when clearly he is blithely unaware of BLP guidelines. I have posted warnings on his talk page and have explained, best as I could, the improvements I have done on the article he is attacking in terms of peer review, copy-edits and source review from Wikipedia contributors since 2017.

Obviously, the edits this user has made on this page Sarah Geronimo fall under NPOV, and his attack on my work to improve Regine Velasquez's article, is a blow on his inability to proficiently and competently improve his edits based on Wiki guidelines and has resorted to discrediting another page instead.

Although he does make a good point, I am a fan, but isn't that what this platform is about, everyone dedicating their time on improving articles are FANS of the subjects/topics they are writing about. BUT we have to conform to the guidelines (as is the use of PR, Source spot checks, C/Es), instead of attacking someone's talk page.

Among other disruptive edits this user has done:

• List of best-selling albums in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lea Salonga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pseud 14 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

IP edits done without following Wikipedia sourcing style

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 64 § IP edits done without following Wikipedia sourcing style

 – SemiHypercube 15:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers! I would like some advice on a problem with some IP edits that I have no idea how to address. There are some IPs, apparently based on Tunisia, who constantly edit the numbers of religious (often Jewish) demographics of North African countries. Examples of those articles are Religion in Algeria, History of the Jews in Algeria, Religion in Tunisia, History of the Jews in Tunisia, History of the Jews in Libya, Religion in Morocco, Tunisian people, Tunisia, Maghrebi Jews, and a single one in American Jews. It's not like they are necessarily done in bad faith, but the MO is to simply edit a number, leaving the source in the comment, sometimes editing the same number twice in a row using different, conflicting sources, with some of those of poor quality. I ended up following all the pages above to try to keep an eye on those edits and although some of those edits proved to be constructive (like correcting numbers badly cited from the source), most of them go against the editing style of Wikipedia, ignore the already present sources, and end up making the History and even the displayed data of those pages a complete mess. I (and other users) have tried to contact those IPs in the Discussion page to explain how sources should be handled, but to no avail, as the active IPs eventually stop editing and new similar ones appear with the same MO already described. I don't want to simply revert these edits, but it's getting hard to follow them and check every time how reliable the new numbers might be. I would appreciate if someone could advise me what's the best course of action on how to deal with this. Thank you for your time. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sarilho1: I think WP:ANI might be the best pick, since this is a conduct issue (I might even move this thread there) SemiHypercube 15:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: Hi! I was unsure what was the best place to place this. If that's indeed the best pick, please do move it. I'm sorry for the hassle. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sarilho1:  Done moving the thread SemiHypercube 15:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sarilho1:I'm not seeing an obvious solution to this, unfortunately. As I'm sure you also suspect, these edits are almost certainly coming from one user, but across quite a lot of IP addresses. Without the user creating an account or choosing to engage, it seems fairly pointless communicating on the user talk pages when it's likely you won't catch the same user again. They're mostly in two fairly tight ranges (196.235.26.87/17) and 196.229.227.108/17), both appearing to be standard, dynamic Tunisian mobile phone IPs. However, the disruption is neither serious enough, nor frequent enough, to make me think blocking those ranges is going to be very helpful - even in those tight ranges only about half the activity seems to be that user, so it's a lot of collateral damage versus minimal real benefit. Just continue checking what references you can, and reverting ones you can't verify - it's better to lean towards removing things we're not sure about. As the pages are fairly low traffic, we can contemplate activating pending changes protection on some of them, as is already the case on Tunisia, but the edits are pretty sparse. The user seems fairly well-intentioned, I just can't think of a particularly good way of getting their attention. ~ mazca ^talk 16:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Multiple IP user

This pertains to the following IP addresses which I believe are all from the same user:

• 211.192.49.151
• 61.102.135.60
• 211.48.39.89
• 121.124.86.149
• 121.124.86.186
• 211.196.75.162

The author has been previously instructed times about:

• WP:NOR, WP:Sandbox, IP hopping, and edit warring User_talk:61.102.135.60
• WP:UNSOURCED Lack of citations User_talk:121.124.86.149
• Copying text from Wikipedia without attribution User_talk:211.48.39.89

Examples of copy-pasted phrase dumped into other articles (usually in the leading paragraph) to promote Christianity and colonialism article:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=946432852
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adalbert_of_Prague&diff=prev&oldid=945048244
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruno_of_Querfurt&diff=prev&oldid=945047920
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians&diff=prev&oldid=945044737
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanking_incident_of_1927&diff=prev&oldid=945041727
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Via_Francigena&diff=prev&oldid=945040520
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Martyrs&diff=prev&oldid=945036327
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martyrs_of_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=945036255
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_Martyrs&diff=prev&oldid=945036157

When edits in Christianity and colonialism#Korea were called into question, the author's justification predominantly consisted of theories and unsupported assertions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity_and_colonialism&type=revision&diff=950452403&oldid=948485403

Despite the fact that the Talk page disagreement was not resolved, the author continues to add content without justifying its placement in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_colonialism&type=revision&diff=951890917&oldid=951469647

I reached out to the IRC help chat for advice. Upon looking into the situation, the editor in IRC instructed me to post here.

GottaShowMe (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there isn't anything that can be done to stop all of this. Some admins may try to block ranges of IPs, but this vandal will be back. 174.226.128.166 (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

An argument could certainly be made for blocking 121.124.0.0/16 without losing much of value, based on the last 12 months of contributions. Gricehead (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a user who is extremely passionate about their point of view and doesn't understand Wikipedia standards such as NOR, citations, citing other Wikipedia pages, etc. I don't think the IP-hopping is intentional, but it makes the user hard to pin down and have a discussion with. Several people from different pages have reached out to the user in the past over edits. In the few actual responses I've seen, it seems the user doesn't grasp what they're doing wrong. I wonder if some kind of temporary block can be used to get the user to slow down and learn more about Wikipedia editing standards. In the meantime, perhaps Christianity and colonialism should be submitted for some kind of review? That seems to be the primary focus on this user's editing. There are whole sections that are uncited. GottaShowMe (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:61.102.135.60 is back to editing without citations and dropping links in other articles without any respect to whether they fit contextually within the article. GottaShowMe (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Tahc removed some uncited material from Christianity and colonialism. User:61.102.135.60 has reverted Tahc's changes, claiming that the changes were "vandalism." User:61.102.135.60 has not yet responded to any of the April messages on their talk page, included a new message about reverts of uncited material on another page by User:Materialscientist. GottaShowMe (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh hello. It seems there is a conspiracy theory going on here. What I can say is that my IT skills do not extend to IP addresses - in fact I don’t own a computer. I do not register for an account because I do not generally edit or use Wikipedia. That hopefully also indicates that I do not feel strongly about any particular issue on Wikipedia - the organization has had many defections over the years, a few scandals of companies editing their own or client pages, and therefore Wikipedia has been much reduced in credibility to me since it’s been included in Wikileaks, if I remember correctly. The Christianity and colonialism article happened to correspond to what I was researching for my professional work. If my edits and references are in any way lacking and decrease, instead of increasing, quality of the article, and if other users are invested in the subject, please make incremental edits to the quality of the article instead of deleting half of it and then moving around whole blocks, without editing, to purposefully harm the very credibility of the topic. The two complainants have not provided a single constructive edit, or reference, or engaged in a discussion on the topic, for the entire 10-year existence of the article in question.

I am becamain’t aware that I am touching some strong religious feelings by even editing the Christianity and colonialism article. Well, guys - if someone found a few books, all published by reputable scientific publishers, over more than 50 years, elaborating on the topic, what do you do? You go and delete half of the entire article, including references.

Firstly, the discussion about article and its inclusion in something called “unimportant articles on Christianity” indicates strong feelings about its very existence, and that was years before my edits. Interestingly, GottaShowMe did not respond to the response provided to them on the Korea part of the article but came to complain here. His lack of edit history is a little suspect - it seems he has been activated solely by the Christianity and colonialism article.

Meanwhile, Tahc’s Wikipedia edit history indicates a possible American Evangelical Christian background - he seems to have made hundreds of edits on Christianity and Jewish kings, and on that alone. His personal profile seems to summarize his readings of the Bible, chapter by chapter. The edits Tahc made equal vandalism - he removed properly sourced and scientifically backed parts of the article, after which he rearranged article in such a way (mixing Latin America and Jesuits) that can only be thought to have been designed to confuse readers. He also seems to have used editing techniques that made reversals more difficult than they generally are, with manual work required. He also confuses colonialism and colonies (as per their Wikipedia definitions).

I would like to encourage our (extreme?) Christian friends to dig into scientific literature and provide any missing references, if they feel any are missing. Scientific material (almost invariably published by the most prestigious publishers like Princeton) has been provided and referenced to prove beyond reasonable doubt interplay between Christianity and colonialism in contexts such as the Baltics, Korea, Japan and India (just to refer to the most recent edits as per edit history page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.102.135.60 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As someone not at all involved in this dispute... yikes. That's a lot of personal attacks and unfounded allegations you've made, 61.102.135.60. Other editors have tried to steer you in the right direction by pointing out our rules & guidelines, but it seems you've decided your way is the right one and you have no intention of listening.

For the record, and before more accusations are made, I'm not Christian. I am in fact, atheist. You're just in the wrong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to direct the admins to this user's recent response on the talk page, which was added today. Continuation of personal attacks and unfounded allegations.

> Interestingly, GottaShowMe did not respond to the response provided to them on the Korea part of the article but came to complain here.

With all due respect, User:61.102.135.60, you have mixed up the order of events. Notices of this incident were sent out 21 April 2020 to the talk pages for ALL of the IP's you use. Your response on the talk page dates to today, 28 April 2020. You are resorting to ad hominem attacks (accusing other users of clear bias) instead of addressing their critiques.

Furthermore, the burden of proof for adding content is on the writer of that content, not the readers (WP:BURDEN). For example, on your talk page, you tell User:Materialscientist that "instead of reverting you could have looked it up yourself on Google News" in response to their removal of your uncited material. It is not another editor's job to look up citations for you, or citations that provide "counterfactuals" to your uncited material.

GottaShowMe (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Strange edits by IP

I just reverted two bizarre edits by 174.197.198.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Although those are the only two edits in their history, in the past, edits like these tend to accumulate under dynamic IPs depending on each time they login, so I suspect there’s a lot more of them out there. I seem to recall there being a way to search for additional IPs in this range, but I’ve forgotten how to do it. Could someone look closer into this? I’m concerned there’s a lot more that need reverting. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Viriditas, on the contributions page you can append /24 and search again to find everything by 174.197.198.X. There are other possible numbers (for example, WHOIS says that that IP belongs to a /18 range, which is pretty big), but /24 is usually a good starting point if you don't know anything about the IP range. creffett (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

(for reference: I clicked the WHOIS link in the IP info you linked above, and the asn_cidr line says 174.197.192.0/18, which tells me that I can find anything from the range this IP belongs to by appending a /18 to the IP. There's a lot more technical detail on what these magic numbers I'm throwing at you mean, and I can tell you more on your talk page if you're interested, but this is the information you actually need to get the job done) creffett (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link 174.197.198.78/18. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you could block the /18 w/o causing collateral damage. I would warn the user adequately. Two users-- and then anon block briefly if need be with account creation permitted. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything worth even warning for. These edits are not strange, but adequately explained and otherwise cromulent. This type of thing could be avoided if the content was properly referenced. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. As I explained in my reverts, the adequate explanations you refer to were false. The information was neither an interpretation, nor an opinion, nor a peacock term as the original IP claimed. In the past, we’ve seen these types of strange edits before, from users who think they can make up a reason for deleting blue sky content, that in 99% of cases, is not unsourced as you claim, but fully sourced and explained in parent or daughter articles. Often times during the article creation process, duplicate content that is properly licensed gets moved around from article to article, with or without sources. I can’t say that’s what happened here, nor could I speculate as to who originally added the material without examining the page history, but this information is widely known by those familiar with the topic, which is why the edits appeared so strange to me. Per your excellent suggestion, I have gone back and made explicit the sources in at least one of the articles. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand much about ranges, but remember if you're blocking a big range to ask the checkusers (WP:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests) to see if there are registered users editing from the range, lest you accidentally block one or more good-faith contributors. Doesn't apply, of course, if you're doing an anon-only block. Nyttend (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Tell that to the two stewards who separately caught me up in sitewide blocks in 2018 without checking for possible collateral damage. Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how "and the musicians develop the concept through their use of space" is not an opinion, even if it's the opinion of those who created the thing. But whatever I guess. BTW, could someone explain to me why we're talking about the edit's of an IP, with no real idea of how sticky it is, on ANI where notification is required, as per all those big warnings and the IP's talk page was a red link until I informed them? Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Excellent question. Here is the original edit. The content in question was originally added by another IP. In that context, it originally said, "It is a concept album, aimed at creating an oceanic atmosphere. Many of the song titles refer to marine biology or the sea, and the musicians develop the concept through their use of space and almost tidal dynamics." This is not an ideal paraphrase of the sources, but it is essentially correct. In this context, the phrase “use of space”, is a synonym and paraphrase of the common term “improvisation”. As we know, Miles Davis’ foray into modal Jazz was characterized by his use of space, his improvisational harnessing of the power of silence, the space between the notes, and Hancock, on this album, carries this tradition forward. The cited sources support this in many different ways. Blumenthal, as only one example, writes, “an aura surrounding the melodic material and the rhythms, particularly the ebb-and-flow washed of Tony William’s drums, that sustain the nautical conceit.” This aura, this melodic material, and this ebb and flow, is the hallmark of the wide space Davis popularized and that Hancock uses to great effect. Again, not a perfect paraphrase, but the IP got it right. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I would advise against blocking the /18 range. The /18 range contains 16,384 IPs (belonging to Verizon Wireless customers), and it seems like there was little abuse coming from this IP range. The only vandalism I can see from is this edit, coming from one IP. No need for blocking 16k IPs. --MrClog (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog Edit Warring and Personal Attacks (again)

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

---

After a 24 hour block in February for Edit Warring and one back in September 2018 for personal attacks, Roxy the dog is continuing the same actions again.

Edit Warring: Blatant 3RR violation on Coffee enema, reverting good faith edits without further discussion on the talk page. Now, this is not to say there is not a modicum of fault with the other editor, however Roxy should know better.

Personal Attack: I think this diff says it all

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Roxy the dog has a massive history of egregious personal attacks, but nothing will be done because the "community" likes his POV.
  • Fuck off from this page[105]
  • Haha, that's hilarious, you little shit. [106]
  • Now fuck off from this page. [107]
  • Doubleplus fuck off.[108]
  • Really fuck off. [109]. -Pudeo (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

    You know, sometimes personal attacks are just because someone is stressed out and needs a break from Wikipedia. Occasionally we give them one. Not everything is about POV. – bradv🍁 23:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• No evidence of of a "blatant" 3RR violation. Milesaway0 was engaging in long-term edit warring, but we don't blame other parties for following WP:ONUS policy when another refuses to. At one point, Roxy had two reverts within 24 hours, but never more. Considering that part was misleading already, I'd definitely want to see the context of the personal attack diff to see what was going on. That said, it was from April 25 with nothing going on currently, so this looks somewhat stale too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• • After several edit confliccts, no, Rich Smith, your diff does not say it all. You need to also read the section above your own complaint — you know, the one named "Dad's funeral". And then try to dredge up some fellow feeling. Context is all, and tunnel vision is no good in these horrible days. Or, alternatively, go fuck yourself. Roxy, I'm very sorry for your loss. Bishonen | tålk 23:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC).

Or, alternatively, go fuck yourself. Keeping it classy Bish. PackMecEng (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Keeping it real, I think you mean. Or you can go back to second-guessing her and other admins about sanctionable bad behavior or using false balance to call settled facts a "content dispute" --Calton | Talk 08:58, 1 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.

Continuous Copyright Violation

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

---

User account of violator : User:Koushik Pain

1. The account is continuously adding information to Wikipedia (despite several warning on the talk page), infringing the copyright policies. I recently tagged few of the pages:

• Dhonkal Singh
• Jas Ram Singh
• Tej Singh (Ashoka Chakra)

Other pages created by the user also may contain copyright information.

2. It seems that the user is creating articles just after googling the topic and copy-pasting. Most of the articles are created about non-notable subjects. The articles clearly fails WP:GNG and also WP:SOLDIER as most of the subjects of the article are one time winner of the award.

3. The user is reverting the deletion tags placed on created page. Some of the instances:

• [110]
• [111]
• [112]

many such instances can be founded.

All the pages created by the user till now are needed to be checked. - Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - User keeps trying to remove CSD tag from Jas Ram Singh. Kori (@) 04:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. Has been recreated by user. May need to do some more checks. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 12:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - The user's contributions are also grammatically incorrect. Not to pile onto him, but I had to revert several of his edits due to their lack of quality. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked No edits to their user talk, and several copyright violations... A bad combination. I'll request a CCI later. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 15:43, 1 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 personal attacks

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

---

78.144.87.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The IP above has added personal attacks in multiple edit summaries at Operation Barbarossa (see [113], [114], and [115]).

I warned them, along with SharabSalam here. They have continued their attacks after those warnings. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week for making personal attacks against other editors. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There have been accusations of that this IP is a sockpuppet. It seems likely so far but I am still looking at behavioural evidence. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something I can't say that this IP is HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as Driverofknowledge (talk · contribs) has said. @Driverofknowledge: what evidence do you have to suggest the IP is HarveyCarter? The geolocation is wrong for HarveyCarter (no other IPs in this range have been labelled as socks in the SPI archive). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's so clear. Same location (United Kingdom) of IPs same behaviour. See the LTA page Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/HarveyCarter. Pushing "pro-axis" and the IP has said that the article is written in a "Stalinist" POV.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the information SharabSalam. The different range was a indication this might be someone else to me, but I think you are right here. Modified block reason to include ban evasion. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:55, 1 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.

46Lobster

46Lobster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone experienced with deletion discussions and sockpuppetry please have a look at this user's contributions? WP:G4 seems to be an issue, at very very least. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• And WP:G5/WP:BE as well. Just look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Totally_TV&action=history . I'll leave this to others; I guess an indefinite block is required. Obvious enough. Blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Another sockpuppet: Special:Contributions/428TVFan. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• And another one, Special:Contributions/428TVWatcher. All right. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Quack quack. G4 and G5 deletions, plus salting, used diligently here. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Pincrete in a MH17 article (Second request)

• Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pincrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Александр Мотин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently I made my first AN/I request regarding disruptive editing by Pincrete. It was closed without action. I kindly ask to check on this Pincrete's reverting. He claims that the reason is that the transcript of the Russian MoD briefing "was the primary referred to". Remarkably, yesterday, he had no complaints about those facts and that primary source. Moreover while editing the article he was referring to the DSB report which is a primary source as well! But he didn't delete those facts cited from a primary source (DSB report) [116][117][118]! Check, please, also the in-article "Background" section which is written using a primary source. I believe that at least the above mentioned disruptive deletion is one of the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. So why is he allowed to use primary source (DSB report) and at the same, in his opinion, I'm not allowed to use primary source (Russian MoD report/transcript)? Please take action, because, in my opinion, his actions go beyond the constructive resolution of disputes.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It was closed as no one thought there was any action to take, relaunching this will just look disruptive. As well as you have a DRN running on the same subject (just different users) [[119]]. I get strong vibes of not here did not here that and forum shopping.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Afaics OP tried to insert OR/fringe in the MH17 article and is now accusing others who keep to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well those on behaviour as those on content. See also WP:FTN#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Suggesting boomerang for WP:FORUMSHOPping. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed I think (as they did at one time edit other topics) a TABN, its clear in this area they are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Oh dear me! I request an immediate close to this overtly frivolous piece of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Here is the DRN which Александр Мотин filed today. And here the total-waste-of-everybody's-time ANI brought against me barely a week ago. Talk page will show that I've been doing my best to help this editor, despite neither their English, nor their mastery of policy being very sound.

Should anyone want a more detailed response on any point, please ping. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

DRN request was filed on a different subject. I insist that Pincrete's edits were disruptive. --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Because he is not, your first diff the source is BBC News, you do understand what wp:primary means?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually in the first diff, both sources (already in place btw), were secondary. My main change there is to tale out a paragraph break in order that the various findings 'run together'. I also added 'Ukrainian' to clarify which authorities were responsible for closing the airspace ... which is ironical since the main thrust of Александр Мотин's editing is that Ukr is at fault. Other changes in other diffs (like changing 'revealed' to 'stated', 'aerooplane' to 'airplane'} are so standard, that you'd think Александр might thank me, not report me. Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I also kindly ask administrators to pay attention to the fact that a group of opposing editors attacks me on many pages at once (for instance, on the article's talk page, on my personal talk page [120][121], on the FTN page [122], on the DRN page). It seems to be a WP:CTDAPE case. Please also pay attention to what Pincrete calls my edits "almost gibberish", "Kremlin-ophilic" and talks about "my motives" [123]--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, your motives are indeed questionable, I suggest you read wp:nothere.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The following sources are used in the background section BBC, the Guardian, Voice of Russia, Information Telegraph Agency of Russia, NTV News, The Diplomat...and it is at that point I gave up trying to find the primary source the user is talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The primary source referred to is probably the DSB final report, which I have been prepared to use during the last week, especially when it is a 'complementary' rather than 'main' reference. I have been very careful to not interpret it at all. Александр, not I was the one to start to use it extensively, and IMO, very carelessly. I've also tried to get discussion going on talk as to what the limits of use should be here and here - mainly because the report was being mis-used in several ways, which Александр seems either unable, or unwilling to understand. Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Александр Мотин: stop editing your comments after they have been replied to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal Boomerang block

This has been wasting a few users time now for over a week, whatever use Александр Мотин may have cannot out weigh this massive disruption. A slow edit war, attacks on other users, forum shopping, and god knows what else is way to much to indicate this user is worth retaining.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a huge timesink and must be stopped asap. All these conspiracy theories have been already discussed at the talk page in 2014 and rejected.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Could you, please, point to a "conspiracy theory" since you seem to call my edits like that? --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian deserter, Rostov radar record, the theory of Ukrainian Buk. Unless I am mistaken, you have also forgotten to mention the fighter photo, I am sure you will be able to find Russian sources for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian primary radar data was examined by JIT as it was reported by JIT. Where do you see conspiracy? What "theory of Ukrainian Buk" are you talking about? What kind of conspiracy about Ukrainian deserter are you talking about since his identity and belonging to the Ukrainian army were confirmed by Ukrainian servicemen [124]? I really don't understand what you want to say by that. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Look, I am not here to debate this for the tenth time. My time is valuable, and I am not going to waste it for going through all this propaganda bullshit again. My argument is that nobody wants to do it, and the solution which would save the most time to the community is to block your account asap.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

So why are you calling my edits a "propaganda bullshit"? And why should I be blocked? Because you have no time to explain? --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Because you many users time trying to explain to you why the sources you are using are not neutral are pushing Russian propaganda that the international community have long since proven false and rejected. Because you are not here to build an encyclopedia but push Russian propaganda.Slatersteven (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Cut the WP:PA. MiasmaEternal^TALK 22:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That is the accusation I am making, how do I make it without saying what I think they are doing? You are aware they have been blocked by the Russian wiki for this self same fight?Slatersteven (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That's right. Here at ANI we comment on contributors, not on content. EEng 00:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. My mistake. MiasmaEternal^TALK 04:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have partially blocked Александр Мотин from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, indefinitely. El_C 00:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Note the unblock request which reads: "But why?" — that's it, that the entire unblock request! El_C 00:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

They've now converted the unblock request into a query pinging me. El_C 01:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that resolution, which I endorse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this will hopefully resolve the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I wish they had just listened to me when I asked them to just drop it. No I do not think it will work, but we can but hope.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that a permanent block seems draconian to me. The topic of this article is contentious. Reviewing the editorial assumptions is an integral and necessary part of editing this article. I noticed that Александр Мотин got too eager, and edited in spite of the established consensus. Never the less, a warning to adhere to wp:agf and wp:consensus may have been sufficient. Heptor (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but they still (as their appeal shows) they do not get what they were doing wrong (I think the above discussion demonstrates that as well). I think it is clear a warning would not have worked.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, good shout. Guy (help!) 17:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Have they been unblocked [[125]]?Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: I kindly ask you to reconsider the sanctions or cancel them. You said that my edits were disruptive. Well check please a "Background" section I recently worked on (before my and the opposing editors' edits and after). Here is a list of significant factual inaccuracies that I have identified for this section and which have been corrected. I understand that my edits in the article may cause a flurry of indignation since many editors are hostile to me, but I don't quite understand why these edits are disruptive [126][127].--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No, editors are not hostile to you. Hell I even warned you to drop this, how is that hostility? If I had wanted you blocked I would have launched an ANI, not let you be stupid enough to re-open one you had already been told was way off the mark. You have literally done nothing but waster time on this issues for over well (it might be close to two) a week.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion (and no, not just me) as to whether or not the partial ban prohibits editing the articles talk page. I think we need clarification on this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarified, they can edit the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The request was for a block, not a topic ban. A topic ban (by virtue of a block from the article talk page, too) may yet be enforced. Let's keep this report open for a while longer so that, if necessary, any further evidence to that effect could be compiled and submitted. Thank you. El_C 15:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think many of us assumed any block would also be to the talk pager as well, nothing I can find says this cannot be the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course not. I understand many assumed a holistic restriction, but I used my discretion. Because I am lenient and hoped it would serve as a wake up call to Александр Мотин, as unlikely as that prospect may be. El_C 16:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I was at the stage just before asking for the boomerang. I tend to not ask for blocks until my good faith is exhausted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. 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 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ashton 29 is becoming increasingly problematic with his editing at multiple articles, reverting to blatant personal attacks on several occasions and edit-warring to get his preferred images into articles even when discussions have shown no consensus to include them. His edits have not been clear vandalism and his edit-warring has been drawn out over time so WP:AIV and WP:AN3 don't seem appropriate venues for reporting his actions but I have given him several warnings, including a final one and yet he still persists.

Back in 2015, in a discussion now archived here, he proposed adding File:Gold Coast summer, Burleigh Heads Beach.jpg to Australia after his addition of the image was reverted by HappyWaldo. The obvious consensus of that discussion was that the original image was preferred. Despite that, he restored it to the article in February this year,[128] but that was reverted by an editor citing the 2015 discussion. Ashton 29's response was to edit-war the image back into the article, acknowledging the 2015 discussion when he said "that was an old vote, I highly doubt anybody cares enough know...plus, this image is more populated with people" in his edit summary.[129] It's ironic that he mentioned that the image "is more populated with people" as that was one of the issues that resulted in rejection of the image. This time I removed it stating "The discussion is still valid until another discussion overturns it. That there has been some time since you failed to have this image used doesn't mean you can force it back into the article.",[130] and Ashton 29 let the matter be until recently when he again restored it, this time without any edit summary.[131] It was immediately removed,[132] but, less than 2 hours ago the image was again restored without explanation.[133] Ashton 29 has made no attempt to open a new discussion about this image on Talk:Australia and seems content to continue trying to sneak the image back into the article. I raised this matter on his talk page 5 days ago but there has been no response other than the edit-warring.

Ashton 29 has done this sort of thing at other articles. For example, his addition of a montage to the infobox at Hobart was reverted,[134] and his response was not to open a discussion but to simply edit-war, telling the other editor to "take it to the talk page",[135] even though the burden is his to gain consensus for its inclusion once it was opposed. Ashton 29 is strong proponent of montages and has been involved in attempts to include a montage at Sydney. A montage was proposed for this article last year but was opposed for various reasons. While discussion was still open in March, Ashton 29 added his own montage to the article.[136] That montage included images that had been rejected in previous discussions so it was reverted. (It shouldn't have been added while the discussion was underway anyhow!) Unfortunately, during that discussion another editor decided to resort to makes personal attacks so Ashton 29 decided he would too.[137] I removed it and warned him.[138] This obviously had no effect as several weeks later on April he added another, this time attacking both HappyWaldo and me.[139] I removed that one and warned him,[140] but his response was to restore the attack. Another editor subsequently made comment about the attacks.[141]

Since then, Ashton 29 has had what can best be described as a temper tantrum, which includes encouraging another editor to join him,[142] (which seems a bit of meatpuppetry to me) and making a post that was essentially whining.[143] He then edit-warred at Hobart and restored his image to Australia as explained above. The final warning that I left on his talk page was posted 5 days ago but the edit-warring at Hobart and Australia, as well as the meatpuppetry have all occurred since then. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You singled out me and a few other editors who don't share the same opinions as you, for "personally attacking you". Now I'm not going to speak on behalf on everyone involved, but not once have i targeted, harassed or attacked you in a personal manner. I've criticised your ideas and way of holding up progress and if you can't accept criticism, then I'm sorry that's your fault, not mine. I'm also not going to sit around and watch you bully other editors into submission, just to get your way of controlling all edits being made to your own personal preferences.- Cement4802 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason I invited you to this discussion was only because of this post on your talk page made by Ashton 29, which I mentioned above, and for no other reason. If you think it was because of personal attacks you must have a guilty conscience about something that you said. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me like the two edits you cite as personal attacks are uncivil, but do not constitute personal attacks. --MrClog (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The latter part of the comment "I've criticised your ideas and way of holding up progress..." from Cement4802 looks like a personal attack to me. From Ashton 29, I've copped "You can't keep peddling that pathetic tourist brochure excuse...get real." It wasn't the first time I've had something like that directed at me. A comment directed at another editor that uses the words "pathetic" and "get real" is obviously not conducive to polite discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, both the Cement and the Ashton comments appear to be personal attacks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

To add fuel to the fire, even though he is fully aware of this discussion, Ashton 29 continues edit-warring instead of discussing. At Sydney, before I opened this discussion, he made a number of changes, one of which included replacing an image with what I believe is an inferior one. I reverted the image addition with the explanation "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."[144] I should note that I made a mistake here and reverted all of his changes instead of just the image change so Ashton 29's subsequent reversion was quite appropriate given the circumstances. I then proceeded to revert the correct revision with an apology in the edit summary.[145] Instead of then discussing the image, Ashton 29 simply restored the image.[146] This is typical. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It really does appear that Ashton 29 does not care any more. Even though he knows there is no consensus to add a montage to the Sydney infobox, he just added one with 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."[147] no attempt to discuss in the existing, still active talk page discussion, just add it to the article, which is clearly disruptive and he hasn't even bothered participating here. I think he just assumes that he is going to be blocked so he doesn't care. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not so much that I don't care, or that I "know there's no consensus", it's more that the consensus is really just the recycled opinion of the same three editors, namely AussieLegend himself, HiLo, and HappyWaldo. If I had sufficient, substantial reason to know that the montage is void, I'd cease adding it. But because it's just so unconvincing, so repetitive in its opposing argument, I continue to add it. It's not edit warring either, because I don't constantly revert it. In fact, that's what you do. As others have pointed out, most of what I said are hardly personal attacks. They're uncivil, perhaps, but so is your constant denial of other people's valid contributions a montage on Sydney's page. You can't claim ownership and you fail to reach compromise. If you do not compromise, where is discussion going to get me? You've driven User:Cement4802 to give up on contributing to Sydney's page which is totally unfair. It appears you want me blocked, or afraid, so you do not have an opposition to the way you want a page to look. This is essentially an attack itself. Ashton 29 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If I had sufficient, substantial reason to know that the montage is void, I'd cease adding it - You do know. There is an active discussion on the talk page about the montage that you have posted to just recently. You know about WP:BRD and yet you keep adding a montage while it is under discussion.

because it's just so unconvincing, so repetitive in its opposing argument, I continue to add it. - Repeatedly adding the montage when its inclusion has been opposed and is under discussion is the very definition of edit-warring.

It's not edit warring either, because I don't constantly revert it. - Edit warring doesn't require constant reverting. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashton 29 tells us just above that the arguments he doesn't like are "really just the recycled opinion of the same three editors..." Recycled? That's a strange description. I would happily have mine described as repeated, because they have never been refuted, but recycled is obviously getting personal, and pretty silly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that both Ashton 29 and AussieLegend are labelling everything any opinion they disagree with as a personal attack. 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. All comments I have made are simply critical comments of Wikipedia related actions. I have zero interest in making comments about your personal attributes. I don't know any of the editors beyond Wikipedia, and nor do I care. All of the excuses you two make have been refuted time and time again, yet they're still relentlessly churned out and used to block out any discussion or ideas that you two disagree with - Cement4802 (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Was that post really meant to be about Ashton 29 and AussieLegend? HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cement4802: When somebody specifically names another editor and casts aspersions, that's a personal attack. I took great pains to point out on your talk page that you were only tangentially related to this discussion but you immediately took that to be claiming that you had personally attacked me, resulting in the rant above.[148] --AussieLegend (✉) 10:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cement4802: when you say "I don't think I'll sink to that low" about an editor, that's a personal attack. So is the last sentence above, right or wrong. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend I'd argue that your assumption that Ashton 29 "doesn't care" and that "he assumes that he's going to be blocked" falsely undermines and discredits his actual actions and credibility, without any evidence. That in itself constitutes as a personal attack. Also, HiLo48 describes the comments of Ashton 29 as "silly" which is again unconstructive and a personal attack. - Cement4802 (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Describing one's comments as "silly" is not a personal attack. El_C 10:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

El_C Neither is the claim that someone is "holding up progress" I don't see you refuting that claim. - Cement4802 (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"[H]olding up progress" is also not a personal attack. El_C 10:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I reckon it is. What does it add to the discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: There's a difference between unconstructive comments and personal attacks. MrClog (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree they can be different things. But let's look at the comment. It's directed at particular individuals. It's contains no explicit criticism of the contents of any the comments from those individuals, but it's certainly a negative comment, implying that those editors aren't interested in progress. That's a personal attack in my book. If it's not one in yours, it must be just outside the definition. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: If we look at the "letter of the law" (in this case Wikipedia policy), one form of a PA would be "[a]ccusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". An accusation is "[a] charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong". Holding up progress is not per se "wrong"; there are (many) ways in which one could legitimately hold up progress. But if we look at the spirit of the policy, I think it is clearer that it is not a PA. The reason we disallow PAs is that they harm the editing environment. This discussion itself is pretty heated, and therefore, it is almost inevitable that accusations regarding conduct will be brought up, some without evidence. I would say that relatively light accusations - like "holding up progress", assuming that is meant as a negative thing per se - do less damage to the environment than calling them out and accusing the other party of making personal attacks. --MrClog (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

When you look at Ashton 29's recent edits there are a number of conclusions that you can come to, the most benign of which was that he doesn't care and expects to be blocked. Persistently adding content that he knows to be controversial, failing to discuss his edits knowing that he needs to discuss them as they've been opposed previously, and more than once, what would you call it? Of course he has now explained his reasons and it's now looking more like he is being deliberately disruptive, in my opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This is why I avoid editing Australian topics like the plague. Classic case of the small group of regular editors on a specific topic who appear to feel ownership over the topic so are extremely difficult to reach a consensus with. This infects every issue, great or extremely trivial. AussieLegend attempting to have an editor sanctioned for calling out this behaviour, in particular for describing HiLo48 as 'holding up progress', is quite frankly disgusting, particularly considering the many, many, many, many reports concerning HiLo48. Cjhard (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

How is the plague an Australian topic? There's coronavirus everywhere. EEng 05:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There isn't coronavirus everywhere, and I have a four (five, where does the time go?) year old discussion as the sole basis for this assertion. If you think this isn't the most productive way of engaging with other editors, I'll take you to AN/I! Cjhard (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: You might have been caught by a language issue. I believe that Cjhard meant "I avoid editing Australian topics like [I avoid getting] the plague", not that the plague was an Australian article. I can't find any evidence of Cjhard ever editing Sydney or its talk page and I really don't give anything else he said any credibility, especially the claim that coronavius isn't everywhere given it has affected 195 countries and killed 200,000 people, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, EEng, most Australians do have a sense of humour. --Cjhard (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No doubt a necessity for survival in that arid and desolate antipodean wasteland. EEng 12:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, how dare you. Cjhard (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This Australian had a good chortle. --Blackmane (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

EEng is no doubt aware that Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. You can't trust any of them, me included, I guess. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Ashton 29 continues his problematic editing, this time resorting to blatant canvassing. I found out that he had started a discussion at WP:DRN about the Sydney article. Despite the clear instructions that involved editors must be notified, Ashton 29 only notified 2 of the 9 listed editors and those two just happened to be editors who share his POV. At User talk:Cement4802 the notification was added to a discussion titled "Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!" while at User talk:PhilipTerryGraham his notification was I am one of many users who agree with you in that Sydney's page needs a montage. It's a major global city yet it looks like a small town with just one lede montage image. I liked the one you put forward in January. Anyway, I'd like to hear from you here.[149] That is so far from neutral as to be clear and obvious canvassing. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:DRN has just been closed by an Admin, for the above reason and for some others. How much longer can Ashton 29 continue to waste the time of other editors and make personal attacks without consequence? HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question given there's clear evidence of edit-warring, personal attacks, disruptive editing, forum-shopping and canvassing, all recently. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep this up, and I'll consider proposing a boomerang block for stonewalling discussions. I wonder how many diffs will be found, how many editors will be supportive? Cjhard (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I just looked up WP:Stonewalling. It tells me "When a substantive objection to a change exists, stonewalling is not required". I find that my arguments against change in that article are simply ignored, rather than discussed, so I still regard them as substantive objection. It can't be called stonewalling. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48False, all of your claims have been refuted time and time again. Repeatedly bringing them up again is unconstructive and disruptive to edits and progress. Please take into consideration that just because you personally believe something is correct, it doesn't actually mean the wider community finds it correct either. - Cement4802 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"... all of your claims have been refuted time and time again." No. They haven't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with HiLo48. The arguments have certainly been argued against but as anyone can see, "refuted" they have not. Please also note that improper use of warning templates, such as the warning that you left on my talk page today for no apparent reason,[150] is highly inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashon 29's problematic editing continues, this time at Talk:Sydney: Ah, Merbabu. Interesting you've come out of the woodwork after a solid (curious) reprieve from editing. Suddenly, you want to stake a claim here and oppose an article you have little interest in? Ridiculous. Cabal doesn't even begin to describe it. It's an orchestrated attempt led by AussieLegend and Merbabu to shut down any changes or progress to the page. AussieLegend, I feel as though you may take this to heart and accuse me of PA again. Which it isn't. It is incredulity at the fact that suddenly all of these editors who I hardly see are suddenly coming out in droves saying they don't want a montage. Where were most of you six months ago? A year? There's no transparency here, it's all shoddy rubbish, because User:Merbabu has even gone and conducted some paltry "Oppose" vs. "Support" list, but very conveniently left off a bunch of users names from the "Support" list. I see what you did, buddy. Sly, scheming behaviour.[151] (Note the edit summary) I won't quote the unsupported allegations of canvassing at Cement4802's talk page.[152] This editor just seems unable to play nicely with others. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed this in the other discussion but it really should be addressed here. Ashton 29's failure to discuss continues. At Newcastle, New South Wales (the area where I live) Ashton 29 replaced an image in the infobox but it's a rather obscure shot and not one that many people see so I replaced it with a better view that actually used to be part of Newcastle's own logo. This was immeditely reverted, rather than discussing.[153] Following that (amongst other things) changed the question at the RfC on Talk:Sydney with the quite uncivil summary "amended for snowflakes like Nick Thorne who find the request 'argumentative' lol". How long do we have to tolerate his incivility, edit-warring, personal attacks and the rest? These problems continue and are unlikely to improve. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend Wikihounding Ashton 29

AussieLegend has begun following Ashton 29 around Wikipedia, specifically targeting Ashton 29's edits in articles AussieLegend has never edited before:

Ashton 29:[154] AussieLegend 17 minutes later: [155]

Ashton 29: [156] AussieLegend 2 hours later: [157]

Ashton 29: [158] AussieLegend 25 minutes later: [159]

It goes on a bit like that, so here's the interaction tool: [160]

Given this whole report, the ongoing content dispute between the two parties, and the warning template spam AussieLegend has left on Ashton 29's page, this is harrassing behaviour. I warned AussieLegend on his page: [161], which he responded to by templating me for improper templating.[162]

Given that, I propose a 24-hour block on AussieLegend for harrassment and wikihounding. Cjhard (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Cjhard (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - AussieLegend has been the agressor of various personal attacks, harassement and edit warring. When warned of edit warring, he proceeded to personally attack, threaten an apology from me and misuse a template, as he has consistently done with his string of attacks and targetting of editors such as Ashton 29. Adding to this, HiLo48 has also been constantly making personal attacks against editors he disagres with, which has been unconstructive and disruptive in discussion and progress. - Cement4802 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yet again, you accuse me of personal attacks. I asked you on the article Talk page when you did that earlier where I have made personal attacks, but you didn't respond, just repeating the unsupported claim here. And please try to indent in a way that doesn't make my comment look like it's part of yours, as your last edit did. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You have labelled my claims as "utter bullshit" which is both uncivil and a personal attack for one. You've also made blatant accusations and assumptions about Ashton's actions and intentions, which are also personal attacks. I refuse to engage with a disruptive editors who only dishes out personal attacks and harassement. Thank you very much - Cement4802 (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous comment. My "utter bullshit" comment was very recent, AFTER you accused me of personal attacks. And it was in response to some utter bullshit you wrote about my position here. If you lie about me, I will respond strongly. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Cement4802, I have asked you not to make baseless allegations several times now. I would supply diffs of your attacks if I thought it was going to be noticed. Here is one of a boldface lie that you made,[163] and its rebuttal.[164] --AussieLegend (✉) 06:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous. But I'm not surprised. Actually this whole mess is being made worse by a complete lack of attention to the main issue here by any Administrators at all. What's going on? HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the situation at Talk:Sydney has gotten quite out of hand with Cement4802 and Cjhard both becoming increasingly disruptive. Cement4802 is persistently attacking other editors as well as manipulating data in the discussion there and and I've had to warn him several times. Cjhard just seems intent on stirring things up and this starts with his user page where he opens by saying "Wikipedia attracts a lot of people with mental health issues." At Talk:Sydney he claimed to be an uninvolved editor, stating :I'm an uninvolved editor calling it how I see it, friend. My desired outcome is for good editors to stop wasting their time with time-wasters. War and Peace has been written on this talk page about replacing a shitty image with a montage.[165] He was quite rightly called out by HiLo48 who replied Your words "... replacing a shitty image with a montage" is evidence of you being quite the opposite of uninvolved.[166] Today he posted a bogus warning on my talk page.[167] This was after he posted this on Ashton 29's talk page. And how did he get there? He's apparently stalking me. All of the warnings that I've posted on Ashton 29's talk page are warranted, it's why I felt it necessary to file this report in the first pplace. Cjhard would do well to note that I have edited many thousands of articles. Despite this, there are articles that I still haven't edited, like every other editor. I suppose that I should point out that Cjhard entered this discussion for no apparent reason or maybe it was his ongoing beef with HiLo48.[168] --AussieLegend (✉) 05:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please give evidence into where i've made personal attacks against you? You and Hilo are the only ones going around shamelessly making personal attacks against everyone- Cement4802 (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you not see the hypocrisy and what you just wrote? I opened this report because of Ashton 29's persistent edit-warring, personal attacks and problematic editing and you took it off-track with the very first response where you falsely claimed that I had singled you out. No doubt no Administrator now wants to touch it because it has turned into a squabble. Congratulations, you have achieved what you wanted to achieve. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. This is an Administrator noticeboard, but the Administrators don't seem to be noticing what's going on. How do we get them to notice? HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I have. The personal attack on Nick Thorn mentioned above is absolutely unacceptable. I've blocked User:Ashton 29 for 72 hours. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. As a measure set out to quell the flames. El_C 18:09, 1 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 editor stalking

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

---

It appears as though 151.20.106.206 is Stalking Nikkimaria and reverting all of his recent edits for no reason. Can We get an admin to look at this? Tknifton (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for a week by User:Vsmith Tknifton (talk) 21:06, 1 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.

Roxy the dog long-term incivility

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

---

Can an admin enforce the Wikipedia:Civility policy?

The last thread about Roxy the dog (talk · contribs)'s incivility was closed by Primefac because the events were 'not connected'. There is, however, a long-term pattern of shocking incivility. I posted some diffs to the last thread from mid-2019. I also commented on Bishonen's talkpage that while Roxy the dog might be stressed, the people who these insults are hurled at are real people with feelings, too.

Roxy the dog responded there:

• Sure, and sometimes people cherrypick (from the suspects Talk page for goodness sake) in order to stir the muck. I'll not use a bad word on Bish's page, but your post was kind of indicative of the sneaky unpleasant low lifes that exist around here. 19:06, 1 May 2020 [169]

I asked him to not use language like that on his talkpage. His response:

• Dont be so stupid. Unclench your arse, then go away. thanks. 22:21, 1 May 2020 [170]

I went through his talkpage's history from late 2018 when he was blocked for personal attacks the last time. This stuff is hard to believe:

• Good grief, they have unblocked the tosser. 07:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC) [171]
• Fuck off Boing, you and your colleagues are enabling a complete tosspot here. You should all be fucking ashamed. 09:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC) [172]
• Fuck off. 09:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC) [173]
• Alex Shih asked Roxy the dog to be more mindful on January 3, 2019. On the next day, Roxy told another user to "fuck off" through a word game.
• Seriously? Don’t be a plonker all your life. 13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [174]
• Fuck off. 13:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [175]
• Arsehole. Did it ever occur to you that "Naughty" is an admonishment used gently, for children, and here you are, panties in a bunch, all over my Talk page like a rash. 20:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [176]
• Really fuck off. 05:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [177]
• Go away and learn WP:PAG 4 July 2019 (UTC) [178]
• Doubleplus fuck off. 05:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [179]
• Fuck off from this page. 16:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC) [180]
• Haha, that's hilarious, you little shit. 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC) [181]
• Learn to format your posts on Talk pages using colons, this is only polite. Now fuck off from this page. 07:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC) [182]
• Fuck off. Do not return. 16:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC) [183]
• A plonker gave me a warning, so I should give you one too, to balance the fates. 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC) [184]
• Wankers. 16:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC) [185]
• Arcturus Go fuck yourself. 12:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC) [186]

Clearly previous attempts at persuading him to treat other editors with respect have failed. Can someone say, with a straight face, that this is acceptable behavior or a good look for the community? An ANI thread from June 2019 was closed with the statement: "Unfortunately, incivility has been acceptable at Wikipedia for a very long time". So that is it? ANI is unable to deal even with the obvious patterns of egregious incivility? Is this a matter for WP:RFAR then? --Pudeo (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• There's not a single word I could use to express what I think of your actions here in opening this thread and what that says about you, personally, without likely being immediately blocked myself. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • You don't know me. All I will say is that Roxy the dog is not the only person who has had to grieve during the COVID-19 pandemic. Isn't this time a good reason to be more respectful towards each other, not less? This is long-term pattern and has not changed, and there is no excuse on hurling insults like this. --Pudeo (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • You're correct, I don't know you; all I have to go on are your actions here (Wikipedia in general, and your current focus on Roxy the dog as the current subset of that). I know as an admin I'm supposed to couch my response using platitudes and phrases such as "consideration of others" and  "inappropriate timing", but I'm not going to serve up a bowl of tepid oatmeal when only pasta arrabiata will hit the spot. I'll go hungry rather than indulge my cravings, because that's what years of Wikipedia indoctrination has trained me to do. Enjoy your pound of flesh, should it be on the menu at AN/I tonight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponyo (talk • contribs)
• I fully agree with Pudeo that the time has come to deal with this editor. The list of personal attacks Pudeo cites are patent violations of WP:5P, specifically the core requirement that "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility." This is a clearcut case of an editor who has been warned and blocked, yet continues with a pattern of toxic attacks. Again, the Wikipedia-en community needs to deal with this editor here and now, and I commend Pudeo for filing this report. Jusdafax (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• The timing of this thread... does not reflect well on the filer. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 23:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please will some admin give a short block to Roxy the Dog with a sensible block rationale? Nobody benefits from this situation right now. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Toxic behaviour comes in various forms, certainly telling people to fuck off (even if they ultimately do deserve it) is toxic, but equally toxic is the the sort of behaviour which sees someone filing a complaint given the current circumstances. Nick (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing the long-term pattern of shocking incivility here. Roxy the dog is clearly a fan of emotive and colorful language, and 7 actual insults is approximately 7 more than I'd care to use in the course of my editing. However, I don't see a block as a constructive outcome here. Please may I refer you, Pudeo, to the decision given in the case of Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I was also reminded of a legal case, but I considered the response from Private Eye in the Arkell v. Pressdram case to be more fitting here. Nick (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked at this editor's talk page and was appalled. What does it take to muzzle an editor who types such stuff? If we are taking a survey, I say to put a stop to such rudeness. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thats actually part of the evidence Nick (if you didnt click all the links. Of course if you did and that was the point of your post nevermind) I did take an in-depth look, but I got bored. Describing someone as a tosspot who (and the consensus was pretty firm on this point) was acting like an idiot and actively irritating other people? Telling an IP to fuck off - who was vandalising an article and showed up at their talkpage to complain about being reverted? Is that even a thing? Are we nice to vandals trying to win arguments now?. I am also not impressed with the timing. In a good month this would not be a good idea given the circumstances. When everyone is kettled inside and has short tempers already? I mean, there is not a lot of good going to come of this. If I were in the same situation, fuck off would be the least of the language you would hear from me. It would have more C's and probably involved the legitimacy of the filers birth. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• These profane delights have profane ends but I'm not seeing this case as a big deal. According to xtools, Roxy made 961 edits to the user talk namespace last year, and above I count 7 "fuck off"s (counting the "doubleplus fuck off" as two), putting Roxy's 2019 User talk FOPE rate (fuck offs per edit) at 0.7284%. This year, Roxy has made 309 user talk namespace edits, and above I count Roxy giving two "fuck off"s (counting the "go fuck yourself" as a "fuck off"), a 2020 FOPE of 0.64724%. This decrease in FOPE is an improvement, and rather remarkable given the loss they are grieving. (I remember when my dad died, I was more of a jerk than usual for a while, and I got to go to his funeral.) Now this reads like a polite message, and this a very impolite response, but when I read other relevant edits like this, and this, and this, it doesn't strike me as actionable any more. Roxy, sorry for your loss, I hope you keep your chin up and your FOPE down. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• About the most uncivil thing about this thread is Pudeo's filing of the complaint. The word "callous" comes to mind. I recommend closing this thread quickly, just like the previous one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• This report is reprehensible. El_C 00:27, 2 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.

Questionable edits by admin 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.

---

The following page, [187], was moved from draft to article space by User:Zanimum. Almost all citations listed are self-published and none are reliable, independent sources. Please take a look at this article, when possible. HSE001 (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You may indeed be right, but I declined your prod and am referring you to AfD, instead. That should be it as far as any immediate administrative intervention is concerned. El_C 02:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

El_C, the admin user has added semi-protection to the page. Unable to add an AfD tag. Please take another look, very questionable behavior of User:Zanimum. HSE001 (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

HSE001, that was me. I accidentally protected the wrong page. So sorry. Please feel free to add the AfD now. El_C 02:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I slipped, it happens. I got dazzled by the audited circulation of 450,000, which is significant in era of plummeting reach of print publications, and didn't full examine the sources. I'm not sure why this is being raised here? -- Zanimum (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You and me both. I'm going to close this report now as matters are in the WP:DR stage. El_C 06:31, 2 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 114.141.54.139 inserting the number 75 on multiple articles contrary to citations

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

---

114.141.54.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is trying to insert the number 75 on multiple BLP articles. They're trying to give it the appearance of legitamacy by occassionally including a cite.

diff1 - Cite without info posted

diff2

diff3 - cite without info posted

Changing to 75 contradicting existing source: diff4 diff5 diff6 diff7

diff8 - Cite given by user has 70 not the 75 placed into article

ToeFungii (talk) 11:08, 2 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.

Historymatters007

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

---

• Historymatters007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jomark bene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Got a real great cocktail here: legal threat [188], possible sock, and a big 'ol COI. User has a bee in their bonnet regarding Angelique Monet, and a likely undisclosed COI (see their talk page and contribs, they are basically an SPA, most of their contribs were to the now deleted page). Today they blanked [189] a deletion discussion about the page. That came shortly after it was also blanked by Jomark bene [190]. Its possible that Jomark bene is a sock of Historymatters given the odd timing of the blanking of the same page. Though it could be unrelated: the Jomark bene account might be a troll account, as it was Jo-Jo Eumerus who closed who closed the discussion. Regardless, I tried to explain the situation to Historymatters, they weren't having none of it, and finished their discussion with the above linked legal threat. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

They're not the same person unless they're using proxies, which seems unlikely. I guess that could be a legal threat, but it's difficult to understand what it means. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Both accounts are blocked. Clearly WP:NOTHERE--v/r - TP 00:26, 2 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 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.

---

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

Could I ask an admin to please look into the edits of Tobystewart. Their talk page is a xmas tree of warnings and requests that they obviously don't give a toss about as there has been no attempt at replying to any of the concerns raised by other editors. As such, I didn't bother to leave a warning for their latest dose of original research as I can see it will have zero effect. Here, here and here are just some of their most recent unsourced additions, happy to provide more if need be. Thanks. Robvanvee 16:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm very comfortable, after reviewing their contribs, that they aren't going to change and they'll continue to add unsourced BLP information into articles without a block.--v/r - TP 18:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for reviewing TParis. Robvanvee 18:37, 1 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.

Trolling

The following discussion is closed. 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 is this joe-jobbing bastard not blocked? --Pudeo (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The account only made edits on 20 January and has not edited since. While the account is clearly WP:NOTHERE, the inactivity makes a block pointless. If they return and continue their behavior, they would almost certainly be blocked indefinitely. funplussmart (talk) 22:06, 30 April 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.

Doc Jamester

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

---

Given the context, the edit[191] and the username, I suspect this "new" user is WP:NOTHERE or at least that an admin is going to want to keep an eye. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Confirmed sock of Milesaway0 (talk · contribs), who is also obviously someone's sock and now indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 2 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.

is This Page Should be Created?

Hey, Admin is this Book Booming Brand Or Author Harsh Pamnani Eligible for Wikipedia Page? References- https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/marketing-lessons-from-home-grown-brands/article25509106.ece https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/author/harsh-pamnani/ https://www.afaqs.com/news/guest-article/53479_how-brand-bookmyshow-was-born http://everythingexperiential.businessworld.in/article/Demystifying-how-new-age-Made-in-India-brands-were-created-with-Harsh-Pamnani/24-09-2018-160658/ https://insideiim.com/india-is-not-america-the-way-brands-were-created-in-america-can-t-be-built-in-india-harsh-pamnani-author-of-booming-brands-xlri-alumnus https://www.entrepreneur.com/author/harsh-pamnani https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/be-blogs/author/2105/harsh-pamnani 2405:205:1384:3CF6:9C98:B534:F959:D3C3 (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 2405:205:1384:3CF6:9C98:B534:F959:D3C3. You're in the wrong place to ask about this, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You might like to start at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I can see that the "article" Harsh Pamnani has never been created. I'll have a look, and give you some advice on your "talk page". Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock for 107.242.121.XXX or Page Protection needed at Portland International Airport

Blocked user Luis22pdxedu (talk · contribs) has resumed their edit warring behavior at Portland International Airport, which got them indef-blocked almost two years ago. The article recently expired off of a 1-year semi-protection in order to prevent the disruption but it has since continued since the semi-protection recently expired. They have recently used the following IP addresses:

107.242.121.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
107.242.121.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
107.242.121.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
107.242.121.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I understand that admins are now able to block certain users/IPs from editing specific pages, so maybe that would be the best solution going forward here, because there are also a lot of constructive IP editors frequently at that page (such as myself).

Also, I would give them an ANI notice as the instructions say to do but since their IP address rotates so often I don't think they would receive the message at all.

172.58.47.3 (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment). The listed IPs have made recent good (sometimes very good, including gnomish) edits to other articles. The monomania seems to be that, contrary to evidence (including but not limited to official websites) and consensus, San Jose International Airport is spelled with an "é". A filter specifically designed to prevent this kind of edit anywhere might be an even better solution than a block, with no collateral damage at all. Narky Blert (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I actually hadn't thought about an edit filter, but that may be a good idea to stop this as well. They are continuing the disruption once again: [192]. 172.58.47.59 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The place to ask would be at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. Link there to this discussion to avoid entering the same info twice.

(One anti-trollvandal request of mine started off here and ended up there. Either they gave up or the filter gottem, because I haven't seen them in a couple of months. See Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 14#Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words.) Narky Blert (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Resolved

user:Reliable guy69 has placed insulting personal attacks against me on his user page, I have since replaces them with Template:RPA, has also been engaged in vandalism. dmartin969 06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Indefblocked the user. Materialscientist (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The user has created a new account User:Reliable guy420, left a message on my talk page admitting to sockpuppeting, and has continued the personal attacks. –DMartin 07:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Enix150 reported by HalJor

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Enix150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated insertion of false entries at List of portmanteaus, warned several times (and dismissed those warnings as "petty nonesense" here and here) HalJor (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Enix150, while you are allowed to remove messages from your talk page, the reason given for doing so might have unnecessarily fueled the conflict. The easiest way to resolve the concerns is to provide reliable inline citations when adding content to Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Inline citations do not always help, as seen here -- the citation does not support the blend etymology required to belong on this article. A similar edit/reversion occurred at Wiktionary. HalJor (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and POV pushing/point-scoring in a contentious area

I am raising concerns that there has been a significant increase in disruptive and nationalist POV editing across a range of Balkans-related articles, namely in:

1. Republic of Ragusa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Glina, Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Konavle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
4. Pelješac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
5. Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
6. U boj, u boj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
7. Yugoslav Partisans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The editors in question are:

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

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

Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Please note that two or three editors in question are involved in each individual article.

This all happened only in the past few days. In these articles the users in question have made removals of reliably-sourced information, addition of point-scoring/UNDUE text, POV pushing and similar disruptive editing, followed with edit warring. Here are several diffs of some problematic edits:

In the Glina article there was a removal of reliably-sourced information:

• Griboski - 03:28, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 20:33, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Amanuensis Balkanicus - 21:14, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Amanuensis Balkanicus - 21:34, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 21:34, 28 April 2020 UTC

Edits in the Republic of Ragusa article:

• WEBDuB - 17:30, 28 April 2020 UTC
• WEBDuB - 17:42, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 19:25, 28 April 2020 UTC
• WEBDuB - 19:27, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 19:33, 28 April 2020 UTC

Edits in the Konavle article:

• Sadko - 19:21, 28 April 2020 UTC

Edits in the Pelješac article:

• Sadko - 19:22, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 21:39, 28 April 2020 UTC

Edits in the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article:

• WEBDuB - 00:35, 28 April 2020 UTC
• WEBDuB - 00:51, 28 April 2020 UTC --Tuvixer (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I need to add that I have started a discussion on the Republic of Ragusa article Talk page. Unfortunately the discussion goes on and on in circles and the editors in question resort to name calling. The same behavior can be witnessed in the past and currently on other article talk pages. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Editing and following a somewhat similar scope of articles is not a crime. This report is close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my book. It’s quite ironic to accuse editors who work hard to bring RS and new material (and have been on Wiki for more than 10 years, having hundreds of articles written) of some sort of bad intent by an editor who has been actually edit-warring all over the place, as seen on [193] [194] [195] [196] On Josip Broz Tito, his/her edit-war has been going on for around 5 years now, as far as I can see.

2. Fellow editor Tuvixier has just recently accused total of 8 editors of some sort of ongoing “anti-Croatian” plot, with remarks that there is probably sock puppetry and "bullying" involved (I believe that this is not per Wiki rules?). [197]

3. Please notice that the issue revolves around 1 source by academic and an expert on Republic of Ragusa dr Svetlana Stipčević. I happen to own a hard copy of her work. Editor Tuvixier went with undo without futher explanation here [198] My questions regarding why the source in question is “partisan” or unreliable was ignored several times. [199] [200] New sources were presented in the dispute (by Arthur Evans), those were ignored as well. I did not make further edits to the article since, and most probably won't because of present toxic attitudes, which are mostly based on my ethnic origin...

4. On Glina, Croatia I went with undo because the information lacked WP:RS - local tabloid was used as a source for an old statement made by the current President of Serbia, A. Vucic. That was in my diff as well. The claim is true, of course, but sourcing was terrible and not RS. The other edit was made in regard to lack of WP:NPOV because the wording was not neutral and used weasel words, like that territory was "liberated" (for 100s of older civilians killed in the aftermath of Operation Storm, there was no liberation taking place). Such wording should not be a part of articles within the scope of terrible Yugoslav wars (this was, for some unknown reason, removed again here [201]). U boj, u boj was vandalised by IPs and several fellow editors restored the sourced material, me included. I have not edited Yugoslav Partisans that much, what seems to be the problem there? I have added some sourced material a while back. Things did get heated a bit on Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia (it is a very emotional topic for most people from the region, as numerous citizens lost family members and relative, and the subject remains an open wound because it was never addressed fully by politicians from modern-day Croatia and several other countries as well), therefore I removed myself from further editing of the same page, per WP:Staying cool when the editing gets hot & WP:No angry mastodons.

5. Rather than taking it to the talk page, as I did on Republic of Ragusa or WEBDuB did on Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, fellow editor Tuvixier has not been involved in any discussion so far. Therefore I think that this is an attempt to remove several editors who do not agree with his viewpoints, in one stroke. Republic of Ragusa and related subject are a bit complicated; academia in Croatia claims that Ragusan culture (an independent Slavic state, with an identity of its own) is and can be only a part of Croatian culture, other countries think otherwise, and Ragusans or parts of their culture are claimed by Italy, Serbia and sometimes Bosnia. Considering that I am one of only few active editors who reads and knows a thing or two about the topic, I am targeted because of my edits on this topic. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I object to this assessment and being lumped in here, because of one edit I made. As I pointed out in this thread, the edit was made for legitimate reasons concerning an unreliable source and a paragraph that was nearly completely unsourced. --Griboski (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph/statement in question remains poorly sourced and lacking NPOV. I do not see why this issue wasn't brought on dispute resolution page? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

::: You really cannot help going on a nationalist rant huh? Croatia does recognize the genocide and Presidents have apologized and acknowledged it happened. Can’t say the same about the Chetniks and Milan Nedic in some other countries. Civilians of all ethnic groups were killed (Most were Serbs) in the Balkans WWII. So yes a very sensitive topic for all. Most of them innocent on all sides. Also lets not even get started in claims on Ragusan culture as a number of figures are automatically claimed to be Serbian with little RS to show. For point number 4, so much wrong here. My edit was reverted in that article because including Vucic’s quote was apparently “not balanced”??? according to Amanuensis Balkanicus. I took it to the talk page and no one could explain what the problem was. I even added strong sources that in them even include the video of him saying what he said. You never reverted Amanuensis. Also Sadko claims that the town was “acquired” by Croatia which is ridiculous. Multiple RS state it was returned to Croatia as it was occupied territory by an unrecognized government set up in the 90s. Not to mention the hundreds of Croatian civilians that were killed there. Others cleansed. They definitely were liberated. This is precisely the issue with POVs like this. Sadko another editor not even from the Balkans with much experience on Wikipedia stated and observed your POV nationalist edits. His own words. Not mine. The only editor that should not be on the list of 4 is Griboski. Who got caught in the crossfire of the edit wars. That does not delegitimize the other three called out. As you had tried to do, Sadko. Your edit history before you suddenly went archive happy clearly showed your type of edits that aren’t as productive as you claim them to be. But rather agenda driven. A typical problem with Balkan articles. For example removing the “Croatian” ethnicity from leads of historical figures pages due to Wiki:Ethnicity yet while editing Serbian figure pages, you did not do the same. I saw this wether you want to claim “hounding” or not. Doesn’t matter how “new” I am to Wikipedia or how old you are. That doesn’t excuse what you do. PortalTwo (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Repeating again and gain the same argument of WP:IDONTLIKEIT without any evidence is not going to make it any more valid. The fact that user Sadko has "been on Wiki for more than 10 years" is even more troubling. Why are long time user engaging in such disruptive editing as seen in the articles above? I need to say that I am not happy that it has come to this. I am not happy that I need to witness constant disruptive editing. The edit warring goes on and on, users in question do not try to seek consensus when reverted, only do they stop after being warned or when a administrator intervenes - Ad Orientem - 00:45, 29 April 2020 UTC. After all the disruptive edits, user Sadko "engages in a discussion" by asking this question "What seems to be wrong?..." I think that everything that was done was wrong. From edit warring, not trying to start a discussion and reach a consensus to POV pushing and point-scoring/UNDUE text. This is just an example on how, when a discussion is started, it is doomed from the beginning, when user Sadko is involved.

2. It is completely false that I have "accused total of 8 editors". As can be seen above there are 4 editors mentioned. User Sadko is intentionally leaving out this: [202] This attempt to distort the facts is another example of disruptive behavior and bad faith. If I have accused someone of some "“anti-Croatian” plot", can user Sadko provide any evidence to back his claim?

3. It is not true that "the issue revolves around 1 source". The edits on Republic of Ragusa article started with this WEBDuB - 17:30, 28 April 2020 UTC - the source provided is from the year 1875. Then this WEBDuB - 17:42, 28 April 2020 UTC - adding the following sentence "The documents were also written in Cyrillic script." This is misleading because the source provided states that a linguist "...made a handwritten copy..." of a "Lectionary in Cyrillic characters", giving no connection to the Ragusan state. I have no problem with adding such content, if the provided sources are reliable. The fact is, as I have explained, that user WEBDuB clearly made and edit that is misleading and made false interpretation of the source, which seems to be intentional. This goes on and I can explain in detail if needed. Trying to place me in a "box", in which, if I would found myself in, even by accident, I would be ashamed for the rest of my life, is insulting.

4. Now on the subject of Glina. The users in question claim that the source is a "tabloid" when in fact, dnevnik.hr is the portal/website of NOVA TV. How is dnevnik.hr a "local tabloid" was never explained. This is another example how user Sadko superficially, without giving any explanation dismisses a source that she/he does not like. The same content is present and sourced in the article about Aleksandar Vučić. Now user Sadko claims the following: "The claim is true, of course, but sourcing was terrible and not RS." Why did she/he then remove everything from the article? Sadko - 20:33, 28 April 2020 UTC Does a user who has "been on Wiki for more than 10 years" know about "[citation needed]". Or just google "Vučić Glina", there is plenty of sources for example: [203] from N1, a CNN International partner and affiliate in Croatia, and more [204], [205], [206] and even one in English [207]. All this in just one quick Google search. Not to mention that the Wikipedia article about Aleksandar Vučić has already two sources in it. About the allegedly neutral edit removing "liberated", I have to say that respecting internationally recognized borders, that were first established in 1945 and 1946 and later approved when the constituent republics of former Yugoslavia became independent, is neutral and stating something different is a clear POV. I have mentioned articles U boj, u boj, Yugoslav Partisans and Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia because also in them there are/were disruptive edits, in the last few days, involving the same users. Like in the other articles that are in this report.

5. "Rather than taking it to the talk page, as I did on Republic of Ragusa or WEBDuB did on Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, fellow editor Tuvixier has not been involved in any discussion so far." This is untrue, I have started the discussion on the Republic of Ragusa Talk page [208] as explained above, in my last comment here. User Sadko went on calling names "You have no idea what you are talking about." and tried to falsely present the provided source. Another example of the same behavior.

6. I have to point out that, regarding user Griboski, I have not observed the same disruptive behavior with him, as with the other three users in question. There is only one edit in the Glina article, still it was made. I see now that she/he still claims "unreliable source" argument.

You are free to express your opinion (and do try to add more fuel to the fire), this is the free Encyclopedia, but, alas, you have presented little evidence. I do not think that you understand how WP:NPOV works; if there is a disputed territory and 2 parties are engaged in a terrible civil war over it, there is no "liberation" and such wording is not appropriate because it leans towards one of parties involved, and we should not take sides, but try to be neutral. The statement "They were definetely liberated" only shows textbook POV. Do not try to twist my words and work here; I am backing this edit (maybe "modern-day" is not needed). [209] Glina article is not that interesting for me, but I have it on my watchlist; I sincerly believe that other editors had no baid faith in mind. What is wrong with following WP:ETHNICITY on numerous articles? I did so, regardless of someone's ethnicity, as you would like to wrongly imply in order to paint a dark picture.[210] [211] Accusing me of something like that is simply weird. This comment and general writing style seems like some sort of "face off" and I am responding out of mere politeness, as before. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

::I used the term “liberated” in context to your sarcastic use of it when referring to civilians killed. Which is very pov to do that. As if there were not deaths on both sides. However people die in wars fought over land, no matter the setting. Saying that means it could’ve have been territory belonging to another government is strange by that criteria. It’s not “textbook POV” when I can back up a claim. As an “experienced” editor you should know. As Instated, multiple RS sources state it was reintegrated/returned to Croatia. Implying it was part of Croatia before. Saying Croatia “acquired” it after Operation Storm is so POV it’s preposterous to go further on this. You are implying as if it were annexed newly. Please don't twist the context of what I say. I have multiple sources to back up my point. Your opinion does not defeat that. RSK was not a widely recognized sovereign territory despite what you would like to believe. PortalTwo (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User Sadko has just removed the whole comment/reply that I have made here Sadko - 03:25, 1 May 2020 UTC. How to deal with this? --Tuvixer (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid Tuvixer is being too cute by half here. There has been a significant uptick in contestation and edit-warring on Balkan-related articles in the last month of so for some reason, and Tuvixer has been part of that. Tuvixer has been edit-warring on Balkans-related pages too, notably on my Yugoslavia in WWII-related watchlist on the Josip Broz Tito page over descriptions of Tito's rule and the trial of Archbishop Stepinac [212][213][214][215] [216]. There has been some poor behaviour by a number of editors on some Balkans pages recently, with quite a bit of POV-pushing, but nothing to yet trigger admin action or ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I don't suggest a boomerang here, as some of the listed editors have not been doing the right thing either, but people coming here need to be aware that unclean hands will undermine their reports on others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User Peacemaker67 did not mention that the user that made those edit is User Nbanic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has being blocked for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts and topic banned from all Yugoslavia-related articles for a period of six months. I don't know if I should mention this, but user Peacemaker67 has also been involved [217][218]. I don't understand if user Peacemaker67 is saying that this kind of editing by the users in this report should be allowed? Again to be fair, user Griboski made only the edit in the Glina article, and other disruptive edits were not observed, but still he made that edit. I have to point out that this edits in the articles in question are only few days old. There have been many edits of this nature in the past months. I have only included in this report the edits made in the last few days, so this is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. --Tuvixer (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:SOCKSTRIKE, which says "It isn't necessary or desirable to try to revert every single article edit the sock puppet has ever made", and says "do not edit war over this". In this case, Nbanic made a valid edit, citing a reliable academic source, and I used my experience and judgement to restore it myself because it was a good edit. Blind reverting of sock edits is not WP policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Tabloid might not be the appropriate term but you haven't demonstrated that dnevnik.hr is a reliable source either. A television station isn't precluded from broadcasting or publishing false information. For instance, this occurred on a Croatian television station and not just any station but on HRT, quite possibly the country's biggest public broadcaster. I am only using this as an example, not to generalize. Like I said, I admit I might have erred in that edit. If that is the case, then it was a genuine mistake, not done in bad faith. Admittedly, I am not all that familiar with the various media in the Balkans. I might not be happy you've mentioned me but I also assume that you're doing this out of genuine concern and in good faith. --Griboski (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixier 1) First off, I have fully restored your comment, which was removed by some weird accidence (believe it or not; it's not in my best interest to make moves such as that one). Do check if everything is fine. 2) I did state "You have no idea what you are talking about." because of ignorance of some of the most basic facts and lack of most fundamental informations on the topic, per WP:Competence is required I have provided several WP:RS on the same page to confirm it. [219] 2) Nobody is here to do your job of providing WP:RS, that is yours per WP:BURDEN. Local news and tabloids are still not okay for statement of such importance and scale. Other users have pointed out the same thing several times by now. WP:WHATABOUTX ("tabloids are used on other pages") is not an argument. 3) Only after being called out [220] instead of reporting 8 people, only 4 came to pass as a part of an "ongoing plot" [221]. 4) Fellow user Tuvixer has removed sourced content on Republic of Ragusa, started a debate [222] and not responded for ~3 days now (while generally active on Wiki), and for some reason, myself and the other involved editor, who has also provided sources on the MP and TP both, are somehow not able to discuss with? You got to be kidding me.

I have previously turned a blind eye to THIS [223] as a sign of good faith on my side, but this whole report/narrative is getting far too personal. WP:No personal attacks & WP:Casting aspersions Count me out of this particular tirade. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC) :You vandalized parts of my reply [1] , again...., which were not even personal attacks but counter arguments against your personal attacks as well as false claims about a country. Again, follow your own supposed principles. I never vandalized yours despite the insults material. Good job demonstrating your edit style that is of issue in the first place. Bravo. PortalTwo (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you honestly think I did that? Nonetheless, repost those parts, if you will. I have no idea how it got deleted and edited in that way, there must be some sort of technical explanation which makes sense. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

:::It’s the third time today. And I am not the only editor it is done to. I hope it is a browser or app glitch and not done insidiously.PortalTwo (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To vouch for Sadko, I made a few small minor edits to my post, which were erased after he made a post. I doubt it was intentional. It does appear like a technical glitch. --Griboski (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment My experience from editing wikipedia is that editor Sadko and editor Amanuensis Balkanicus are somehow connected in their actions. I agree that lately they promote their view of history through questionable theses and RS in article of Konavle and Pelješac, Amanuensis Balkanicus does not want put some historical facts about today president of Serbia on wikipedia(Glina article and public nationalist statements that Croatian town of Glina will never be part of Croatia etc). In the article of Andrija Zmajević[224] they promote that he comes from a Serbian family and they proves this with some internet portals in which stating that "Croatians are stealing someone's origin" ie with political pamphlets. When I warned editor Sadko that there are some forgeries in articles about the history of Serbs he didn't want to change that for the benefit of wikipedia. When I wanted to change conception consistent with historical data of the Statuta Valachorum article he called me a follower of the Nazis and he was not punished for this although he was reported for personal insults. Obviously they seeing history from one angle where it is not allowed changes for the better. Why they do it i don't know, we should all work together for the benefit of wikipedia but they don't want it.Mikola22 (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Connected, huh? Care to explain? This is WP:Casting aspersions. I did not call you that way at all - do not present something which is simply untrue. Surprise me with presenting a diff in which I'm using such wording/comment. As for everything else, a quick look at your fringe viewpoints and editing history... [225][226] Not to mention basic lack of WP:Forgive and forget and WP:Wikipedia is not about winning, which someone under 1RR and related sanctions must know by now. That source title is poor, but the content is okay, and there is another Montenegrin source which is claiming the same. This whole comment was pretty much an attempt to "even the score". Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 06:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

My edits on wikipedia is I quote: "This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles". Who are Ustaše? Wikipedia source: "Croatian fascist, ultranationalist and terrorist organization", "They were known for their particularly brutal and sadistic methods of execution", "Much of the ideology of the Ustaše was based on Nazi racial theory", "Like the Nazis, the Ustaše deemed Jews". And you have not been punished for this personal attack, you can now thanks publicly for wikipedia protectors. I have no protectors and that is why I am blocked several times. Connection between you and editor Amanuensis Balkanicus is visible in the present articles which you edit together in good faith. Mikola22 (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko is again making superficial statements without any evidence. Because User Sadko had removed my reply, now I have to check, word by word, if a word or a letter is missing/was removed in this "accident", but I will show good faith and leave it behind. User Sadko stated in the reply above that he "did state "You have no idea what you are talking about." because of ignorance of some of the most basic facts and lack of most fundamental informations on the topic". So user Sadko to justify or explain his past name calling uses again name calling and ad hominem. Observers can see how the discussion is starting to go in circles. User Sadko has ignored to explain why dnevnik.hr and other sources are "tabloids". No one said that "tabloids are used on other pages". This statement was not explained, again. User Sadko has stated that "Only after (I) being called out instead of reporting 8 people, only 4 came to pass...". Observers can see how, by completely misinterpreting the facts the discussion is starting to go in circles. For the sake that it does not seem that I acknowledge that in any way, I will reply. Anyone who looks at that discussion will see that it was a honest mistake/oversight and that I immediately apologized for it and corrected it. What this has to do with this discussion, user Sadko does not explain. The reason why I have not "responded for ~3 days" on the talk page of Republic of Ragusa is because I started to write a longer reply and in doing so realized that, only in the past few days, there has been a big amount of disruptive and POV editing across a range of Balkans-related articles, made by the same users. So I looked into that. As there is a discussion here I will post that reply is so instructed. I have presented here evidence of the disruptive behavior and have given reasonable explanations, but it can be explained in even more details. Please explain how "this whole report/narrative is getting far too personal"? --Tuvixer (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Three editors have stated so far that there were no RS presented, neatpickng and ignoring clear lack of WP:CONSENSUS and ignoring WP:BURDEN is not good. Absolutely, you stated the whole case with a bunch of editors allegedly involved in a vast plot, after replies by check users - the tune was instantly changed. It is clear from the diffs, and so are attempts tor rectify that mistake later on. Rather than reporting a dispute there is a Character assassination attempt taking place, in which editors who hold grudges because they have not "won" prior debates are joining in. This is even more evident by comments on those technical glitches, even after I have reported that it's not due to human error or bad attempt, there was(no good faith, it's just "kill or be killed" stance. No further comments, after all, it's not about me only, even though there is a notion of singling me out, because of severe dislikes of my edits. This is WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 06:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User Sadko has again removed my last comment/reply. Again an "accident"? --Tuvixer (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There is some sort of insane glitch, dunno why. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 06:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ceha The "insane glitch" does probably stem from edit conflicts. They happen frequently in heated discussions with many participants, and they can be very annoying. See H:EC about how to avoid them. --T*U (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Did you mean to ping me? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: Yeah, sorry, that is what happens when one tries to have two thoughts in the head at the same time... Yes, the ping was meant for you. I have had some bad experiences myself with erasing other people's edits through edit conflicts, so I thought I should mention it. --T*U (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: No problem, thank you for your comment and have a happy International Workers' Day. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I'm literally shocked by this overreacting. I responsibly claim that no rule has been violated. Talking about my changes, they were always backed up by sources. This edit was merely a shortening of the too long section that did not directly relate to the topic. Basically, I did't remove any information. I deleted the sourced information here, because no single reference was related to the main topic.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with reorganising pages

Hi,

As discussed at Talk:Dave_Stewart_(musician_and_producer)#Dave_Stewart_(English_musician), one user argued that the article should have been moved to Dave Stewart but was unable to do so due to being unable to move the existing Dave Stewart page (currently a dab) to Dave Stewart (disambiguation), since the latter already exists.

(I've had similar problems before that were solved by an admin, so I assume this is a moderately common situation).

The page was then moved to Dave_Stewart_(musician_and_producer) to get round this- which I didn't agree with, since the whole point that had just been argued was that"Dave Stewart" was the most appropriate title.

Any help in solving this (and input into the discussion at the talk page) would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Ubcule (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I marked the disambiguation page for deletion and it was declined; the admin (EurekaLott) suggested I use the WP:RM process because it was a potentially controversial move. I thought of it as housekeeping, but I get it. So I was WP:BOLD and moved the page to Dave_Stewart_(musician_and_producer) because it is more appropriate than its previous title, which was David A. Stewart. That said, Dave Stewart without the dab makes the most sense, and I will seek consensus on the talk page. JSFarman (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment). The proposed move needs to be advertised through the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial procedure for full discussion. It is a proposal to declare a WP:PTOPIC and could be controversial.

A (disambiguation) page generally should not be deleted as part of a move, because its history needs to be preserved for licensing reasons. Narky Blert (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Narky Blert. Another learning experience for me. JSFarman (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@JSFarman: No worries, I too keep coming across bits of WP I'd never knowingly seen before. Narky Blert (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If this was a WP:RM/TR, deleting Dave Stewart (disambiguation) wouldn't have been a problem, because the page has no substantial history. I declined the request because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concerns. Since Dave Stewart (musician and producer) and Dave Stewart (baseball) are both well-known figures, I don't know if there's a primary topic, and thought community input would be valuable. - Eureka Lott 13:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert and EurekaLott:; Thank you for your input. Ubcule (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:GAMING by M.Bitton

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

---

• Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.135.44.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:M.Bitton is desperately censoring a very long standing section on Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques about Ka'aba (uncontroversialy existing since 2006), by asking sources for something that is already reliably sourced and leaving superficial warning on my talk page for restoring this sourced content. M.Bitton is WP:GAMING the system here with his deception. 203.135.44.77 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The IP hopper is ignoring the message in the edit summary[227] and trying desperately to include the unsourced content. M.Bitton (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Then why don't you change the Ka'aba instead of promoting your pseudohistorical beliefs? Your edit summary is nothing but evidence of your deception. The content is reliably sourced and it is just you are being incompetent enough to reject the existence of the reliable sources. Your history shows that you are engaging in same deception on Idir by unnecessarily edit warring with User:Bloom6132. Why you are even editing if you are so incompatible with the environment here? 203.135.44.77 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything since the onus is on you to provide RS that describe it as a Mosque. Pinging other editors from another issue to come to your rescue is called WP:CANVASSING, a desperate attempt attempt by POV pushers to circumvent the policies. M.Bitton (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It seems this is developing into an edit war, both editors have reverted each other, yet the talk page is strangely devoid of any discussion on this topic. Since this is, basically, a content dispute, I suggest taking it to that page and finding a solution. As a side-note, calling people ip-hoppers does not lend extra credence to your argument. Kleuske (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As an additional note, accusations of gaming the system and POV-pushing in lieu of an actual attempt to improve the article or at least discuss matters on the appropriate talk-page can be construed as disruptive behavior. That goes for both parties. Kleuske (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

IP hopper was meant to highlight the fact that they are using more than one IP (Here's their first IP). There's just so much good faith one can assume before finally responding properly to the baseless aspersions. M.Bitton (talk)

I would suggest you follow WP:BRD and get consensus for what is clearly a controversial change. Even a cursory search turns up plenty of sources describing it as a mosque. Number 57 19:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

M.Bitton, very few people actually choose their IP address, rather than just have it assigned by their ISP without their knowledge, so the use of disparaging terms like "IP hopper" just detracts from any correctness that your case might otherwise have. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion here. You're all welcome to join in. M.Bitton (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I agree, but then again, very few few people accuse others of wp:gaming while providing zero sources to support their addition. What I find strange in all of this is that nobody mentioned the fact that IP did not notify me of this report, and now that the "discussion/monologue" has started, the IP has somehow simply vanished. M.Bitton (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: you made it to this ANI within 7 minutes, I assume because of the ping from the IP. While 'pinging' is not sufficient notification to comply with the requirements, if you made it within 7 minutes there's no point making a big deal about it. Feel free to remind the the IP of the notification requirement, but that's about it. I'd note even if the IP did intend to notify you, since you made it here within 7 minutes it's possible something happened e.g. they were considering whether to modify their post here or were trying to work out some aspect of the template when they found you'd already arrived here in which case there is no longer any need for notification. (Although in that case, I personally would have posted here explaining what happened.)

As for no one else noticing, I sometimes check if the notification requirement was followed especially when I have reason to think it may not have been and if I find it wasn't I will notify myself and post here reminding the thread starter of the requirement. But I'm not going to check if by the time I arrive at a thread e.g. 8 minutes later, the person to be notified has already arrived.

From my POV, the fact the IP came here to complain when the talk page was empty immediately puts a crimp in the complaint. The fact that after this thread arose you opened a talk page discussion is mostly a positive for you.

But you haven't covered yourself in glory by picking on others for not noticing you weren't notified when you arrived here within 7 minutes, and for the silly IP hopper comment. The only reason you should ever say something like that is if there's evidence that whoever is behind the IP is intentionally causing it to change, and such evidence is very hard to come by short of the IP confessing. You can also mention a changing IP if it's relevant e.g. if you're explaining why you haven't tried talking to the IP directly on their talk page but in that case there's no need to use the phrase "IP hopper".

Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: With regard to the lack of notice that I have stricken through: In hindsight, and this isn't an excuse, that was probably a reaction to what appeared to me as an over-concentration on what I said while ignoring the barrage of baseless and totally uncalled for attacks coming from the other side ("PW:JDL", "WP:GAMING", "censorship", "pseudo-historical beliefs", "deception", "being incompetent", etc.). M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 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.

Kbmccune

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

I have blocked Kbmccune from mainspace. This can be lifted by any admin with my blessing once they are satisfied that the user has understood the basics of sourcing. Sample edits: [228], [229], [230], [231]. The user is not here often enough that I can see any other easy way to get their attention. Guy (help!) 18:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I agree the user doesn't seem to be getting how sourcing works, but why a pblock instead of a full block? They're not editing any other namespace, so it's not like this is letting them continue to contribute productively elsewhere. creffett (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, it will stop the problem (weird edits to mainspace), get their attention, but allow them to engage as and when they decide to try again. I think they are actually trying to help, just not working out how. Guy (help!) 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff, I suppose I'm just wary of pblocks in general, but I'm not exactly going to undo your block. creffett (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, I think a lot of indefs for clueless newbies who disrupted mainspace could have been avoided with pblocks - I think they are a great idea. But time will tell, I guess. Guy (help!) 21:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that this user was warned at all about what they were doing. There are no discussions even started on any of the pages, nor on their page. Based on [their first edit they seem to be new and a researcher. Shouldn't they have been advised how to properly source things on Wikipedia? Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 11:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Continued disruption of upcoming election

• 74.196.78.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) IP user has repeatedly disrupted (if not vandalized) pages regarding an upcoming by-election, as seen:

1. here
2. here
3. many times here
4. and here a few times. Woko Sapien (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Declaring that someone has lost an election and that the opponent had won before it has taken place is clearly inappropriate behaviour.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• It was a short editing spree that lasted for less than half an hour. It appears to have stopped about 3 hours before this report, and about 7-8 hours before the present time. I don't see any need for any action now, but only if they come back and resume the disruption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr. Samerkov

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

---

There is a Vandal in the page called "Mr. Samerkov" who is continuously editing the page in a Vandalic way, he is denying official-national sources and giving references to random websites, probably another butthurt. Can you check it up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Turkish_Land_Forces

His Claim: PMT-76 is licensed production Turkish Official statement: PMT-76 is 100% designed by MKEK

His Claim: MKEK Boran howitzer is based on British L118 howitzer Turkish ministry of Defense Industry: MKEK Boran is 100% designed and manufactured by MKEK and national capabilities of Turkey.

His Claim: Canik TP9 is common German-Turkish production Turkish ministry of Defense Industry: Canik TP9 is designed and patented by Turkish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.23.96 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

[232] EEng 20:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• The IP is User:Progressive288. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 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.

JzG

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

---

A little background: Last week I reported JzG for edit warring at Stop the Church. As the conversation dried up, I commented that "Maybe I was in the wrong as well. If I was, I would appreciate it if someone could point out where I erred so as to be able to avoid doing it again." Bagumba then closed the conversation before anyone responded to my request. I then turned to Bagumba and Steve Quinn, asking them directly how I could improve my editing in situations like these.

JzG followed me to Steve's talk page to leave a comment that amounts to little more than a personal attack (edit: the one substantive claim he makes is demonstrably not true, as can be seen by my edit history). His non sequitur comment seems especially gratuitous considering it was inserted into a thread that was supposed to be about how I could become a better Wikipedian. There, he continues to advance the fiction that somehow I am being being obstinate and refusing to compromise, even setting it up as if it was me against everyone else. This, despite the fact that on the article talk page 1) CoffeeWithMarkets made it clear that not only was this untrue, it was also unhelpful framing, 2) opinions at Split the Church were split fairly down the middle, and 3) I was the first person to jump in and accept a compromise that I didn't love but could live with. In contrast, JzG's response to that proposed compromise was "whatever. ... I am going to give up in disgust." He also said on Steve's page that I should be banned, which is difficult to see as anything but an implicit threat, particularly when he continues to bring up, long after everyone involved was already aware, that I was once topic banned (for which I have repeatedly apologized, made amends, and abided).

Just before he followed me to Steve's talk page, he left a comment that mentioned me at 07:07, on May 3, 2020 on the Stop the Church article. He then thought better of it and used his power as an administrator to delete it citing WP:RD3 (purely disruptive material). I got the notification but, by the time I got there, it had already been deleted. Whatever it said, it came after Bagumba warned him about uncivil comments. I left two messages for him on the article talk page asking him what it was all about. He didn't respond. The following day, thinking that perhaps he didn't see the messages, I left him a message on his talk page. He again didn't respond to me but instead deleted it inside of an hour.

Though I have told him on numerous occasions that I don't identify as such, he continues to refer to me as a Catholic, and on Steve's page repeatedly used the pejorative "religionist." Several editors, including Mr Ernie, had commented in the previous ANI discussion about JzG's anti-Catholic remarks. Others, including LokiTheLiar, XavierItzm, and Steve described JzG's comments as "unnecessarily hostile," and "offensive." XavierItzm even said it could be "construed as harassment." I wasn't quite ready to make that leap until today.

His general tone and demeanor, his offensive remarks about a religion to which he assumes I belong, his following me into discussions on other editors' talk pages, his making and then deleting disruptive comments about (towards?) me, and his implicit threats might all be excusable as one-offs on their own. Taken together, however, I suggest that they constitute a pattern of harassment. Certainly they are conduct unbecoming of an administrator. I would very much like to know what the deleted comment said and, given his refusal to discuss it, think it would be worth looking into whether or not deleting it was an appropriate use of his power as an administrator. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the most recent thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Edit warring by JzG so others don't have to hunt for it. MarnetteD|Talk 20:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

First things first, he should not be using his admin tools on a page he is involved in. If he wrote something disparaging about you, it's one thing to strike it out, but to revdel it, is quite telling, but shouldn't he then self-block himself for it? We have policies in place for what constitutes material that can be revdeled and if an edit is purely disruptive than the person who wrote it, should get a block for that. If if's not disruptive, then the person who deletes it, should be desysoped for misusing his admin tools. If Guy edited the page, and then Guy revdeled this, [233], how is this not an abuse of the admin tools? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It also raises an interesting question. When an admin is naughty (or maybe any of their edits just to be safe), can he/she evade scrutiny later on by revdeling? IOW, should there be a policy in place than an admin should not revdel their own edits? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: That is firm grounds for a de-sysoping at arbcom --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, well, as an admin and checkuser, etc. you have access to the logs and you see what Guy did. I don't know if there was some data issue but it does appear to me that he edited the page and then deleted his own comment. I don't think I can open anything at arbcom, but I think if the facts are true as laid out, then it does show an abuse of the tools, at the very least, if it was an RD3 edit, he should be blocked for an RD3 edit, pending any Arbcom case that may happen because of that abuse of power. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph and JzG: (edit conflict) Ooof! here is the log for people playing at home. As I was about to reverse the rev deletion, JzG did it. I would like a good explanation from JzG as to why he deleted that edit. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, really? OK. That seems weird. Guy (help!) 21:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Back when I was an OSer, I couldn't OS my own logged out edits, because of ease of abuse. I needed to get another team member to do it for me. Similarly, RevDelete shouldn't be used to hide one's own edits. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, yes, you make a very good point. Stupidity is hard to fix in software though :-( Guy (help!) 22:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, it's not "naughty" or anything else. I made an injudicious comment and nuked it rather than stoke further drama because I judged that my own ocmment was substantially unproductive. I should have realised that Slugger would stoke further drama anyway, form long past experience. Since he seems to be determined to see what I thought I should not have said, I will reverse it. I never wish to interact with that user again. Guy (help!) 21:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero: "firm grounds for a de-sysoping at arbcom". Desysoping? Over one poorly-judged admin action? That's ridiculous. Compare WP:ADMINCOND: "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." Bishonen | tålk 21:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC).

Once off, no but, using one's tools to hide one's misstep from accountability tends to not go over very well --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to nitpick, that this wasn't a mistake. A mistake is blocking the wrong person, or accidentally blocking for 24 days instead of 24 hours. Then of course, mistakes happen. In this case Guy willfully abused the tools to hide his edits. What the outcome of that misuse should be is up for discussion, or apparently not, but it wasn't a mistake. Then of course, we have the rest of the OP's complaint to take into account. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A mistake is defined by Oxford as “an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong.” That seems to fit rather well here. It doesn’t just refer to the kind of fat-fingered misclicks that you mention. P-K3 (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If you were hiding some sort of administrative abuse or gross incivility, possibly. Hiding a mildly intemperate remark you made and later thought better of? I think not. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, le sigh. It wasn't about accountability or hiding or anything else. It was about stupidity. I made a stupid and disruptive remark of a type that I would say falls under the heading of purely disruptive material. But I have already undone the deletion, so now we can have yet more disruption caused by my idiocy. Moral: if you find that someone drives you up the wall, avoid them. Guy (help!) 21:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: It has been reversed, I don't see a problem anymore --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, stoke further drama? You ignored three messages from me. We could have discussed it off ANI but you chose not to respond. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, have you not worked it out yet? You have earned a coveted place in the world. You are now the seventh person I have ever encountered who I do not like. I do not wish ever to interact with you again. Guy (help!) 21:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• An admin should avoid even the appearance of evading scrutiny, regardless of the actual motivation. But as Bishonen mentions, a singular lapse does not desysoping makes. Hopefully, lessons learned. I would also advise JzG to refrain from expounding on his dislike of certain editors. That doesn't advance the conversation anywhere good. I would be amenable to closing this report with a warning to JzG for his failure to live up to admin standards, in this instance, and to then move on. El_C 21:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• JzG did the right thing in promptly reversing his action. I’m sure a lot of us have wished we could have deleted something the instant after we hit “Publish”, but an admin shouldn’t ever actually do that to their own edits. A momentary lapse of judgment is all this amounts to though. P-K3 (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Pawnkingthree, The conversation here so far has focused on the deleted comment but, particularly in light of his stated animus towards me, the sum total of his actions does not seem to me to be just a momentary lapse. Perhaps I am being oversensitive and, if I am, would appreciate being told so. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  You are being oversensitive. Bishonen | tålk 22:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC).

It was wrong of JzG to revdel, JzG undid the deletion. This can stay open if we want to continue analyzing the JzG - Slugger O'Toole interaction issues, but if we're just here for misuse of admin tools, then I would like to hear JzG clearly state that they understand that the revdel was wrong, then close with a firm warning that this deletion was an inappropriate use of the tools and should never happen again. creffett (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to ask that we don't just close this before discussing the original reason the editor raise this thread. ANI has run into an issue of doing this before, and so long as there's a reasonable basis to discuss something, we should do that. It will need to wait till later today before I can review the meat of this query myself, so I can't say if warranted or not, but it at least deserves discussion on all aspects. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure this board will be able or willing to fully examine the situation here and provide an adequate response. If this needs resolution I think it needs to go to Arbcom. The last time there was close scrutiny of JzG's actions it also went unresolved, as they took a long editing break. Personally I think we're close to the point where JzG's personal beliefs regarding Christians / Pro-life / Conservatives may be impeding their ability to edit those topics without conflict. As I said in the previous ANI, if JzG made a comment about Muslims or LGBT they likely would have been swiftly blocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ah yes, those horrible Muslims and LGBTers that we can't criticise *sigh*. We don't do political correctness here. If I told an editor identifying as LGBT that they were editing in a biased manner on LGBT-related articles and to observe NPOV, that would be the correct thing to do, not the wrong thing. If I used a homophobic insult, that would be completely different. Black Kite (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Bagumba then closed the conversation before anyone responded to my request.: @Slugger O'Toole: You might be unintentionally giving readers the wrong impression. Yes, I did close the previous ANI thread, but I (presumably counting as "anyone") did address what you did wrong: There was a slow edit war between OP Slugger O'Toole and JzG (Guy) at Stop the Church. We also further discussed on my talk page, where you were provided suggestions on resolving similar disputes. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• In the previous ANI, I noted a comment by Guy in the close: A note to Guy that at least three editors did not consider your edit summary reference to "magic bread" to be WP:CIVIL. Guy above (21:40, 4 May) wrote: Moral: if you find that someone drives you up the wall, avoid them. I assume that they will voluntarily do as such, and no other action is needed. I don't see a reason for arbcom unless there is more historical evidence.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 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.

Repetitive Page Creation

Subject : User:NafeeSAbbiR

• Created three pages (with different names about same article) Purbani, PURBANI and Purbani Group, all tagged for CSD and deleted. Also created other pages tagged for CSD can be looked on User_talk:NafeeSAbbiR.
• No reply on Talk Page on CSD Notice and recreated some pages deleted with CSD (with no significant improvement).

Sanyam.wikime (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sanyam.wikime, thank you. User:NafeeSAbbiR, I am of a mind that these promotional edits are blockable. I am a bit disturbed by the fact that in those four times you created the article you kept on repeating "Purbani is one of the largest & oldest established 100% export oriented Textile conglomerates in Bangladesh since 1973" or something like that--in other words, in four years you haven't become a better writer. I will grant you that the most recent version is slightly better than the earlier one, but that's not saying much.

  Here's what I propose: next time you feel the urge to promote this company, you fight the urge until you have some proper, reliable sources, and you submit it using the draft process. If you create a piece of promotional garbage again, you should be blocked. And if I were you, I'd actually respond here since a promotional editor who refuses to communicate stands a much greater chance of being blocked. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Zakawer: 2013 Egyptian coup

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

I'm raising concerns about the editor User:Zakawer's editing on the subject of Egyptian politics. During 2016, this editor systemically and against consensus sought to remove any and all references to the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état as being a "coup". There is a clear consensus on major pages related to Egyptian politics and coups that the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état was in fact a "coup" (and there is no disagreement among academics and RS that it was a coup). There are two relevant previous admin actions regarding this editor on this exact topic:

• Early July 2016: Blocked by the admin User:Darkwind who said Zakawer's "disregard of the consensus(es) in this topic area is both blatant and willful". [234]
• Late July 2016: After repeated edit-warring on this subject, Zakawer took a voluntarily absence when he was brought to the admin noticeboard, and was warned at the time by the admin User:EdJohnston that he "may be blocked if they make any further reverts on the topic of the 2013 political events in Egypt (revolution, protests, coup d'état or whatever) without a prior talk page consensus."[235]

From late July 2016 to Feb 2020, Zskawer kept low-key and appears to have largely avoided the subject matter. However, in February 2020, he started to edit prolifically again on the topic that got him in trouble. He is again POV pushing and editing against consensus on any and all articles that make any reference whatsoever to a coup in Egypt. This is an incomplete list of edits from 7 March 2020 to today where the editor removes "coup" or related language:

• Canada–Egypt relations[236]
• Public opinion of the 2006 Thai coup d'état[237]
• Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014)[238]
• Martial law[239]
• Police state[240]
• Capital punishment in Egypt [241]
• Emergency law in Egypt[242]
• Coup d'état[243]
• List of coups d'état and coup attempts since 2010[244][245]
• Egypt[246]
• 2018 Egyptian presidential election[247]
• Third Square[248]
• Mada Masr[249]

There are more problematic edits in the edit history but that should be sufficient to show that there is again a serious systematic problem. It's not feasible for other editors to have to follow him around across dozens of pages to make sure that the language is compliant with already-established consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• That they went several years without significant incident is a positive. However, checking both consensus and my own sweep of RS on the issue, this is definitely firm counter-consensus editing. Notwithstanding rebuttal by Zakawer, I'd be inclined to support TBAN on events in Egypt from 2012 onwards. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: There are no arbitrary sanctions on Egypt topics, and the current consensus regarding what to label the overthrow of Morsi is extremely outdated, dating all the way back to 2013. Removing references to it being a "coup" is not POV-pushing as you claim, but rather an honest attempt at NPOV. The overthrow of Morsi is frequently characterized as a "coup d'état", but unlike most known coups d'état, calling it such is actually controversial. Protesters who partook in the mass protests against him (who alongside the military and the interim government do not offer a fringe viewpoint in this case), as well as people who supported the protests, refused to call his July 3rd overthrow a "coup d'état"; the same applies to the military, as well as the interim government. Even some commentators refused to call it by that label as well (). There's also this one article () that compares how Egyptian (and specifically Egyptian) media outlets and foreign, non-Arab ones (in this case, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian, although the coverage isn't too different from other Western media outlets), noticing a substantial difference in coverage between Egyptian and Western outlets. I would personally recommend that we first find a consensus on what to call it on Wikipedia before you accuse me of "POV-pushing." Zakawer (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There is zero dispute among RS and recognized experts that it was a coup. The claim that the "coup" label is "extremely outdated" and only sourced to 2013 coverage is a complete falsehood. Two gold-standard coup datasets clearly identify it as a coup[250][251], as do all RS, whether they are from 2013 or later. The fact that supporters of the coup, an op-ed in the "Comment is Free" section of the Guardian, and a paper by a non-expert in an unranked 5-year old journal say it may not be a coup does not mean that existing consensus no longer applies and that you have carte blanche to continue with your POV pushing from 2016. These are exact same things that were rehashed with you again and again in 2016. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Western mainstream media outlets (mostly CNN) and people who relied on them for news on Egypt, as well as some uninvolved individuals, mainly non-Egyptians, like to label the incident as a coup d'état, and still do so. Besides, I think Ahram Online and Daily News Egypt are indeed reliable sources (or at least close to being so), yet they don't use that label. With other coups d'état, even supporters would call them that—but this incident is very different. The current consensus here on the English Wikipedia regarding the incident is still officially valid at the time, but I want it changed completely. Zakawer (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Just as a general note, although The Guardian is a reliable source, when you see the commentisfree in a Guardian URL it means it's on the user-generated section of their website, and is no more reliable than Wikipedia; although it's moderated in that they vet material before they post it, anyone can submit anything to it. ‑&nbsp Iridescent 19:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand that it's not the official opinion of The Guardian, but it's definitely the opinion of the people who revolted against Morsi, which we here on Wikipedia absolutely cannot exclude under the NPOV policy. Zakawer (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware NPOV required us to use bad sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV generally requires that all major sides in a conflict (including in this particular case, the anti-Morsi protesters, Egyptian Armed Forces, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and the interim government) be described in a neutral and unbiased manner, even if most media sources in English portray them in a largely unfavorable and/or biased way. Zakawer (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment if we could keep this on conduct, not content. @Zakawer:, is there a discussion or RfC you started to update that consensus if it's no longer viewed as valid? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Here I attempted to implement my draft page on the topic (which still exists), but unfortunately didn't succeed. However, this was over three years ago. Apparently, the old consensus is still valid. Zakawer (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The consensus is valid until it changes. The way to change it is to discuss the issue on the relevant talk page(s) with evidence from reliable sources that it should be changed, rather than to edit against consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Zakawer, since you recognize that there is no consensus in favor of removing "coup" in relation to the 2013 Egyptian coup, could show good faith and self-revert all the edits that you've made since at least February 2020 where you remove "coup" from or imply that there is a dispute in RS over the use of "coup"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Just because most reliable sources are biased toward one side in a major two-sided conflict like this one does not mean that Wikipedia has to take that same side. Only fringe minority viewpoints which have little role to play in a conflict should not be given sufficient coverage (and even then, their coverage should not be too prominent if they get any). Either way, here's a good source: [252] Zakawer (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That is absolutely not a good source. It's a student-run non-peer reviewed journal. You have already recognized that you are editing against consensus – if that is the case, why do you not self-revert your edits then? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It's kind of a clue when an article starts by quoting motivational speaker Tony Robbins, with a footnote reading (and I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP):

See generally ANTHONY ROBBINS, UNLIMITED POWER: THE NEW SCIENCE OF PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENT (2003) (explaining the seven successful traits that people who succeed have cultivated in themselves to give them the fire to do whatever it takes to succeed, time and time again)

EEng 21:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Retaliatory AFD

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

---

Could I please get some neutral third party assistance as I believe an AFD to be retaliatory for my removal of Drmies prod and also his personal attack on me in the AFD. Simmo86 (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I believe nominator means Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Sydney stabbing attack for the AfD part. The edit they believe is (and have removed as, twice) a PA is this edit Nosebagbear (talk)

What "AFD"? Removal of what "Drmies prod"? What "personal attack"? -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Simmo86:, that AfD has 4 other individuals who have !voted delete, which suggests that it isn't a retaliatory AfD, unless there's a reason you can show to demonstrate they don't genuinely hold those viewpoints? I also believe it is not a PA. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nosebagbear:, The fact that it occurred after I removed a prod that the user placed on another article. Simmo86 (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Simmo86: he said he has no faith in your judgement. That's not a personal attack although it might hurt. On the other hand, calling User:Serial Number 54129 a troll, that's clearly a personal attack.[253] [254] I think that shows bad judgement. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) @Simmo86:, that would be both a case of Post hoc ergo propter hoc on a single instance, but also, it looks like the participating editors think the AfD was a reasonable call, so it isn't an instance of an unwarranted action only taken to seek revenge. PRODs get removed all the time, I'd be surprised if any editor active in deletion hadn't seen it quite a few times. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
        • I just noticed that Simmo86 accused SN54129 of talk page harassement for posting a warning. Maybe this is WP:BOOMERANG time. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
          • Hi @Doug Weller: What am I meant to take of a non admin speedy closing an AFD that has the same reason as the one for the article I created? All this behaviour from other editors is making me reconsider joining wikipedia. Simmo86 (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
            • If you can't handle editing here in line with normal editing processes, including consensus-building ones like AFD, and you fail to assume good faith at the slightest dispute, then yes, such reconsideration might be wise. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• (1) Isn't an AfD nomination after a PROD is removed a perfectly normal and reasonable action to take if one thinks an article should be deleted? (2) There is no personal attack by Drmies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Simmo86 What non-admin? What AFD? If you're going to refer to things, you need to provide diffs so people can see what you are talking about.

  On the matter in hand, I have to say that your assuming bad faith on Drmies's behalf with regard to this AfD nom is very poor judgement; reporting it here and drawing attention to yourself, doubly so. In the post preceeding the remark you're complaining about, you flat-out accused him of bad faith, and made comments about his beliefs that you were in no position to pronounce on - it's not surprising he would question your judgement after that. I don't know why you chose to come down this route - maybe you're stressed out, God knows these are trying times - but the best advice I can give you is that you back down, apologise for any offence you've caused, and let that discussion play out. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  They appear to be talking about this. which was speedy kept by NorthBySouthBaranof as a retaliatory AfD.Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As with others, I think this case illustrates why you need diffs. Like BMK, I was thinking: "Editor 1 adds a prod because they genuinely believe the article should be deleted, editor 2 removes it because they feel it should be kept or at least sent to AfD, editor 1 still feels it should be deleted and sent to AfD. That's how things are supposed to work." Why on earth would the issue of retaliatory even come in to it? But reading the alleged personal attack in the AfD and checking out the history, and reading the above discussion a bit more carefully, I realise that the PROD was not on the same article as the AfD. Although even if I hadn't seen the !votes in support of deletion, I'd have trouble concluding it was retaliatory. As others have said, anyone who with any experience here who PRODs an article is surely aware it may be removed. Why on earth would they bother to get so worked up about it they're going to retaliate? If they still feel the article should be deleted they can just do the normal thing and nominate it for AfD, that's how PROD works. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Diffs

For the record. Accusations of trolling ([255],[256]), weaponising ANI ([257]) and AfD ([258]), accusations of bad faith ([259]), removing another editor's post ([260]) and then edit warring to remove it some more ([261],[262], being warned not do so by three administrators ([263],[264],[265]), accusations of bad faith while showing bad faith ([266]). That's from an earlier thread on my talk, the list may well out of date by now, of course. ——SN54129 11:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you all, especially you, User:Serial Number 54129. I just want to say, as a professor whose wife is a teacher, and with three kids in school (well, not now obviously), "not caring about school shootings", I took that quite seriously: I think of that very, very often. I was probably harsher than necessary, but that kind of insult is hard to take. Simmo86, I saw a few of your edits and was not impressed, and your response in the de-PROD conversation gave me serious doubt about your dedication to a collaborative project. But about the AfD, for instance, I think many people here know that I value NOTNEWS, and it has nothing to do with you. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • So @Drmies: If you disagree with the policy of myself not having to type a reason for removing the prod, Because a reason was provided which was me disagreeing with the reason you provided then I invite you to WP:BOLD and get the policy changed. Also if you value NOTNEWS then will you AFD the article on Shooting_of_Greg_Gunn so the wider community can chime in? I assume not because of your thanking User:Serial Number 54129 so I can only assume that you value NOTNEWS when it doesn't apply to you. Simmo86 (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    • You know what, I was wrong when I said I had been too harsh. I got a suggestion for you: take that ridiculous Greg Gunn AfD to Deletion Review, or to AN, and try to argue that User:Serial Number 54129 was erroneous in closing it. And nice that you figured out that I thanked SN# for that: damn, I'm flattered by your interest in me. It makes me feel young and alive. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 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.

Block for User:43.231.239.115

The following discussion is closed. 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 user has persistently added unsourced and factually incorrect information to the pages of Lok Sabha, National Democratic Alliance and other related pages. They had been warned multiple times but with no responses or changes in behavior. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User has been blocked (by Alexf), but @Tayi Arajakate: maybe report this to WP:AIV instead next time? dibbydib (T ･ C) 01:11, 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.

COI issue surrounding flood of "Tapeworm" drafts due to game creator offering prizes

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

---

It was brought to AfC's attention here that the publisher of the upcoming card game Tapeworm, that is currently on Kickstarter, has announced that creating a Wikipedia page for the game Tapeworm is part of a social challenge. If they manage to fulfill the social challenge, the backers get additional free "worm heads" added to their pre-release purchased game. There are already four drafts (main, 2, 3, 4). Because those writing the drafts are likely backers, they are officially paid editors (compensated in goods). Not sure how to proceed with this, but it's likely to turn in to a game of wack-a-mole of drafts being created and possibly mainspace articles (not seeing any yet) under different disambiguations. Note: no editors were made aware of this via talk page messages as it involves a myriad of IP editors. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, I shall do the laborious job of notifying users; Twinkle helps. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

actually just 5 users are involved in the 3 non-deleted drafts, not too hard to notify. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Eumat114, Thanks, I didn't even know until you said something that it could be done in Twinkle, I see it now. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy,  Done for the notifications. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps warn editors with Template:Uw-paid1? Then progressive warnings if edits continue without the user addressing the question? --Bsherr (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, Done. Might be like trying to squash water, but why not. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Can we get into contact with the game creators themselves and explain why such challenges are unacceptable? A polite discussion might lead somewhere useful. They could replace this part of their marketing with another thing. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Bilorv, That would be nice. I don't have a twitter though to contact them. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note to admins This seems to have calmed down. This can be closed, unless an admin see a further appropriate action. More than anything just wanted to make sure some admins were aware of this in case a flood did come, especially if it started to spill into mainspace. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• I've created Special:AbuseFilter/1054 to watch for changes to any pages with "tape.?worm" in the title, just to keep an eye out for any more of this. -- The Anome (talk) 10:42, 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.

With reference to user:AaqibAnjum

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

---

This user is continuously personal attacking me by reverting my edits regarding Sufism as it can be seen by his edit history with the article Saqib Iqbal Shami and Shakir Ali Noori and and recently on Tarika-e-Maizbhandari also he wants the Wikipedia according to his religious ideology as mentioned in his user page that he is a Deobandi the sect in India which hates sufi islam An urgent block to this biased editor is requiredMaizbhandariya (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edit history to Shakir Ali Noori is clear that you were persistently removing maintenance templates. My reverts thus don't count as vandalism. Later, when you addressed the COI issue on its talk page, I removed the COI template which was earlier added by some other user. The second thing about Saqib Iqbal Shami is that I had tagged it with unreliable sources template because they were there in it. Adding maintenance tags to Wikipedia articles isn't personal attacking. What personal attacking can be? You attacking me at someone else's userpage like this and this and much more on my talk page. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 03:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The next issue with Tarika-e-Maizbhandari is that it has been AfDed by user:Hell in a Bucket and you've been continuously removing the AfD template from the article, and much more than that, you've vandalised its AfD entry, by randomly marking it close. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 03:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This is user is lying here he has removed the Sufi favouring content from Saqib Iqbal Shamiby giving a lame excuse of Wikipedia is not everything

The similar content is available on Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai add by an experienced editor This user must be block

with Tarika-e Maizbandari i have discussed with user: hell in a bucket for removing templates several times but he didn't respond so after adding the reliable Contet I ultimately delete the tag

Please block this user as early as possible indefinitely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maizbhandariya (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not responded because I think we are dealing with some WP:COI and WP:CIR issues. Simple questions are being taken as statement of fact. Degenerating to accusations based off religous affiliation is not appropriate either. Aaqib is actually doing quite good at fixing the issues frankly.. Me not responding doesn't give you license to remove the tag and then edit war it about. I stated my reasons and sourcing on the page and others will go from there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. At the tariqah AfD he's !voted multiple times and thinks that because of this it's due for a expedited close; I wasn't even aware of any other issues until I came here to ask for additional eyes on the AfD, since he's also been constantly adding {{admin help}} to the top of the page (likely an attempt to force an early close). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 08:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to comment anything please see the previous edit history of the user do not reach to any biased conclusion regading any issueMaizbhandariya (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

What you just said makes no sense given the context. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 08:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggest this one is closed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:17, 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.

RedSoxFan8888 (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. 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 user is making legal threats (see). --I Mertex I (talk) 21:18, 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.

Behavioural issues by Visioncurve

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

---

Hello, I'm not very good at making these, but here we go: I've barely had any contact with User:Visioncurve, yet during this short time he has managed to amass an impressing amount of baseless accusations/random attacks against me and others.

Admit that the template should be at least that of the History of Greater Iran, not History of Iran, that you are promoting for good old reasons. The map of the Empire will tell you the rest of the story

I would like to draw your precious attention to one ambiguous template vigorously guarded by HisoryofIran, which is "History of Iran" template (suspicious coincidence, uhm).

You have reverted the lead as well; you and Sasan hero, do not try to rewrite the history, it is a common knowledge that Afshars are of Turkic origin, what's the problem?y

I see only one childish act here, which is yours. Because even children of the elementary school know that the first paragraph (in an essay) is the most important, where the whole subject may be summarized. Turkic origin of the Afshars deserves mentioning there, not somewhere else. Your inept, disproportionate weight against anything of non-Iranian origin is despicable

I clearly saw there that you were not a person with whom one should hang out for an objective and fruitful discussion as your nationalism and relevant motives were pretty obvious. Afterwards, I hoped our roads would not cross again, but many thanks go to the user - Sasan hero... Perhaps I gotta learn to lighten up a bit, but you have to learn the following: With an excessive, immoderate and inappropriate praise of your people or nation, you risk making them look funny

Thank you. It's always sweet to meet good old friends... I knew that you, Louis Aragon and the one mentioned above had a sort of a tripartite act. I just hope I'm not the only one who knows that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Trust me, you are very good at this (regarding your "I'm not very good at making these, but here we go:...") I wonder why you haven't published your own provocative and inappropriate statements between those lines that you so orderly placed above, where you constantly used such unacceptable words as - immature, childish, nobody cares about you... and tried to make fun in presence of your peers. Are they suddenly disappeared just like the right ear of Niki Lauda when FIA wanted to annul the results of 1976 German GP? Regarding your motives described above, anyone can identify them through a bunch of your contributions and reverting well-sourced additions (as in Afshar dynasty) to promote your own people and country. Thank you --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 07:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you please show diffs where I tried to make fun of you and made constant attacks against you? Could you likewise show a bunch of diffs (including the Afshar one) that show that I "promote my own country and people" (whatever that's supposed mean). Since anyone can identify them, I assume they should be quite easy to find. HistoryofIran (talk)

From now on this should be Wikipedia's admins concern. I'm not going to reply to any of your provocative questions as you hastily exploit my answers against me by quoting them out of context. I have also learned that you had numerous similar problems (edit-warring, nationalism and etc) that you keep deleting from your "perfect" talk page. One example out of tens of deleted posts:

You edited out the Azerbaijani name for Azadistan. But, it is clearly stated that Azerbaijani was one of the 2 common languages along with Persian. Considering the state was formed in Iranian Azerbaijan, establisher being an Iranian Azerbaijani, and the country's lands covering areas where Azerbaijanis formed a majority, why did you decide that including Azerbaijani name was irrelevant while Persian wasn't?

CuriousGolden (talk)

I can give countless examples, unfortunately I have no time for this as I'm constanly moving and I have to deal with much more important things. And please, stop acting like an administrator, I have poured through your Talk page and found out that things came to the point where ordinary editors had to ask your "permission" to edit articles located in your watchlist.

Merv Hello! My change in the Merv article saying that ancient Merv is now located near the current Turkmen city of Bayramaly was reverted. I live in Turmenistan and visited Ancient Merv a number of times, it is located in the outskirts of the Turkmen city Bayramaly, which is nearly 25 km from the city of Mary. I hope my change will be added back into the article. Thanks! If you open the Wikipedia article about the city of Bayaramaly, it clearly says that Ancient Merv is localed near this city author = Bayram A 09:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if you are long enough here, you may not neccessarily be good enough. It doesn't give you any privilege over other Wiki's editors. --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 09:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate how these posts support your accusations? The first comment is part of one long discussion [267]. And with the second, I've frankly no idea what you're trying to show. No one has to ask for my permission for anything, my talk page isn't perfect, etc, you're basically making stuff up. Baseless accusation after baseless accusation, not to mention unnecessary hostile behaviour. You've yet to show any proof of these serious allegations. Indeed, I think it's best to let the admins take over from here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Visioncurve, you are acting inappropriately, as the evidence above clearly shows. You must stop with these attacks, or you will be sanctioned next time. As for your (year-old!) evidence, it shows nothing of the like. Please do better. El_C 10:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You have more important things to do, yet you have time to put a rather unpleasant message on my talk page ? [268] --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:12, 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.

NIH-SAVES-LIVES

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

---

• NIH-SAVES-LIVES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think this user is trying to help, but has no idea how Wikipedia works. Could someone kind please help out before they end up blocked? Thanks. Guy (help!) 22:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

They've been given 31 hours to calm down and familiarize themselves with policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:21, 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.

User:David Bani repeatedly re-adds unsourced material, ignoring reversions, explanations, and warnings.

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

---

User:David Bani continues to add the same unsourced material to the Ten Lost Tribes page, repeatedly ignoring my reversions, as well as those of User:Warshy (which have explained in the edit notes that material requires reliable sources). User:David Bani refuse to listen and has recently again (as before, with no explanation) reinstated his additions without WP:RS. Here is the page's history: [[269]] Skllagyook (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's also a copyvio from here. Final warned. Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. Thank you.Skllagyook (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:07, 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.

Freeoflight&Faith

The following discussion is closed. 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 editors actions clearly show they are here to Right Great Wrongs and not actually here to build an encyclopedia. With this edit the editor states that they have been blocked, which leads me to believe this is a block evasion. here they are stating why they are really here, which is to "to improve the truth and stop this defamation and lying if character of my grandfather." Finally making disparaging remarks about being Jewish, or that is the way I read it with this edit on the user talk page of Vif12vf. VViking_TalkEdits 13:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Oh, and the "unlawfully" claim in his talk page comment head too damn close to a legal threat for my tastes. oknazevad (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, they've so far asked to speak to a manager and to the CEO of Wikipedia, so if nothing else they don't understand how things work around here. I tried to AGF about the Jewish people part ("maybe it's just her being upset at a specific small group of Jewish people and she's just using an overbroad term")...but nope: Special:Permalink/955190601. Agreed on all counts - RGW, probable block evasion, NOTHERE. creffett (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed. El_C 14:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yoicks. I tried counselling, but was too late. Is anyone missing a sock? Agree with block and assessments. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Just FTR, Bielski, one of the articles F&F was editing, had had a bunch of POV content added by a couple of IPs who were clearly the same user as F&F (also referring to "my grandfather"), so I have restored it to the state it was in before. --bonadea contributions talk 14:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• ...and I should have added that it is possible that F&F's comment about having been blocked might refer to the content added by the IPs being reverted a few times by a couple of different editors. --bonadea contributions talk 14:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Bielski partisans semiprotected for 2 months. El_C 14:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• CU doesn't show any evidence of sockpuppetry. – Joe (talk) 14:44, 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.

Can someone change the visibility of this revision? (resolved)

The following discussion is closed. 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 was making my sandbox and pasted what was on my clipboard, but after I saved the page I realized what I had put on the page. Since it's a little sensitive, I think it might be best hidden. Thanks.

Redacted  Done --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:44, 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.

Massive canvassing by User:KazekageTR

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

---

KazekageTR (talk · contribs) has been slow motion edit-warring over removing a picture of the Armenian Genocide from the Turkey article [270] [271] [272] [273] [274], including personal attacks and false claims of consensus in the edit summary. Today he went on a massive canvassing drive, posting on the talkpage of every user he thought is Turkish [275] (I'm counting about 40 users or so), asking them for help in removing the image (e.g. [276], translation: [277]). Several users responded on his talkpage [278], the translation of which can be seen here [279]. I'm posting this here to notify the community of what is going on. Khirurg (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m one of the users he contacted and we were proposing to remove the picture. He didn’t contact us to help him edit war. —-Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 17:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

He had stated that he would remove the picture because he didn’t think it was relevant in the articles talkpage, a user agreed with him and no one opposed. That’s what he was referring to as consensus. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 17:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This issue falls within WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amendments_by_motion, which puts the topic area under Discretionary sanctions.

In this case, there was both WP:Canvassing#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting and WP:VOTESTACKING through clearly a partisan process of trying to notify only Turkish-language speakers. There is also a a strong whiff of Armenian Genocide denial.

Some sanctions, or at least a final warning, are in order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m not that informed on the policy and I only proposed what I found logical on the articles talk page, hope that this doesn’t get me into any trouble. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 18:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, if photos of the Holocaust isn’t included in the Germany article, then why should photos of the Armenian Genocide be included in the Turkey article? -Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The timeline of KazekageTR's edits today show that at 11:48 they started the canvassing of about 40 Turkish editors (including at least one indeffed...) plus asking this rather telling question, then at 12:40 they ask for change of username before they at 13:05 retire from Wikipedia. Anyone else thinking this looks a bit like a smokescreen? --T*U (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

​ Him retiring wasn’t a big surprise, the number of his edits have dwindled over time.Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 21:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Another user canvassed by KazekageTR removed the image again with an edit summary saying "Aleppo has never been in Turkey", which shows a lack of competence at reading English - it doesn't say it was in Turkey - it was then reverted again. And then removed, almost immediately, again. I am going to fully protect the article for a week so that a proper discussion can take place. I'd suggest that if there is any evidence of concerted attempts at genocide denial after the protection is lifted then this be met with serious sanctions. Note that I am not saying that those opposed to the image are specifically genocide deniers, many will just not like the image - but this falls under discretionary sanctions, and there can be no concerted POV-pushing in either direction. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 that the page was protected when the image was gone meaning it can’t be readied by anyone who is not ad admin. Based on the context of this discussion I don’t believe that was the intent could someone please fix that? If I am wrong and they actually was the intent please diesgard.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Could someone answer my question? If there are no pictures of the Holocaust in the Germany article, the why would there be pictures of the Armenian Genocide in the Turkey article? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 05:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have actually added a picture in the Germany once upon time but I dont know how it got removed. Obviously, the Holocaoust and all European-led genocides like the European-led genocide of Native Amercians or European-led genocide of native Austrilians etc are being censored by the European-controlled media.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I interest you in a two-for-one offer on a superior grade of tinfoil? Narky Blert (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I really suggest you strike that last statement, Shar'abSalam. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The picture should be removed, I’ve proposed the change here. Feel free to comment. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 09:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: I don’t understand what you mean by “a superior grade of tinfoil“. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 09:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That was a reply to Shar'abSalam's conspiracy theory that "European-controlled media" is censoring Wikipedia articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I don’t think that “European-controlled media is censoring Wikipedia” but it certainly does have some influence. Take this for example (I’ve borrowed this from another editor:

“only a few months ago, many Syrians who tried to leave Turkey and go to Greece were either shot dead (there are numerous videos on YouTube and Twitter, here's one from Sky News and here's one from TRT World) or were stripped from their clothes, beaten, and sent back "naked" to Turkey. Human Rights Watch has condemned Greece for these human rights abuses, yet there is no "Human Rights" section in the Greece article.”

If Turkey were to do something like that, there would have been consequences. Mainly from the so called European Court of Human Rights, nothing happened to Greece. I could show you several other instances similar to this one. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 21:45, 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.

Misgendering by Flyer22 Frozen

The following discussion is closed. 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:Flyer22 Frozen referred to User:MacySinrich on her talk using masculine pronouns, despite her assertion to me and to User:Paul August[280] that she be referred to using feminine pronouns right above in the same section. When I asked Flyer22 Frozen if she meant that and suggested that she correct them, she simply removed my question/suggestion with no comment and with no correction on MacySinrich's talk. So I asked her about the intention of the removal of my comment, and this was her response: I read your comment the first time! I am busy and was planning on getting around to striking out out "he. I did not checked this editor's user page until after your first post. I care not about you and the other one wanting to protect this problematic editor. Keep pushing me, and I will type up a thorough WP:ANI thread on this editor, and they will be blocked. Go away. I don't know where she got the idea that I was "wanting to protect this problematic editor". I think my warnings on MacySinrich's talk will speak for themselves. I also find her insinuation that she wasn't aware of Macy's preferred pronouns until I posted on her talk difficult to stomach. Her corrections to me and to Paul are right up there.

So I replaced the misgendering sentence on MacySinrich's talk with {{redacted}} and notified Flyer22 Frozen in accordance with WP:RPA. She then reverted my redaction and comment, not minding the fact that she was removing my comment in the very process, and only then did she finally corrected the pronouns (also, if it was up to me I wouldn't leave the wrong pronouns stricken, only correct them—like I did). She also wrote on the talk, Nardog, regarding this? Alter my comments again, and it's you who will be reported at WP:ANI, and on my talk, with "WP:Harassment" as the heading, You must really want to be blocked today, which I found quite intimidating.

Like I said on her talk, I don't care if MacySinrich gets indef-blocked. It would certainly make my day easier as I'm the one who spent hours reverting hundreds of her edits where she spuriously removed maintenance tags and instated defective pronunciation notations (see User talk:MacySinrich#Ugashik Bay and thereafter). I just don't want this to be an environment where someone can make such a remark (which, to be fair, she corrected after being repeatedly pointed out) and receive no consequences, however problematic the recipient may be. Nardog (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Holy shit, completely unacceptable. User:Flyer22 Frozen, what on Earth are you thinking? On another note, Nardog, I'd like to commend you for your incredible patience with Macy. Cjhard (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Why is the heading of this thread "Misgendering"? Isn't Flyer being accused of "Mrgendering"? EEng 06:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cjhard, what? Again, I did not look at MacySinrich's user page until Nardog implied on my talk page that MacySinrich goes by feminine pronouns. I did not see any post on MacySinrich's talk page about feminine pronouns because I hadn't been keeping up with that discussion. I had been logged off for a number of hours. When I log back on, I am focused on catching up with my watchlist and handling matters I need to handle. Checking back in on MacySinrich's talk page was far from the top of my list. I only returned to that discussion after reverting an editor here at the article where MacySinrich made a BLP violation. I then followed that editor's contributions back to MacySinrich's talk page and focused only on their commentary. I was busy and was not about to read that whole discussion at that time. And when I told Nardog that I was busy, I was indeed busy because of this matter at Talk:Biology and sexual orientation. I was busy looking at sources and did not feel like being bothered. I had intended to change the pronouns to feminine after replying there. Nardog repeatedly pressing me and making comments like this, as if I had to comment alter my post within Nardog's desired time frame, was nothing short of harassment in my viewpoint. And redacting my post like that was inappropriate. And to insinuate that I intentionally misgendered MacySinrich is highly insulting. If I misgender someone on Wikipedia, which, although the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are male (as data has shown), I usually try not to do, I correct myself. I, like many others, have been referred to by masculine pronouns on this site. I sometimes correct editors on the matter and I sometimes don't. Nardog blew this completely out of proportion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

And when an editor is misgendered on Wikipedia, and a correction is made, the editor who made the mistake striking out that part of the comment is standard. Nardog should perhaps thoroughly read WP:Talk. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"I did not look at MacySinrich's user page" is completely irrelevant. On her talk page, in the section you started, she said twice that her preferred pronouns are she/her. She has a conversation with Nardog about it. You then reply to a part of the section where you get called a bully, proceed to misgender her, restore your misgendering (once again, in the same section of the user's talk page that she already said twice that she uses she/her pronouns) and then threatened to take the person who redacted your AN/I threat and misgendering to AN/I. Also "And when an editor is misgendered on Wikipedia, and a correction is made, the editor who made the mistake striking out that part of the comment is standard", I'm not sure how true this is, in my experience the editor who made the mistake would just correct the mistake, not just strike the misgendering, which would be awful should the person be trans, for instance. If nothing else comes from this, you should rethink this approach. Cjhard (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant that I did not look at MacySinrich's user page and therefore did not know she goes by feminine pronouns? Completely irrelevant that I did not even see her state her pronoun preference in the section in question, because, like I stated, I was completely focused on the editor I'd just followed there and was not looking to read that whole discussion? I did not see the mention of feminine pronouns in that section until Nardog's comment above. And as some on this site know, I have been having vision issues because of a personal matter that I will no get into here. That you are pretty much stating that I intentionally misgendered MacySinrich's, when I do not behave that way, and always correct myself when corrected on pronouns matters, and when I adhere to gender pronouns at our BLPs, is highly distasteful. But I sense your angle here. Believe what you want, or pretend to believe what you want. You stated that you are "not sure how true this is" with regard to "And when an editor is misgendered on Wikipedia, and a correction is made, the editor who made the mistake striking out that part of the comment is standard." Um, that has been the case many times before when people have unintentionally misgendered me. I've seen it be the case times before regarding others as well. And, no, I'm not going to list diffs. I'm done replying in this thread. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Dismiss: From my interactions with Flyer22 in the past, I don't believe that they would go out of their way to be intentionally disruptive. And with all due respect to Nardog, this report seems rather lame. Using incorrect pronouns is easy on an encyclopedia where most users choose to remain anonymous and giving public information is discouraged. I myself have tried to keep my gender largely ambiguous for the sake of privacy alone. Even if someone posts their gender on their userpage, not everyone is going to read through the userpages of everyone they come across. This report makes it sound as though Flyer22 was dishing out personal attacks or something. If anything, I would discourage Nardog from editing other user's statements without their consent. DarkKnight2149 06:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• This report has no merit. There is no requirement that an editor reporting a blatantly bad edit should study the discussion at User_talk:MacySinrich in order to work out that he was inappropriate. There is also no requirement that an editor must immediately respond to a request to change a pronoun. Naturally Flyer22 would revert Nardog's replacement of the core part of Flyer22's comment with "(Redacted)". Flyer22 fixed the pronoun five minutes later, 20 minutes before this ANI report was launched. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Simple mistake, fixed reasonably promptly, and no need for this melodramatic flare-up. And per Johnuniq. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Johnuniq and Boing! said Zebedee: Flyer22 Frozen reverted my post on her talk within three minutes. She made 34 edits, spanning two hours, from the first time I pointed it out until she finally corrected them, only after I redacted her misgendering, including writing 71 words to tell me to "go away". All she had to do was add two bytes to one page. Nardog (talk) 07:47, 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 above thread is further confirmation that there's a full moon out. EEng 13:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  And a supermoon at that! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  You guys need to stop looking at the moon then! How about the live stream from the ISS! Govvy (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq:'s emphasis on "he" seems a bit inappropriate after all this happened. Will John apologize? 2409:4064:60F:9CD6:0:0:1FAF:48B0 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• What are you talking about IP? They italicized the word "he" so the reader can tell they are talking about the word rather than using the word. Give it up. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:32, 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.

Persistent edit warring by Koavf

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

---

Again, this comes from WP:AIV, where it really does not belong.

Previous discussions: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1034#Edit_warring_over_template_protection, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Koavf

Now have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_recognition_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic&action=history

My usual reaction would be an indefinite block for edit warring. I have a feeling that doing so in this specific case might cause some controversy, so perhaps someone has a better idea. How many blocks does an editor need to learn this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. If that series of various IPs and SPAs are, indeed, involved in a campaign of misrepresenting sources (mostly without comment), that's disruptive and a problem for the project. I agree that that is something that ought to have been reported rather than edit warred over, though. I would object to an indefinite block at this time. El_C 11:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(Permanent link to the AIV report: Special:PermanentLink/955314369) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I'm confused here: are you suggesting that I be blocked because the other user is persistently inserting false information? WP:3RR specifically allows users to undo vandalism, including sneaky vandalism such as inserting claims that are the exact opposite of what a source says. And your reasoning is that I have been blocked once before in the past decade? Am I understanding this correctly? The person who was reported only edits one article to only say one thing over and over again, whereas I have contributed constructively to this encyclopedia for over 15 years. I'm not sure that I understand, so please clarify here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, I think the emphasis on "obvious" at WP:3RRNO speaks for itself, and against personal interpretation of what could also be interpreted to be a disruptive attempt to right perceived great wrongs and perceived inaccuracies in the encyclopedia. When someone with your experience resorts to edit warring instead of following the dispute resolution process like everyone else is expected to, I do at least wonder why. Your history of constructive contributions does not exempt you from policies, and edit warriors always believe to be "right", and often to be reverting "vandalism". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I have attempted to discuss with that user on his talk page several times and he has zero interest in collaborating. I have also suggested that he post to the talk page to discuss and he has never made any post to any talk page other than his own (e.g. most recently). In the past, when a third party has intervened (tho no one has ever solicited this on a noticeboard, just organically via the actual article's edit history), this user has always been reverted and also never attempted to collaborate with that person. That's in addition to multiple blocks just for editing the only page that he edits and previous attempts at AIV multiple posts to ANI. How much more effort should be expended on trying to patiently collaborate with a user who will not collaborate? Dispute resolution assumes in principle that someone will work in good faith to attempt to actually resolve the dispute and this user has consistently shown that he won't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So, you submit an ANI/AN3 report or an RfPP request. How is reverting these users over and over again a productive use of your time or a benefit to the article's stability? If administrative intervention is needed, you should seek it. El_C 18:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, When I submitted this, nothing happened. I'm happy to use whatever venue is best but none of them seem to have the effect of actually convincing him to be a useful member of Wikipedia or convincing an admin to block him because he refuses to be a useful member of Wikipedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. I was unaware of that. I gave the user a final warning. If they misstep again, please feel free to contact me personally. El_C 19:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't properly check whether Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive316#User:Astroye_removing_sourced_information_repeatedly had been answered at all; it hadn't. That casts a bad light on the dispute resolution system I had been insisting on. I guess a discussion on the talk page of the article is usually – perhaps for exactly this reason – more likely to lead to a helpful result. A refusal to discuss on the article's talk page could be used to justify a request at WP:RFPP, as Jayron32 mentioned below. I personally like the essay "WP:DISCFAIL"; you probably know that one already. Immediate reverts, especially when a re-revert is clearly to be expected, are probably unnecessary or even disruptive in such cases. The user's reaction to your messages does look pretty much like someone seriously believing to be absolutely right. Can we perhaps agree that there would have been similarly time-intensive, but less disruptive measures available to deal with such a user? The time spent addressing them personally could have been spent providing quotations and policy citations on the article's talk page, seeking input from the larger community instead of attempting to find a two-person consensus with someone completely unwilling to find one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I am happy to find the most frictionless way to either 1.) convince him to be a constructive member of the community or 2.) block him from editing. I've tried several such approaches and none have worked. What would you do if you were me? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, I'd love to be able to provide a patent remedy, and perhaps WP:DISCFAIL does come pretty close to it. In this specific case, a short statement on the article's talk page, a short invitation to the discussion on the user's talk page, and an immediate report (normally at WP:ANEW, this time at User talk:El_C) if the edit war continues after the protection expiration seems to be the most frictionless way to me. However, this proposed approach does require one, hopefully final, investment of time. I personally think it is less time than was already spent on a different unsuccessful approach, and the reason for that approach having been unsuccessful is not (or at least not entirely) your own fault. Of course, there is an alternative approach, as Wikipedia is not compulsory, but the only such alternative approach available seems to be disengaging from the conflict. If you do care about this article – and I hope you're not giving up at this final step after all the work invested –, an attempt to resolve the matter on the article's talk page, and an immediate report if unsuccessful, seems to be the best way to finally solve the problem. Being able to point to a talk page discussion attempt while making an WP:ANEW report, and without having edit warred yourself, should usually be a frictionless, straight-forward way to enforce discussion or disengagement. In this specific case, El C fortunately offers to unbureaucratically bring an end to the other editor's disruption without having to justify the previous reverts to a reviewer who isn't aware of the background story. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Thanks. Glad this is converging even if it's a huge pain. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely understandable. Sorry for having been a part of it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, You're fine by me. You've been helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been lying dormant for most of the day. I looked at it earlier, and had a big "meh" reaction to it. Given that no one else has yet commented, I'll at least note my feelings. I think this may be a technical violation of 3RR, but not a serious one, and I'm willing to let Koavf slide under the condition that they agree to report the problem to ANI, ANEW, RFPP, or another appropriate venue rather than try to take on such matters unilaterally, when they encounter such issues in the future. Let admins and other processes take care of these problems; it would be a shame to get blocked for edit warring if you are clearly "in the right" here (and I think Koavf is), which could very easily happen with this type of behavior. We have process for a reason, and if this sort of thing had been reported up to WP:RFPP, for example, I would have taken care of it long before it got to the stage it has. --Jayron32 18:03, 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.

Benahol

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

---

Benahol ignores my questions on two talkpages[281][282] and keeps removing academically-referenced information[283] for blogs and references that tends to lack a page[284][285]. I've explained my concerns here days ago but did not get any constructive response. The user was blocked and instead of responding, went back to removing information. --Semsûrî (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If you look at Past Changes, you are the one who deletes a lot of data.(Semsûrî) (review your changes) I explained everything on the discussion page. I added it to the discussion page. Semsûrî deleted a lot of data he did not want from the pages. (see Zaza nationalism as an example) (Kurdish nationalist views kept on the page and deleted most of the other views) (My message to El C) Benahol (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

[Reasons for places where I made changes on the page] Benahol (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You're reasons are irrelevant. You never responded to my concerns on El C's talk-page and still ignore them. Why did you remove sourced information that has nothing to do with the content in the link above and why do you keep re-adding the unsourced map? And please explain the Kurdish nationalist view kept on the page-claim. Nowhere in the article does/did it state that 'Zazas are Kurds' so your explanation in the talk-page is based on a lie. --Semsûrî (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

you deleted content you didn't want on most pages. (you should examine why you did this) Benahol (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

[I answered on the discussion page]

You can see the Turkish page for the map. [[286]] Zaza is implied to be Kurdish . You have added a non-sociological provision regarding Zaza.(you added to all pages) "The Zaza and Gorani are ethnic Kurds" (I mentioned why this is wrong) Benahol (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope, there's no explanation there. And Wikipedia isn't a source nor does Turkish Wikipedia have a reference for it. And, it is very very easy to debunk that map. Lastly, you wrote: "Semsûrî's sources are not sociological research. This are the articles that reference the mistakes. It is not sociological research on Zazas" which is, again, irrelevant. The information you removed was about a term academia typically use for these Zazas. If you're not going to be constructive and explain why academia was removed (on the basis of 'Kurdish nationalist view'), I don't see why I should keep trying. --Semsûrî (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

is the opinion of the author you added. This is not the result of a sociological research. (and not a survey) Benahol (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

[287] [288] i want it examined Benahol (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC) I changed the map (I added with source) Benahol (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you want examined? These edits of yours clearly show you're being disruptive[289]. --Semsûrî (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You added a reference with no relevance to the map?[290] --Semsûrî (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

he is a linguist Benahol (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again irrelevant. Nowhere in the reference is there any depiction of that particular map. --Semsûrî (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Benahol, please read and observe WP:INDENT. El_C 23:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Benahol, please stop editing disruptively. Please observe WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 23:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I created a new page for Zaza nationalism. And I will add data without deleting any data. (data I mentioned on the discussion page) Benahol (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see it now. Why are you still not indenting? El_C 00:00, 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.

Catholic Church and HIV/ AIDS

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

---

Dear administrators I would like some advice please. Editor Slugger O'Toole introduced material to a number of related articles using a public podcast called "Plague". After listening to this I decided to also add some material, concerned that the stuff that had been added to date had been cherry-picking (strongly geared towards aspects favourable to the Catholic church). Slugger removed my insertion arguing that they couldn't remember hearing it and doubted if I was acting in good faith. But actually if it comes to it I don't think a lot of the material that Slugger inserted can actually clearly be construed from listen to the podcasts. Both and I and another editor, AlmostFrancis, asked Slugger to provide a time-strap to help us verify. Slugger has refused - Talk:Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS/Archive 1#Plague podcast - suggesting I am throwing a "tantrum" and implying that I am being disruptive. Could I have some advice please as to how to proceed - do I need to find a time-strap for the material I added (and which has been removed), does Slugger need to find time-straps for material they added, or should all references based on the plague podcasts come out. Thanks in advance for your help. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If the source is not deemed neutral then the guidelines described at WP:BIASEDSOURCES should be referred to. From the textual description given at the linked page, this appears to be based partly on what would be called primary sources and partly on the editorial oversight of the article's writer. In any case, to be used with caution. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I listened to the podcast Contaldo cited multiple times. I could not verify that the material he wanted to include was included in that source. With a failed verification, I asked him for the time during the podcast where the material could be found. To date, he has not provided one. In response, Contaldo tagged every other instance of the podcast with a {{fact}} tag, to prove a WP:POINT. When AlmostFrancis made a good faith request for a timestamp, I did provide one. As stated on the talk page of the article, I am willing to do so for good faith requests, but not when if a fellow editor is simply trying to be disruptive. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

For the benefit of other editors the original sentence I added and which Slugger removed because they don't remember hearing it was "St. Vincent's also downplayed its work with AIDS patients in the early days as they were worried about scaring away other patients." The source is Episode 2: The Catholic hospital that pioneered AIDS care at point 17:22 "...There were fears early on that if St Vincent's were too closely associated to AIDS it would scare away other patients." Contaldo80 (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That is different than the citation you originally provided. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There is only one Plague podcast and you insisted that you listened to ALL he episodes repeatedly and did not hear a reference to the claim that I made. Another editor has already challenged you on breaking the podcast up into 6 seperate references as being unhelpful.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That isn't true. I challenge you to provide the dif where I said that. I listened to what you cited. It wasn't there. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To clear the matter up: I wasn't trying to get involved in your dispute, I just tried to clean up the references because it's usually counter-productive to duplicate the same reference (and it turns out that I was partially wrong on that, but in any case my point stands). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Slugger O'Toole, verifiability requires that you provide the timestamps when challenged. Also, I suggest you stop using contentious words like "tantrum". Contaldo80, the same timestamp rule applies to you. Both of you, EXCEPTIONAL also requires that once challenged, and if you don't have multiple sources to back up any exceptional claim (with the acceptable common sense "exception" of consensus on the talk page), you would need to remove such interpretations. Rest, the majority of this issue is a content issue and discussions should be continued on the talk page of the article. However, once again, stop using tendentious words to upbraid other editors, lest it should become a prim ANI issue. Thanks, Lourdes 03:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Lourdes. I provided the time-stamp for my one insertion, and will bear in mind should I make any more. Very clear guidance - much appreciated. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless I see a lot of edit warring I think this can be handled on the talk page. The plague podcast is not great (is any podcast :) and I think has been stretched a bit, but as long as Slugger doesn't edit war over it I think we can find agreement on the talk page. For those wondering why I am not a huge fan on the plague podcast on Catholic Health issues, its is because it was funded by Catholic Health Services and published by Jesuit priests, also it a freakin podcast, get off my lawn.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:58, 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.

User:Beyond My Ken and User:DrKay

The following discussion is closed. 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 concerned about Beyond My Ken's ability to assess edits and make judgements. Today he has claimed at User talk:Beyond My Ken that he has not performed three reverts in 30 minutes at Alliance Defending Freedom, when he clearly has: [291][292][293]. He has also claimed vehemently that he did not remove the text "<ref name=Somerset164/>" and insert in its place the text "{{cn|date=May 2020}}" at Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, though he clearly did: [294]. I do not think that someone whose grip on reality is so impaired should hold advanced user rights, and therefore propose that his user rights be removed. DrKay (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I denied, correctly, that I did not remove a source, which I did not. This report is b.s., but it does raise the question of whether DrKay -- who continued to post on my user talk page after being told not to [295][296] -- has the necessary qualities to be an admin.

It should be noted that it was not i who brought this trivial personal dispute to ANI, nor was it I who attempted to keep the dispute going, but DrKay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I am required by policy to first raise concerns about editor behavior with that editor and to notify that editor of an ANI discussion. DrKay (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You had already raised the issue on my talk page, and I had responded. The comment I noted above was simply a repetition of your complaint. Since this report is malarkey, you were in no way required to file it, but once you did you were required to notify me, which you did. I have not criticized you for that, but for escalating a trivial personal dispute into a request for removal of all advanced rights. That certainly raisees concerns about your fitness to be an admin, I would think.

BTW, I'm out, unless another admin wishes me to respond to something.Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you see that there are 3 reverts and the removal of a source in the diffs I provided? DrKay (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

BMK, I opened the diff. It's there in black and white. You undid DrKay's edit and added in reinstated a 'cn' tag. Before your edit: ... an acute [[bacterial pharyngitis]], with associated [[pneumonia]].<ref name=Somerset164/>. After: ... acute [[bacterial pharyngitis]], with associated [[pneumonia]].{{cn|date=May 2020}}. I checked the preceding edit, there was no cn tag there previously. Actually, there was, BMK undid two consecutive edits. This could all be fixed by just removing the cn tag, the citation following it is to the same source. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Do I need to smack you both upside the head? DrKay, BMK did not remove any source/ref. Which is what you accused him of on his talkpage. He was entirely correct in denying that. He added a CN on a claim in the death paragraph but left the source at the end of the paragraph intact, as the diffs show. If you had left an edit summary or posted on the talkpage 'The Somerset reference covers this claim' there would likely have been no issue. BMK: I *know* you know perfectly well DrKay misunderstood. And I also *know* you were likely reverting due to the DrKay's removal of 'Died from smallpox'. So when someone does turn up and accuse you of something that you *know* they have got wrong, take the time to explain it to them eh? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't follow. I did add a source with an edit summary: [297]. That diff shows me replacing the cite needed tag with a footnote identifier. He then removed that footnote identifier and put back the cite needed tag. I don't understand how you cannot see something so obvious. DrKay (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• It looks to me like BMK is saying that the Somerset source does not include the part of the sentence that makes the claim of "...or an acute bacterial pharyngitis, with associated pneumonia", but it does source the sentence afterwards. If the former is true, he's correct, if it isn't, he's not. Obviously I can't see the source, so which is the case? Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The source explicitly supports both sentences. He said nothing to me about disbelieving Somerset. He just removed the footnote from beside the word pneumonia[298] and then claimed that I had removed a source[299]. I'm still waiting for evidence of the latter claim. DrKay (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Um, what "removal of user rights" are you proposing for three (not four) reverts 18 hours ago and a small squabble over referencing? Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Someone who does not know what a revert is should not have rollback rights. Someone who does not understand when a reference is added should not hold reviewer rights. DrKay (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• He didn't use rollback for those reverts, he undid them manually. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I know, but he claims that they were not reverts, which is why I'm questioning his ability to recognise a revert. DrKay (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Silly question Why is this styled "and admin DrKay"? is the addition of "admin" relevant? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 01:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, DrKay is indeed an admin if that was in doubt. Though I agree that pointing this out in the section title is not particularly helpful; BMK has been around since 2009 for a while (the exact time not being important to the point I'm making) so both of them are experienced and shouldn't be engaging in silly reverts over a {{cn}} tag... Though, arguably, the most silly disputes often turn out to be over the pettiest of details so we shouldn't understimate the potential for silliness (though this is far from that level, and hopefully stays so). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

BMK likes to label people before addressing them. Like me, I am POV editor PackMecEng.[300] Though sometimes POV edito MackMecEng.[301] PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Query TBH, this all seems rather petty and petulant. Unbecoming for both. Is petty petulance actionable here? Perhaps we can close this and get on with our lives. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 04:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Who needs an almanac when you can tell it's a full moon just by watching ANI for threads like this? EEng 06:12, 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.