Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Disruption by MWise12 and Netoholic at Boogaloo movement

• Boogaloo movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MWise12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I thought about opening a report at ANEW because much of this issue revolves around edit warring, but it's a bit less cut-and-dried than issues I usually bring to ANEW.

There has been continued disruption both from MWise12 and Netoholic over at the page about the Boogaloo movement. Both editors appear to be determined to whitewash the article away from describing the movement as "far right", and are continuously reverting without joining discussions on the talk page, or without gaining new consensus for contentious changes that have already been discussed at length on the talk page.

MWise12 background

MWise12 first appeared on the page to first soften the wording identifying the movement as "far right". I reverted, asking them to discuss on the talk page. At this point there had already been discussions about the descriptor on the talk page, largely from bad-faith SPAs but some in good faith; here is a snapshot of the page at the time MWise first made a change. I assumed at that point they hadn't seen the talk page discussions. However, MWise, instead of discussing, edited the page once more to remove the descriptor completely.

They then tried to introduce WP:OR interpretation into the page regarding the 2020 boogaloo killings, by insisting on including a Facebook post by the alleged perpetrator, and there was a brief edit war:

• MWise12 introduces the change: [1]
• GW revert: reverted, summary This has nothing to do with the boogaloo movement. Details about this person/the incident could go at 2020 boogaloo killings, maybe, though I fail to see why the specific memes he posted on Facebook are encyclopedia material
• MW revert: [2], summary It gives us insight into motive - this was not a "far right" attack.
• GW revert: [3], summary feel free to draw your own personal conclusions from his memes, but that's absolutely not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:OR

MWise12 then went over to the 2020 boogaloo killings page to try to insert the change there: [4]. I was growing uncomfortable with the edit warring and did not wish to step over the line, so I started a talk page discussion at Talk:2020 boogaloo killings#Meme, though another editor also found the addition inappropriate and reverted it as I was starting the discussion. In the conversation MWise12 did not appear to see any problem with his WP:OR analysis of the Facebook post.

Netoholic background

Netoholic first edited the page on 17 June, in what quickly also became an edit war in which they tried to remove the photograph at the top of the page.

• Netoholic removal, 21:26, 17 June 2020, summary no reliable source presented that these specific pictured individuals to be part of this movement. see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Legal issues
• GW revert, 21:29, 17 June 2020, summary source image specifically identifies the subjects as members of the movement (https://www.flickr.com/photos/16086041@N00/49416109936/); sources cited in caption also verify that members of boogaloo groups were at this event
• Netoholic revert, 21:30, 17 June 2020, summary As I said, no RELIABLE source is presented. what the photographer thinks is not reliable.
• I created a talk page section, 21:32, 17 June 2020. Full section at Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive 1#Removal of image
• Britishfinance revert, 21:34, 17 June 2020, sourcing has been demonstrated by the source (and the source was at the protect in person).
• Netoholic revert, 21:38, 17 June 2020, Unacceptable. A random photographer on Flickr is not a reliable source for such an assertion. See WP:Wikipedia:Image us policy#Legal issues and ]]Wikipedia:Image use policy#Moral issues]] for even tamer examples of inappropriately describing people in photographs using potentially defamatory language.
• Britishfinance revert, 21:43, 17 June 2020, summary Example text

I will note for full disclosure that Netoholic posted on my talk page (User talk:GorillaWarfare#reverts) to write How many reverts are you up to today at Boogaloo movement?. I hadn't realized, but I had accidentally breached WP:3RR—I had not realized that reverts from the previous day had been within the 24-hour time span. Since then I have been more careful to check if I have reverted too much, and also more hesitant to revert in general

I will note that Netoholic was rude and WP:ABF in the discussion, writing its sad an arbitrator is so disinterested in doing the right thing here (and is also pinging for backup) when I had suggested a potential compromise, and pinged the others involved in that very same discussion to see if they were okay with the suggestion. Throughout the conversation (see Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive 1#Removal of image), Netoholic moved the goalposts around what would assuage their concerns, making my attempts to come up with a suitable compromise completely impossible. However, my attempts to do so turned out to be unnecessary, as the discussion resulted in a pretty clear consensus to keep the original image in the article. I thought this was the end of it, until Beyond My Ken posted in that discussion: having failed to achieve consensus on this talk page to remove the image from the article, is attempting to subvert the Commons' deletion process to get what he wants, even though there is no policy-based reason for removal of the image there. Sure enough, Netoholic had opened a deletion request on Commons to try to subvert enwiki consensus. Though the discussion appears to be still open, aside from Netoholic it is unanimous that the image is appropriate and should be kept.

Netoholic hasn't edited the article much besides this image issue and the June 26 issue I'm about to describe, though they have participated here and there in talk page discussions. In a conversation about how the article had received an enormous number of pageviews, Netoholic felt the need to insert the comment: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex. [5] I was surprised to see such a claim made by an experienced editor, who has apparently decided that the sourcing in the page is (at least in part) "fake news". It was also surprising to see this term apparently used in the same way as by Trump, to refer to news with which one disagrees. I suggested that if Netoholic was serious about such a change to the sourcing Wikipedia accepts, they should take it to either RSN or VPP, but it appears the comment was meant more as a snipe at the editors and less as a constructive suggestion of change. Full discussion is partway down the section at Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive_2#Inclusion of a tweet by the DHS.

June 26 disruption

In an attempt to keep this from getting even longer than it already is, I will not go into similar detail about the intermediate editing of the page. However I will note that both editors actively participated in talk page discussions throughout this time, and so were aware not only that there had been substantial discussion about the inclusion of "far-right" in the lead but also that those discussions had not resulted in consensus shifting away from using the term.

Fast forward to yesterday, when MWise12 showed up again to undo a whole slew of work by myself and other editors: (edits between 2:09 and 2:48, 26 June 2020‎). This included, once again, removing the "far-right" descriptor from the lead. They did not initiate a talk page discussion before making this change once more. Another edit war ensued, this time with Netoholic showing up almost immediately after my revert to join in the edit war:

• MWise12 removal, 02:48, 26 June 2020, summary Changed in light of new information
• After making the change, MWise12 created a talk page discussion, 03:25, 26 June 2020. Discussion here continued while the edit war went on, see Talk:Boogaloo movement#Department of Homeland Security's statements
• GorillaWarfare revert, 04:01, 26 June 2020‎, summary not without consensus
• Netoholic revert, 04:17, 26 June 2020‎, summary far-right is disputed. WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion
• GorillaWarfare revert, 04:22, 26 June 2020, summary per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". As I stated, there have been multiple conversations about this which have resulted in the descriptor remaining. If you wish to gather new consensus, feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. WP:STATUSQUO
• Netoholic revert, 04:48, 26 June 2020, summary a lot of sources have come out in the last 10 days. There is no consensus, perhaps an RfC?
• Britishfinance revert‎, 09:20, 26 June 2020, summary m, per Talk Page discussion, there is as yet no consensus to use this (given that most other sources conflict). thanks. BF
• Netoholic revert, 12:16, 26 June 2020, summary per current talk discussion and a surprisingly large number of edit requests viewable in Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1, there is clearly controversy around this term. Please open an RfC rather than edit warring.
• Britishfinance revert, 14:15, 26 June 2020, summary rv per Talk page discussion; there is no consensus for this edit (and evidence it is not appropriate). RfC not needed, just please don't edit war but get consensus on Talk Page. thanks. ~~~~
• MWise12 revert, 16:14, 26 June 2020, summary Evidence is very appropriate; you have no consensus to keep this out
• NorthBySouthBaranof revert, 16:20, 26 June 2020, summary return to prior consensus

Now, I fully accept that it's possible the sourcing may have shifted away from describing the movement as "far-right", and posted earlier today to write that I intend to do a full audit of the sourcing in the page as well as a search through more recently-published coverage to determine if the weight has shifted away from describing the movement as far right. I also believe it is probably time to get formal consensus about the inclusion of the descriptor, though I want to do my audit first to determine if I still support it being used.

However, I wanted to start this discussion around the behavior of MWise12 and Netoholic first, because the edit warring and disruption from the two of them is really getting in the way of constructive collaboration on the page. The refusal to discuss before making controversial edits, and the continuation of edit wars while discussion is occurring, is getting extremely disruptive. I will also note to any reviewing admins that the page is covered by the American politics discretionary sanctions, if that is useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• In regards to the claim of Original Research, I was not doing independent research but rather citing two reliable sources. Mercury News and ABC both specifically mentioned Carillo's Facebook posts in connection to the killings. Mercury News stated "The complaint points to Carrillo’s Facebook posts, in which he voiced support for violence against law enforcement and made references to the Boogaloo movement, as evidence of his motivation." The ABC News report stated "On his Facebook page on May 31, Carillo reposted a meme that said, "I'll never let racist white people make me forget about the dope white people I know exist. I love y'all." The post includes fist emojis of different skin tones, and both of the "whites" in the meme were crossed out. Carillo wrote, "The only race that matters, the human race."

In regards to the editing vs discussing, I apologize for being too quick to edit before discussing and will make sure to fix that in the future. However, I will point out that I didn't even come close to breaking the 3RR. I also disagree that we ever reached a valid consensus to keep "far right" in the lead. Just because I was too busy to continue debating for a few days does not mean I accepted your position. MWise12 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Your description of your behavior regarding Carrillo's Facebook post appears to continue to misunderstand WP:OR, a policy which begins by stating (emphasis mine) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Including this content to try to make claims about Carrillo's political affiliations, when the sources made no such statements, is OR.

  As I stated on the talk page, it's fine if you're too busy to continue a conversation. But the conversation was not just between you and I, there were other editors involved. Furthermore, if you believed consensus had not been achieved, you could have re-opened the discussion at any point rather than edit-warring your preferred version of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I reject the characterization of any of these edits as "disruption" - GorillaWarfare is simply using language priming to poison the well. GorillaWarfare has above admitted to violations of 3RR and cannot possibly characterize only one side of this as "edit warring" while trying to escape the same label. In fact, when content is disputed, the WP:ONUS is clearly on those seeking inclusion, and so any reverts seeking removal of disputed content are implicitly -less- "disruptive" than the reverts pushing the material back into the article. WP:BOOMERANG should be deployed and GorillaWarfare given a ban from the Boogaloo topic area for her disruption, edit warring, and misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  I honestly could not have asked for a better example of the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that Netoholic has been exhibiting, which makes collaborating them extremely difficult. In this short paragraph they manage to:

  • completely sidestep any discussion of their own behavior
  • call for an unwarranted boomerang ban against me from the page
  • characterize my use of the extremely commonly-used term in dispute resolution, "disruption", as "using language priming to poison the well"
  • inaccurately state that I've admitted to multiple violations of 3RR — I did acknowledge a singular breach of 3RR that was not only accidental but only a violation in the strictest interpretation of the policy: nearly 24 hours had elapsed and it was a completely different day, and the reverts were on completely different edits to the page
  • incomprehensibly accuse me of "trying to escape" the label of edit warring—I listed my own edits in the groups of edits I described as an "edit war"
  • once again misuse WP:ONUS; I've already pointed out to them that that consensus was achieved, and now they've shown up ten days later to unilaterally state that there was no consensus. They could have reopened the conversation or started a formal consensus-gathering discussion, but instead they chose to edit war while also handwaving at "lots of sources" and claiming that somehow ten days elapsing rendered the previous consensus stale ([6])
  • falsely claim that repeatedly removing the content is somehow less disruptive, in contravention of WP:STATUSQUO ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo")
  • baselessly accuse me of "misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC" — I was already quite clear on the talk page that I intended to fully review the sources and then, assuming the weight of the sourcing still supports the "far-right" label, start an RfC. I started this ANI discussion because MWise12 and Netoholic were continuing the edit war (which I will note I stepped out of yesterday) while I was trying to urge everyone to discuss the issue like we're supposed to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Verbosity does not equate to legitimacy. You've made your claims, and are certainly welcome to try and defend your actions, but how about you stop WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:FILIBUSTERING. You are not the arbiter of this situation - your determinations are subject to the views of others. -- Netoholic @ 19:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) It's a truism, I think, that muddying the waters tends to dirty one's own shoes as well... ——Serial ^# 19:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• If you are going to make false claims against me, I am going to correct them. That is not bludgeoning. As for verbosity, well, that I am guilty of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, that was Netoholic, fighting over that caption a while ago? I remember seeing that. And now they're edit warring over "far-right" and that DHS statement? The evidence for "far-right" is so overwhelming (I mean, in Military Times?) that these edits are simply ridiculous. The argument for that Facebook post is ridiculous as well, and suggests CIR. I think both should be topic-banned from the AP2 topic area, and I'd do it myself if I hadn't just scolded Netoholic for some disruption pertaining to the Dixie Chicks. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Isn't it really time to show Netoholic the door with a site ban, after years of these convoluted extreme disruptions on a wide array of articles, talk pages, and noticeboards? SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's that bad, SPECIFICO; I mean, I've seen, on occasion, some weird POV edits made from that account, but if you want a site ban you'll have to come up with a strong case. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Drmies: Understood. I do not have the time these days to gather diffs, but many of those who watch this page will remember the histories of his many previous sanctions and dramatics. The first one I knew was when he tried to edit an absurd definition of "philosopher" into our article Philosopher so that, among other POV nonsense, he could call far-right blogger Stefan Molyneux a philosopher in the first sentence. Fortunatey he got a TBAN and the article now says "Molyneux ...is a far-right, white nationalist podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views." I mean, if anyone is inclined to post the evidence here, there would be no doubt what to do. Sorry, I will drop out now. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Drmies - "weird POV edits"? C'mon, that's so baseless its barely even an WP:ASPERSION. In the specific case of the article being discussed here, its clear from the current talk page discussion that the situation is not so cut-and-dry, and that there are valid points on either side. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Shit, SPECIFICO, you're right, and I remember that Molyneux nonsense. And I looked through the history (where I didn't find myself, not in that dispute), and that's like a time sink of 1500 edits. For the record, I closed a tiny discussion, see Talk page, Archive 8, not involving Netoholic. Yeah, I support an AP2 ban, at the very least. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO, An AP2 ban is much more likely to fly. Guy (help!) 22:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I hope that also will cover things like "bias of Wikipedia" and race and gender issues. Those are the only article page areas in which I've encountered him. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO - Well, when you only edit in those political subject areas its natural that's where you encounter -everyone-. I don't specialize. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Netoholic challenged the label "right-wing" on boogaloos and the photo of Hawaiian shirts with military garb and guns. Both of these are very well documented. Back in 2014, the diff SPECIFICO was looking for was this one where Netoholic gives a right-wing racist his own platform to define himself in a friendly manner as a philosopher. These sorts of edits make me conclude that Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence. How low must he go before we ban him? I think we're there already. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• No idea why you pulled a random single edit diff out to make your point when you should have linked to the full RfC on use of "philosopher" which, by the way was -not- a landslide, but resulted in not using it - a decision I disagreed with and yet have upheld as consensus to this day. That is the -same- as I did for the issue about the Boogaloo image, and what I would do for the use of "far-right" in that article if an RfC later shows that consensus. My god, get some perspective - not everyone who is skeptical of strong terms being stated in WP:VOICE is "defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence". Holy cow - is this what political rhetoric has become? No quarter given, everyone is the worst extreme? This is not acceptable behavior, Binks - its BATTLEGROUND and I reject it. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well, no, that's not the same as you did with the boogaloo image at all. When that discussion turned out in favor of the image being kept, you went to Commons to circumvent the outcome by trying to get it deleted there. This is the permalink to the discussion at the time when you started the Commons deletion discussion; it shows that you only initiated the discussion after the discussion here on enwiki had ended with agreement that the image should be retained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Commons has its own inclusion policies and community. In the interest of protecting Wikimedia from potential legal and moral issues, I took it to that community to make their own determination. -- Netoholic @ 00:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  Netoholic, seriously? You expect us to believe that? Guy (help!) 22:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: I certainly don't, especially not after this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I have had a few interactions with this editor that have been unnecessarily uncivil and ended with both parties edit warring. I think a history of combative, acerbic and uncivil editing is evident when looking at Netoholic's history. They rarely discuss issues at talk pages and when they do it's rarely civil. I feel like they are disruptive and unwilling to change, at least in regards to subjects relating to right wing politics. They are uncivil, frequently accuse other editors of acting in bad faith and regularly involved in edit wars.Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ah here they all come. Since Bacondrum is casting ASPERSIONS without links, I'll have to contradict him. The ONLY article we've closely interacted was recently at Virtue signalling after he'd first nuked the content then submitted a ridiculous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtue signalling which SNOW-failed. Things didn't go his way - that's the only reason he's piling on here. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

And right on cue for the vitriol. Case in point - doesn't listen, doesn't want to change, not interested in being civil. A disruptive editor. Have a short look through their edit history, the combative and uncivil nature of this editors interactions with other users becomes clear very quickly. It's not Netoholic's fault they are being "piled on", it has nothing to do with their own behavior, it's everyone else's fault that they are constantly engaged in edit wars and other argy-bargy.Bacondrum (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Just look at some of the bad faith accusations directed at GorillaWarfare above. Anyone who has interacted with GorillaWarfare knows those are unreasonable and unfounded accusations. Bacondrum (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ah here they all come. I think that this outlook basically shows the problem. Yes, of course the AP2 topic area is contentious, but it's precisely because of that that we have to try and maintain at least some degree of civility and WP:AGF-attude towards each other, even when we strenuously disagree on matters of sourcing, weight, interpretation, and how to summarize these things; sometimes people with differing outlooks on the world can legitimately disagree on even the entirely-encyclopedic way to handle a contentious topic. You have consistently refused to extend that faith towards the people you disagree with on political topics. See eg. here, here, here + here, and here, just for some recent ones. --Aquillion (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• The diff-less accusations against me in this thread are what is uncivil and wildly-lacking of AGF (did you see "Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence" above?), yet you don't comment on them. You had to go back a month to find 4 diffs in my history (of which none are uncivil and, in fact, one is openly compassionate), some others are trying to go back 6 years. Is it possible that this thread, like happens too often elsewhere in AP2, piling-on and double standards are being used in order to just attempt to take a chess piece off the board? -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hmm I've seen a whole bunch of diffs by now, and I don't think the chess analogy is very helpful here. You're badgering every single person here--there are better metaphors to use. You're not so much a chess piece as a big concrete block in the middle of a busy sidewalk. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• If I were silent, you'd say I had no defense or take it as a tacit admission of guilt; and the impartial readers would not know the context of why people might be piling on. I have the right to respond. Whats disappointing is that your analogy characterizes me as an immovable object which is simple 'in the way' - is that really fair? Is that how you AGF and treat me civilly? -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• The very fact that we are here, and I am giving reasons for why I think you should be banned from this topic area, means I have given up your good faith. Isn't that obvious? I believe you have a right-wing POV, at the very least, that renders you incapable of editing our articles neutrally, of following our policies, of participating in a collaborative project which aims to write quality encyclopedic articles. I don't know what's uncivil about that, by the way. I haven't called you names, although maybe you can guess what I think about people who abuse Wikipedia in order to whitewash articles on right-wing, far-right, white supremacist topics. So yes, I think you are in the way. In hindsight, the Molyneux business six years ago should have led to a (topic) ban. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Just for discussion, is there anyone in this thread that you believe has a left-wing POV? And BTW, I am not right-wing - I simply think that strong POV language (sometimes anti-right, sometimes anti-left) in our articles should be tempered from extremes where evidence is not there to support it in our WP:VOICE. Even in regards to the original purpose of this ANI report, GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" - not even a majority - so our objections to its inclusion are at least reasonably valid (we'll see how the RfC turns out). I do nothing here on WP based dogmatically on my personal POV - hell, my interests are wildly esoteric and I don't even focus on political topics... unlike some editors in this thread that seem to dedicate themselves to that area daily. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You could always acknowledge that you have been uncivil and disruptive and try to do better in the future. Refusing to see the problem isn't helping. Civility and collaboration are cornerstones of Wikipedia, they are not optional. You make it really unpleasant for everyone else when you make acerbic comments and edit war, and it's not necessary. Bacondrum (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Surely getting this many other editors noses out of joint should make you question how you are conducting yourself here? Bacondrum (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I remember butting heads with Neto last year over the Women-in-Red AFD thing, the NPROF thing, the WikiProject Men thing, and the Chairman/Chairperson move, among others. Neto was blocked in July 2019 for edit warring and after that, the account's activity was significantly reduced until March 2020. Plenty of good edits in March and April, but once they come into conflict, forget-about-it, back to the same old. Edit warring at Magdalene Visaggio and bludgeoning Talk:Magdalene Visaggio#Birth name; at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Edit war; at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, and see various threads on that talk page; improper use of SYNTH tag and edit warring over it at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery (1 2 3); plus, the edit warring described above in the OP.
  Neto's first block for edit warring was 15 years ago. Admittedly, their block log isn't actually as bad as it looks at first (I guess we didn't have rules about wheel warring before 2006), but it seems whenever they actively edit, they actively edit war. Three edit warring blocks in the roughly one year between June 2018 and July 2019, and since their return to full editing in March 2020, it's quickly become a repeat of the same edit warring behavior. And it doesn't seem limited to AP2. I think a sitewide 1RR restriction would help reduce disruption. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition to or in place of an AP2 topic ban? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition to, I guess. My concern is if it's just an AP2 tban, Neto will change their topic area but not their underlying approach. For example, the stuff last May through Nov was gender stuff, not AP2, e.g. [7], [8] (discussing [9]), [10], [11] (suggesting, for lead image of Woman, [12] and [13]), [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Now it's AP2. What'll be next? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Those links are just discussions. Do you think my particular viewpoint on those discussions is what makes me deserve a sanction? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you really not see how your general approach is uncivil and combative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)

@Netoholic: No, I don't. Do you see any problem with your edits that are listed in the OP? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

A while back, I too had experiences like this with respect to pages dealing with the political views of college professors, and in particular, with the POV that US academia has been taken over by leftists. (Or maybe taken over by Drmies and me.) It's worth looking at Talk:Political views of American academics, and particularly Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC about HERI survey and Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC on inclusion of HERI data chart, where Netoholic tried to push such a POV, and his position was soundly rejected by the RfC respondents. There are similar discussions at Talk:Passing on the Right, about a book that takes a minority view among secondary sources, and at Talk:Neil Gross, a BLP about a respected scholar of academic politics, where I had concerns about BLP violations intended to discredit the page subject. Assuming that WP:ACDS#Awareness has been satisfied, it seems to me that an uninvolved admin should consider using DS under AmPol here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, all those links just show me participating in discussions and expressing various viewpoints that at best turned out to be non-majority in the RfCs, but hardly radical. "US academia has been taken over by leftists" is YOUR words, not mine - I've never said anything like that. I have to ask - do you disagree with the ample literature that shows that the population of left-wing academics far outnumbers right-wing? The scholarly data that shows that its a widely-held, majority view. But since you have identified yourself and Drmies as being left-wing academics, I have to ask, are you seeking sanction on me just to WP:USTHEM? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I never said anything of the sort about either Drmies or myself in that parenthetical joke. And I never called you radical. My concern has always been your failure to adhere to NPOV (whether you profess to see it, or not). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Netoholic Look, I think all most of us want from you is to tone down the bad faith accusations and stop leaving acerbic edit summaries, basically tone it down, be civil - we can disagree without the nastiness. And don't edit war, if you disagree, take it to talk and have a civil discussion. If you can agree to tone down the combativeness I think everyone would accept that in good faith and move on without further action needed. Believe me as someone who can also get carried away (as we both did recently), it's better to try and keep things friendly. We are not piling on, we are asking you to reign in the combativeness. Bacondrum (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I have as an individual Arbitration Enforcement action placed Boogaloo movement under indefinite 1RR. I have also topic banned Netoholic from the topic for 3 months and placed them on indefinite 1RR in that topic area. The community can, of course, choose to impose other sanctions. I have no comments at this time on Mwise or Gorilla Warfare. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but having been away, am only seeing this now. I have edited on this article with GW, and concur with the evidence posted by GW above. Both editors demonstrated a sustained desire to whitewash this article regardless of any factbase (or even consensus), put forward, including:

• The forum-shopping regarding the attempt to delete photograph showed an extreme determination, which even the Wikicommons community objected to here.
• Bad faith statements noted by GW above that: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex, despite the good referencing in the article.
• Repeated attempts to re-insert a controversial DHS tweet into the lede, despite having no consensus for it, that it conflicted with a large number of references from WP:RS/P sources, and despite referenced concerns put forward them it was politically movitived (As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement).
• The statement above GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" (i.e. as if every source has to call the movement far-right for it to be valid) is another example of an extreme determination to dismiss all evidence in favour of their own agenda (bordering on sealioning behaviour).

I cannot see how such conduct is appropriate in the already difficut areas of AP2 editing. WP works when a discussion is had over references with a good faith desire to chronicle what they say – take away that good faith, and it collapses. GW is a strong editor, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to prove the obvious to these editors; I am not sure other editors (myself included), would have done that, particularly given the significant amount of IPs/SPAs that this article attracted all trying to whitewash it (eight most viewed page on the entire project) Britishfinance (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance, wow. "fake news industrial complex" is way out there into WP:CIR territory - it's a complete repudiation of WP:RS. Guy (help!) 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance, thank you for that note. Your comment on "22 out of 59" supports something bigger than the narrow topic ban just instituted by Barkeep49 (though I appreciate it, Barkeep--it's a good start). Yes, that's one of those things where you can't decided if it's incompetence or POV-pushing, but I disagree with JzG--that's not just CIR territory, it's irredeemable POV pushing. I just ran into another example of this, small but telling: the proposal (which is getting overwhelming support) to move "Dixie Chicks", which Netoholic calls "a fanatic rush". No, we need a larger topic ban here, per AP2, on all the political and cultural material. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that the "22 of 59" thing is bizarre—Netoholic has repeated it in several places now, despite me having pointed out that, like many articles, this article includes sources that are somewhat tangential and don't describe the movement directly. In this case that includes sources that describe: the meme but not the movement, the phrasal pattern "____ 2: Electric Boogaloo", and the 2020 boogaloo killings (which were originally not known to have any boogaloo connection). Additionally, NorthBySouthBaranof pointed out that I took a conservative view to counting the sources. A deeper dive into this is perhaps more appropriate for the RfC than here (link to the RfC, where I've addressed it in more detail), but it does seem to be a bad-faith attempt to portray extremely solid sourcing as a minority view based on numbers alone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sigh ... Netoholic continually exhibits WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that after Netoholic failed to achieve consensus on enwiki to remove the lead image at Boogaloo movement (discussion), and after they failed to gain consensus on Commons to have the file deleted (discussion), two days ago they then cropped the already-cropped image on Commons to a point where it barely illustrates the subject: commons:File:Virginia_2nd_Amendment_Rally_(2020_Jan)_-_49416109936_(cropped).jpg (see the file history section). I'll note that they edited the image directly rather than creating a new file, presumably so the image change would not be noticed on enwiki. This seems to be a clear example of tendentious editing, especially given users had already expressed to Netoholic their disapproval that Netoholic had tried to circumvent the enwiki decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I think Netoholic feigning innocence and claiming he is simply being piled on is gas-lighting. This editor has never acknowledged their frequent incivility or edit warring. Now there are apparant efforts to game the system being brought to light, at this point I think they are here simply to battle and push a right-wing agenda calling Wikipedia "part in the fake news industrial complex". After reading that comment and looking at the editors attempts to get around guidelines regarding images, I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks GW. I had not seen that. An(other) extreme action to take after being turned down at two fora. Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, that's outrageous. Guy (help!) 16:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Just slap a WP:NOTHERE block on Netoholic and just get it over with. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• One last comment re claims by Netoholic that GorillaWarfare should be sanctioned for edit warring. I believe GW's history on Wikipedia speaks for itself, a diligent and high quality editor. If they have been edit warring it is for the same reason many people end up in edit wars with Netoholic - they've been goaded by a disruptive and uncivil editor who appears to be gaming the system. Bacondrum (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  To be fair to Netoholic, I actually believe the case in which I exceeded 3RR was primarily due to reverts of MWise12, not Netoholic. I did not pay close enough attention to how many reverts I was making in the time period, which was a failure on my part, and the responsibility for it is mine and not the other parties in the edit war.

  I understand Netoholic wishes to see me sanctioned for it (see their talk page), and I suppose that is a decision for reviewing admins to make. It does seem retaliatory on Netoholic's part, given they have only seen fit to pursue a sanction ten days after the incident now that they themselves have been sanctioned, and not closer to the incident when they could at least have argued such a sanction would be preventative. I've already said that I have been much more careful since that incident to watch 3RR and more hesitant to revert in general. I think this is evident in the June 26 edit war, where I stepped away after two reverts despite it leaving the page in a state that did not reflect the established consensus for several hours, and instead discussed the issue on the talk page for quite some time, eventually culminating in my doing an enormous review of the sourcing and starting an RfC to re-establish the consensus on the wording of the lead. If a reviewing admin wishes to discuss the incident more I'm happy to, otherwise I'll leave it at that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Barkeep's tban of Netoholic is good but insufficient. Netoholic isn't here to write an encyclopaedia; his agenda is to make the fringe seem mainstream. Tolerance of his behaviour is disrespectful to the people who're here to inform and educate the public in a NPOV way. Permablock please.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Based on the pattern of behaviour outlined on this thread, I would support an AP2 Tban at the very least. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  K.e.coffman, that should probably go to WP:AE, for optimum transparency and fairness. Guy (help!) 10:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolution

Can this be closed based on the above discussion, or do we need a formal proposal and poll at this point? SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the above discussion contains the kind of consensus necessary according to policy to implement any formal sanction so if you want that I would suggest you formally propose something and see what uninvolved members of the community think. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Abuse by IPs

• 93.138.138.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 93.138.124.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 93.136.87.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 93.138.73.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A group of similar IPs has posted messages in talk-pages of articles in which I have contributed or discussed (possible WP:HOUNDING), which included derogatory content and private information about me. Part of the messages have therefore been oversighted.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop lying nothing is written derogatory and private information. Just read it. Why are you lying to the administrators? They should ban you for lying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.73.127 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: There are oversighted revisions, though there's no way now to tell why they were oversighted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Tezwoo (talk · contribs) has also made edits at Talk:Croatia that have been oversighted. Any chance he could be operating the IPs? User:GeneralNotability did the block of Tezwoo and they might have some advice on this situation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I've actually unblocked Tezwoo per discussion with them - further investigation gave reasonable doubt about whether or not that IP was actually theirs. I can't see the oversighted material so no comment on what they may or may not have done. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The edits are oversighted due to some internal error because all those edits seem visible on the talk pages, on Talk:Croatia and Talk:Novak Djokovic [19], where I first noticed that. I would assume it's because the IP's did not sign their posts which created some strange bug after users tried to sign them. Tezwoo (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Tezwoo has nothing to do with it, I'm sure that he is certainly not connected with the disturbing behavior of these IPs. I requested oversight because of derogatory content and private information about me. I have e-mails as proof of those requests and the oversight team's approval. This behavior continued after that, which can be seen in this section as well.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, there were stranger accusations recently. Regarding the oversight, then there might have been an error during that action because all of the edits are still there on the talk page [20], even though the diffs can't be checked. Even a bot's edit was oversighted. Tezwoo (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tezwoo: Your edits are not oversighted, but it can't be checked because the oversighted text would also be visible.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying this. Tezwoo (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

White supremacist activism in edit history of Allama123

Allama123 registered his username in 2012, performed a few chemistry topic edits, then disappeared for eight years. Returning in 2020, Allama123's flurry of activity has a very different flavor, with nearly every edit an attempt to skew Wikipedia into the direction of white supremacism:

1. At the Tucker Carlson (Fox News, etc.) biography, he changed "white supremacist" to "white identitarian" and diminished the respect for Vox, GQ and Media Matters.
2. Allama123 added a sympathetic interpretation to Ku Klux Klansmen fighting a Black man in a parking garage.[21]
3. At the biography of alt-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, Allama123 sympathetically reworded things to remove the idea of conspiracy from white genocide, turning it from a conspiracy theory into an actual white genocide. This was done using primary source tweets, deleting secondary source analysis from mainstream papers.
4. Allama123 removed conspiracy from the biography of hate speech fomenter Gemma O'Doherty.
5. Allama123 added another reference to the article on lynching, to help support the idea that Black men are not the only ones lynched in the US. The cited source from 1910 was reporting satisfying peace in Tampa following a lynching of two Italians (thus normalizing lynching.)
6. At the biography of Black activist and rapper Raz Simone, Allama123 added one nationalfile.com right-wing batshit crazy source calling Simone a warlord.
7. At the biography of Black Lives Matter founder Patrice Cullors, Allama123 added the label "Marxist" without context, to be used as leverage for political attacks. Marxism has three meanings, making it a very loaded word in a biography. Note that the cited source is a Cullors quote taken out of context, and that no third party observers have analyzed Cullors' political stance to determine which of the three Marxism meanings is at play.

Given this pattern showing the defense of white supremacist racists, and the attack on anti-racist Black activists, I propose that Allama123 be topic banned from American politics. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• The marxist label is entirely appropriate. She self-described and it was published in a reputable source. But the rest is block worthy. I'll take care of it.--v/r - TP 04:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• I gotta say this is not super compelling. The Gemma O'Doherty edit is probably correct actually, no idea why you reverted that one. The Raz Simone still has the warlord stuff, not a great source they added but seems like a content issue. Finally for the marxism stuff, they are self identified. If you feel more context is needed you are free to add it but it does not seem contriversial. A lot of this seems like a content dispute and you calling another editor racist. PackMecEng (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Are you joking? Gemma O'Doherty is the very definition of a conspiracy theorist. In fact she's even described as those exact words in reliable media, which is unusual. Meanwhile, here's reliable sources (or her own social media) for COVID nonsense 5G COVID 5G Anti-Vax and this is a blog but it's the famous (and hilarious) Drawing unicorns is making our kids transgender!. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: They may well be a conspiracy theorist, that is not the problem. The problem is that a single opinion article was the source used to make that statement. I could not care less if they are one or not. I do care that we follow proper sourcing and BLP policy to do so. PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• @PackMecEng: Yes, but it wasn't making the statement in Wikipedia's voice. It was, quite correctly, framed as an opinion by that journalist - who is incidentally a high-profile author who has written about scandals in Irish life, not just some random staffer - see Michael Clifford (journalist). And there are many other reliable sources in the article for her conspiracy theorism. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Then those can be used. A singular opinion article even from someone noted in the field is rarely good enough to apply a contentious label. You know that. Now if they reverted and added some of the sources you suggest that would be fine. As it sits, it is clearly not fine. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• (non-admin closure) - Jack Frost (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC) --Withdrawn. See below. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the NAC here. The user is disputing the block, and an editor here (PackMecEng) has also questioned the block. I agree; this seems like WP:CRYRACIST more than anything. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 05:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The user was warned in Feb 2020 and again recently about the AP2 topic area and DS in that per the talk page. The edit warring behavior today, and only taking to the talk page for the first time in their editing history after doing 2 back-and-forths is a bit troubling in terms of having been warned about this. I do worry about the CRYRACIST aspect but the block is good without taking any other factors into account. --Masem (t) 05:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• It appears that I left the edit window open for a time period, and did not notice the subsequent edit by PackMecEng. Given it appears the issue / discussion may not be resolved, I have reversed the closure. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Seems to me we can go with one of three approaches here: WP:ROPE, a topic ban, or a block because this looks like a sleeper. For me, the choice would be governed by whether there are overtly racist edits. Guy (help!) 09:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Looks to me that #4 was a good edit per WP:RSOPINION and #7 was a good edit per the self-identification (I forget what shortcut that is). The rest are not meeting sourcing policy (e.g. WP:BLPRS) and have POV issues. However, I'm not seeing where this was discussed with the user, or where the user was warned, prior to being blocked. Seems like those are two important steps that were skipped here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to try to save every racist account with 38 edits. Registering accounts is cheap and easy to do and this project would spend all it's energy trying to rehabilitate racists and trolls if we did that. WP:DFTT.--v/r - TP 19:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Nobody's asking you to save or rehabilitate. Maybe template, because WP:AGF. Let's say an admin faces this exact situation 10 times. Option A: admin blocks. Option B: admin templates first, then blocks on the next offending edit (if any). And let's say the admin's "gut" is right 90% of the time, and 9 out of 10 of those times, the editor is a troll, and 1 out of 10, it's a good faith editor who made a mistake. Under option A, we lose the good faith editor. Under option B, we gain a good faith editor at the cost of 9 bad edits. I'll take one editor for 9 bad edits any day of the week. Let's say this happens not 10 times but 100 times, and the admin is right not 90% but 99% of the time. I'll still take one good editor for 99 bad edits. It's very cheap to warn first, and it pays huge dividends if we gain a whole, entire new good-faith editor, at the cost of a few bad edits. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Bad edits do have a cost, of course—someone has to deal with them. And over time, we lose good editors because they get burnt out by large volumes of unchecked tendentious editing, POV-pushing, and nth chances provided because someone on AN/I wanted to look magnanimous at no cost to themselves. A high tolerance for trolling/bad editing is cheap only if you attach little or no value to the time and goodwill of our constructive contributor base. No comment on what should happen to this particular editor; I just dispute the framing that giving "rope" to trolls is "cheap". MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    I don't believe that any established editor has ever been driven off the project because of an edit made by an account with 38 edits in between being warned and being blocked. When established editors are driven off the project, it's because of the actions of other established editors. I think if this editor had been warned before being blocked, the risk that this editor would have driven off any other editor is 0%. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    If you ever become an admin it will be a misfortune for the project, and if you get on Arbcom it will be a catastrophe. Insight and expressiveness like yours should roam free and unfettered. EEng 02:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  On that note, I'm driving off into the sunset and hopefully through the invisible fence that binds us. There may be a cacophony, some carnage, a coyote. EEng, this is not your fault. You hear me?!? Levi, don't you cry-ee-eye tonight! MastCell, you're alright. Alamma123, "white identitarian" is the worst phrase I've ever seen put to paper, even online. Just on a word level, nothing racist, but the worst I've seen regardless. Either you be sentenced to adminship, or I keep on driving! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed glad to hear that something's not my fault (for once) but I have no idea what you're talking about. EEng 09:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  As an established editor seeking freedom from unpaid writing work, I thought I'd see if the outrage provided by a single edit from a fresh account could power my crazy train on through to the other side. But Levi was right, there was nothing, 0%. So yeah, he's wise enough to rule us all, but undeserving of such a tedious responsibility. We could make Alamma123 an admin instead, and let someone else choose his fate. Admins get enough grief for deciding matters around here, not exactly cool, to the admins or the people who already vouched for their competency in RfAs. But enough of this sidetrack, I yield the floor back to the racial debate. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

MastCell, agreed, but I am not sure this is a troll, necessarily. Most of the edits seem decent, if perhaps lacking robust sourcing. Guy (help!) 09:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The pattern is there to see plainly. Example number 1 is a terrible start to the mess. "White identitarian" indeed. And the writers at GQ are not collectively activists. Most of Alamma123's edits are attempts to soften the criticism of white supremacism, or to uphold its conspiracy beliefs, or to throw shade on those who oppose white supremacism. That's why I took the serious step of bringing my observations here. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, yup, that's a shit edit alreight. Guy (help!) 14:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked at all 38 edits and I disagree with "most". I think a few are bad, about 5-10, the worst listed above, but the rest are fine. Look, if an article says that the article subject "is a Fooian", and I think that violates NPOV based on the sources, and I change it to "is considered by some to be a Fooian", then I am, in fact, "attempting to soften" the statement, but that doesn't mean that I am "upholding Fooianism" or "throwing shade on those who oppose Fooianism". It just might mean I don't think the sources support "is a Fooian" in wikivoice. It doesn't mean I believe in Fooianism or that Fooianism is OK. So, same for white supremacy. an editor who "softens" an accusation of white supremacy in an article is not necessarily supporting white supremacism or minimizing it or anything like that. NPOV applies to white supremacists, too. I still think #1 was a bad edit, I just don't think the editor who made that edit is supporting white supremacy or anything like that. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As a comparison case: Fielding L. Wright was a famous American racist. Our article on him went through GA and DYK before anybody noticed that it really didn't cover his racist views in accordance with WP:DUE. This was because the primary contributor to the article was working off a set of sources that, themselves, provided incomplete coverage. The issue was raised, discussed, more sources brought forward, edits made, and the problem fixed. Nobody at any point accused anyone of supporting racism or segregation or white supremacy; nobody was blocked or warned; nobody "cried racist"; we didn't lose any editors; it just didn't come up. It doesn't have to come up. It doesn't have to be the case that everyone who makes a "bad edit" is a bad editor. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have had to deal with racist trolls, or trolls of any flavor, you'd know that they often do just enough good to get some unsuspecting editor to insist that we offer them good faith. Just enough. All it is, is an effort to hide their racist (or sexist/transphobic/homophobic/etc) real interests.--v/r - TP 01:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Aaaannnnddd, I just received a transphobic death threat from a brand new account that likely has a 95% chance of being Allama123. The account probably doesn't realize that I likely own far more guns and have more experienced gun owners in my house than they do.--v/r - TP 13:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you got a death threat. My arguments will not overcome confirmation bias. Next time, maybe as a lark, see if a different approach brings a different result. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A parable—Lester Maddox, before being chosen governor of Georgia in 1966, operated in Atlanta a segregated restaurant which sold axe handles for beating any Black who entered as a customer. As governor, Maddox acted to appoint Black in proportional numbers to draft boards and integrated the Georgia State Patrol. On balance, however, the axe handles characterized his ideology.

When editing Wikipedia, we hardly know each other, and can only judge on the basis of edits to articles and talk pages. WP:AGF cuts both ways! The edits of allama123, taken at face value, lead me as a non-admin to agree with TP's block. — Neonorange (Phil) 02:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Paid editor

I suspect editor Androlucus of being paid to promote various Chinese film schools, as he/she consistently adds red link pages to the pages of schools like Beijing Film Academy and Central Academy of Drama. 24.232.123.199 (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There are also 38 (thirty-eight) non-notable people in the BFA's "notable" alumni list, any one of whom could've personally ponied up the promoter's fee, see? And 49 (!!!) for CAD. Why would a school want to water down its famous students with 87 relative nobodies? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Could be that the school considers them notable even if we don't. Or it could be that @Androlucus: considers them notable; at a glance, they haven't really added anything that I would consider promotional, either to those pages or regarding any of the people listed. Usually I'd expect a paid editor to do more than just list names. Also, OP, don't forget to inform people when you bring them up here. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there are probably millions of people with those names. Without something for context, hardly a worthy endorsement. Suppose the only mystery left is just plain "Why Androlucus, why?" InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Androlucus, you're continuing to clutter the BFA article with people like Ma He (actor), without apparent reason. Please explain here. Or just stop. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

User Snowded

Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sirjohnperrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite several attempts at resolution on the respective Talkpages this user has engaged in a series of personal attacks following an exchange about my editing of the Laugharne article. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you any evidence for this charge at all? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave his edit history on my and other people's user pages to speak for itself -----Snowded ^TALK 13:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think Snowded is the problem --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have warned Sirjohnperrot, but sanctions are still possible. El_C 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please also see the discussion on my user talk page at User talk:Verbcatcher#Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe of Westmead. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Where's the linked evidence of said behaviour? GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The talk page of Verbacher linked above pretty well says it all. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've also been reported for vandalism :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 13:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we may need to get Australian, forum shopping to get a user banned is shabby at best.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Only warned. Limbering up my throwing arm. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support you doing whatever you see fit, Deepfriedokra. El_C 13:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reading through Talk:Laugharne and his talk page, it would appear Sirjohnperrot is a problem. He's getting close to a tban on his name sake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Having seen the vitriol and offended attitude over a simple discussion of sources, not seeing their own faults while blowing out of proportion any disagreement, accusing attempts at helping them of being personal attacks (and personal insults), I'm convinced OP is not suited for a collaborative environment. Reporting non vandalism at WP:AIV was certainly beyond my imagination. @Sirjohnperrot:, this is a limited time offer. Please either substantiate your accisations here or withdraw your complaint. The alternative is that you be blocked from editing. If anyone sees an alternative outcome, please speak up. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

TBAN siuts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We'll have to wait for the lad to respond. But, Snowded a vandal of articles? doubt it. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It gets better. Is this a legal threat? @Sirjohnperrot: Do please explain your accusations. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I sought clarification, which is to say, a categorical withdraw of any threat of legal action. El_C 14:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I need popcorn. This is better than Game of Thrones! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sanctions are coming? El_C 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

on 18 June Sirjohnperrot requested protection of my user talk page.[22] This was interpreted as a request for protection of Laugharne.[23] Verbcatcher (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems like an honest mistake. I wouldn't hold it against them. El_C 14:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

In no hurry. Awaiting response from OP. TBAN vs Indef. Given the torrent of words, I'd expected a response. The quasi legal threat just makes this so much better. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project is the essay I had in mind. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I throw this hat into the ring? The phrase "family history burrowings" suggests that they may have a COI, and are attempting to write about one of their ancestors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Nah. Good be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, I posed that question to them directly (uw-coi). El_C 15:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Sir John is done for today. May be back in the evening, GMT --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm in no rush to act, myself. El_C 15:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A cliffhanger! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Still going! El_C 17:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Sirjohnperrot has responded to our concerns on his talk page HERE and again HERE. I leave it to you, gentle reader, to ponder how best to proceed. Suggestions welcome. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure dramamongering on his talk page is helping him. I'm still where I was, a Tban obviously makes sense in one way, but I think the problems run deeper than this one topic. It's already been stated but I will repeat that some people just aren't suited to working in a collaborative environment. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but obviously something strong is needed. There does seem to be a consensus for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we give the lad another 24 hrs to provide his supposed evidence. If he doesn't? then this report should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying give it a good day before saying good day? :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OP wants to complain about me. I again invited them to respond here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Signing off. Gotta claen up the yard. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings to my fellow user, Dennis. We've not been formally introduced but let me congratulate you on your vituperative talents, they are considerable and clearly well practised. If you and Deepfriedokra are indeed benchmarks of collaborative working our planet is really in trouble. I suppose if gratuitous and ignorant abuse counts for anything anywhere you've found a position as Wiki administrators where it might, do you also venerate dishonesty like your fellow team members? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Shall we assume, you're putting evidence together? I've known Snowded for many years & ain't seen him vandalising articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, unless you have evidence to add, please refrain from the passive-aggressive innuendo. El_C 02:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this one todate bar a minimal response but I think it is worth a quick summary of how we got here:

1. An extended edit war by Sirjohnperrot (against all other editors involved) to insert the name of the Elizabethian Sir John Perrot as a notable person in the article on Laugharne. I, others and Airplaneman who protected the article explained that s/he had to provide evidence that the said Sir John was born in or lived in Laugharne and it wasn't enough to show he lived in another village within the wider area covered by Laughane Township (then a separate article).
2. S/he did not listen to all the advise given, but we tried to be helpful. I suggested that given the Townshop article was a stub the two articles could be merged at which point there would be no issue. That happened, I closed the merge, added in the disputed name. I then had the status of "favourite Wikipedia editor of all time" :-)
3. I stepped back then as editors with more knowledge and interest in local history got involved but it wasn't long before the tendatious behaviour started again and there were a series of attacks on Verbcatcher including a post where s/he said he had reported Verbcatcher to Oversight (I assume by email)
4. I then gave a level 2 warning] and s/he then threw every warning in the book on my talk page and edit warred when I deleted them - despite a polite note explaining policy
5. Then we get the report here, a few hours after reporting me for vandalism

My view on this is that:

1. S/he has the capability to be a good detailed editor on Wikipedia - lots of access to sources and interest in the material - little experience and what seems like an over obsession with one subject but that would not be the first time we have seen this and getting good editors is worth a little effort
2. But the agressive response to any contradiction is an issue - the way s/he frames the problem here, suggesting that I am taking revenge for loosing a debate on the insertion of Sir John (I actually put the name in folling the merge which I suggested) illustrates the problem.
3. Then we have the unwillingness to learn, despite constant references to policy there is zero evidence that s/he has read the material or attempted to understand it which raises the issue of competence; the assertion s/he had been singled out to be blocked when s/he only encountered edit conflicts being the latest example.

I'd suggest that an absolute ban on ANY reference to the competence, attitudes or motivations of any other editor coupled with a 1RR restriction and the suggestion of a mentor might be a way forward if s/he is prepared to accept it. A topic ban on ANYTHING to do with Perrots broadly defined for a month to allow experience to be built elsewhere might be a useful addition to that. But if there is no willingness to change, and I can't see any in the reponses then I can't see any other option than a long block. The latest suggestion that s/he appeal to Jimmy against the evil machinations of two admins doesn't help the case. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Assuming that he doesn't provide diffs for what he claims. A mentor would be acceptable & go from there. We must be careful not to appear to crush the lad. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Good mentors are worth their weight in gold. If Sirjohnperrot is amenable, maybe start scouting for one? El_C 06:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironically I did offer to help last month and the offer still stands (and to be clear I know I am not worth my weight in gold) but I think we need some evidence that s/he is willing to change and accept key policies before moving on here -----Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. If they agree about and manage to find a mentor, that would be ideal — a fitting end to this saga. El_C 07:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay I've offered the evidence to support my report on several occasions already but the exchanges I've referenced seem to regarded as a confession that I made it all up. Not sure what 'diffs' have to do with it either - nothing has been deleted as far as I know - is it shorthand for a certain format? I'm always happy and grateful to be mentored btw - still got a couple of experienced editors giving me advice about this scrape - it can summed up as 'repent & survive' :( Pity they didn't tell me I hadn't already been banned after your admin pack tucked in yesterday - it would have spared me the embarrassment of making a premature scaffold farewell to my friends. I'm guessing the real event isn't far off though judging from today's deposits on my talkpage. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You have not been banned, but I suspect you are about to be. Diff means you find one edit they made and then link to it, you do not ask us to dig for your evidence.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm obliged, can't imagine why anyone would call you rude names though Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW-- Help:Diff#Linking to a diff --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - don't suppose there is a template/model for an ANI report I can look at ? Not familiar territory as you know but I'm keen to assist Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, there's a parallel discussion at User talk:Sirjohnperrot. As user stated a wish to report me, I feel I have nothing further to contribute, and have withdrawn. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Remedies-- quo vadis?

My impression from yesterday was that OP is not compatible with a collaborative project. With mentorship, user can probably be constructive, if they accept mentorship. I have not always found user to be receptive to reason/guidance/contradiction. I think they are overly tetchy. User has refused to provide dif's for the (to me baseless accusations) and has refused to withdraw them. Contrarily, user demands admins do something. Perhaps we should. UNless mentorship leaps forward as an option, I think a WP:TBAN (to be demarcated by the community) or an indefinite block, removable when user's intransigence has passed, are the options of choice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm leaning more towards a block as time goes on. This is becoming a giant time sink for someone that isn't likely to get the point, since they have't gotten a single point yet. We've tried patience and that hasn't gotten us very far, except for a few "highbrow" insults. Simply put, I have better things to do than mentor someone who already assumes they are right on every point, thus, beyond criticism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have to say, at this point I think if they are mentored it will not work, and the mentor will give up in frustration. But if someone wants to volunteer to waste their time why not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary from OP

OK - Here' s my summary This incident began with Verbcatcher accusing me of dishonestly by altering a source. He refused to apologise and I raised te matter with the oversight team because of his disruptive editing . In the event he didn’t revert my revision based on the source so their role proved unnecessary and I let the matter go until Snowded announced he was going to use the event as evidence in his campaign to get me blocked. That prompted my ANI report and now the quite disgraceful handling of it by the admin team.

Extended content brought over by OP from their talk page

This is the record of events beginning with informing Verbcatcher of my Oversight treport. In the absence of any apology for your traduction I have raised the matter in Oversight as below "I am an inexperienced user but believe my contributions do benefit Wikipedia and welcome the advice and guidance given to ensure they are properly presented. My issue is with unfounded accusations of dishonesty made yesterday by Verbcatcher on the Laugharne Talk Page/Perrot section for which there has been no apology. His conduct is unacceptable and is now accompanied by disruptive editing which continues unchecked. My own shortcomings are numerous in terms of protocol and courtesy but my input is made in good faith and with serious intent. Verbcatcher has crossed a line and I draw your attention to the matter in the hope the situation can be remedied." Sirjohnperrot (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC) @Sirjohnperrot: I am sorry that you have felt it necessary to escalate this. I have tried to be helpful and supportive of you efforts, including spending considerable time analysing the notability of W. T. David (Talk:Laugharne#Professor W.T.David), and tracing your lost relatives (c:User talk:Verbcatcher#Portreeve of Laugharne Image Deletion Request), both of which were in response to your requests. My comments about your citation of a web page that you appeared to have created were made in the light of your other unsatisfactory citations that I had recently worked on. These include: Laugharne Corporation Perrot Society Journal Dec 1991 by A.Rees 'Perrot Society Journal" appears to be a grandiose name for what appears to be a self-published family newsletter that was posted to an archive.org account that you have acknowledged that you control. The source does not include the word 'Journal'. Burnham, Andy. "St Martin's Church (Laugharne)". Retrieved 27 December 2018. This was a user contribution to a website. It was not made by Andy Burnham. I had asked you give more complete citations; while I am not alleging that these citations were not intended to deceive, it was reasonable to draw your attention to another citation that appeared to be misleading. You might care to consider The Mote and the Beam. Among your comments in Talk:Laugharne are: shortening the quote in a vain attempt to support your case is disappointing and disingenuous. you clearly manipulated the quotation in order to support an inaccurate contention. Also in Talk:Laugharne, Snowded referred to "Your constant accusations of vandalism" and later wrote "You are again resorting to personal attacks rather than engaging in the discussion". On your user talk page your remarks to Snowded included: "mendacious absurdities" "More graceless and dishonest nonsense" "your transparently irrational grounds for preventing legitimate editing" "if you had a shred of integrity you would report yourself and undertake to desist from future puerile behaviour" Also consider your edit summaries: 00:43, 1 July 2020 diff hist -15‎ Laugharne ‎ Undid revision 965322876 by Verbcatcher (talk) As per talk page - inconsistent with other entries + unjustified departure from previous consensus with no justification - clear disruptive edit Tag: Undo 00:32, 1 July 2020 diff hist +7,161‎ Talk:Laugharne ‎ →‎Perrot: Disruptive edit reversion + reply from HoP to earlier query as reported 18:51, 30 June 2020 diff hist -3,743‎ User talk:Verbcatcher ‎ →‎Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe of Westmead: Deleted after breach of confidence 11:29, 25 June 2020 diff hist +1‎ m Laugharne ‎ Restoring section alignment for the third time after reversions by this user - who is either unaware of the consequence of his edits in this respeect or thinks they don't *12:46, 1 June 2020 diff hist +118‎ Thomas Perrot ‎ Undid revision 959942299 by Snowded (talk)persistent vandalism by this user Tag: Undo 12:43, 1 June 2020 diff hist +21‎ Laugharne ‎ Undid revision 960138848 by Snowded (talk)Vandalism there is no good reason for these repeated deletions by this users Tag: Undo 12:41, 1 June 2020 diff hist 0‎ Laugharne ‎ Undid revision 960138883 by Snowded (talk This edit is undone because of vandaism, there is no good reason for it. Tag: Undo Verbcatcher (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC) It seems you are not content with your previous offensive remarks but now wish to add further insults. The P*rr*tt Society Quarterly Journal "Family Notes", which you seek to demean with your sneering description as 'grandiose' has been published continuously since 1984. Throughout that 36 year period it has been registered with the Guild of One-Name Genealogical Societies and includes among its worldwide membership many distinguished academics who contribute regularly in its pages. You would do well to remember Wikipedia is also user-generated (without a printed version.) your attribution to me of this citation *Burnham, Andy. "St Martin's Church (Laugharne)". Retrieved 27 December 2018. is entirely mistaken. your description of the insinuations I took action about is patently untrue as anyone can read on the Talkpage my comments about you chopping up quotations in order to mislead were accurate and restrained. my remarks to Snowded are taken out of context and were from the final stages of testing and unproductive exchanges which reciprocated his tone. your other examples of the other iniquities mostly relate to my first faltering steps on the platform when I simply didn't understand the reasons given for repeated deletions and warnings. These further attempts to justify your inexcusable conduct through smears and self-serving evasion are revealing but not surprising Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC) I was mistaken in attributing the Andy Burnham citation to you, sorry. My other comments stand. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Sirjohnperrot you are heading for a block if you carry on like this -----Snowded TALK 17:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Snowded: Think I've heard something similar from you before - no doubt a willing volunteer to swing the axe eh? I wondered when you'd show up again on here. Another one happy to resort to baseless personal accusations when losing an argument, it's pretty sad to be honest. I hope Oversight have a look at your track record over the past couple of weeks too. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC) You are no longer a newbe editor and you have been warned about constant failure to comply with policy on personal attacks. After the last batch of this I (and others) went to some lengths to achieve a compromise but your response has been to fall back to your old ways. If you can't abide by community rules then your behaviour will be raised and I suspect a topic ban is the least you can expect if that happens -----Snowded TALK 03:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Verbcatcher: So your malicious imputations of dishonesty about my Francis Jones reference were based solely on your view of a citation to this respected and reliable published source which I was unaware did not meet Wikipedia verifiability criteria when it was made. Nothing at all to do with it replacing your own flawed citations and removing the contentious quotes within them which spuriously supported your disruptive edit of the NR entry description? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC) References @Sirjohnperrot:You should assume that in each talk page posting and edit summary I mean what I say, and that I do not have a hidden agenda. I am unclear why you consider my citations to be flawed or contentious. The quotes are directly from the sources and do not misrepresent what they say. I did not intend to disparage The P*rr*tt Society, of which I was unaware. Its journal appears to be called 'Family Notes'; citing it as the 'Perrot Society Journal' and not mentioning its publisher was unhelpful and made it very difficult for others to follow it up. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC) @Verbcatcher:Let me remind you of what you wrote: "@Sirjohnperrot: there are several issues with the citation you added today. The archive.org page that you link to was created today by the archive.org member "Perrott Family of Wales". Are you responsible for this upload? If so it would raise the suspicion that you might have created the page for the purpose of citing it here, and to make the source appear more authoritative. I am not questioning the accuracy of the quote. [...] It is unclear whether the title of the archive.org page 'WESTMEAD, Laugharne' is from Jones' book or if this was added by the uploader." In short what you say is that you suspect I have fabricated a reference - which is a disgraceful allegation for which you have not yet apologised. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC) @Sirjohnperrot: I said "it would raise the suspicion that". This is not an accusation. You may think this is sophistry, but words are important and you should consider what I said, not what you think I meant. I said that I was not questioning the accuracy of the quote. It was not clear whether the mention of Laugharne on the archive.org was from Jones' book because it was not within the attributed quote. On reflection, the phrase to make the source appear more authoritative might be seen as provocative, but at that point you had not acknowledged that you had created the page. Creating a page on another site for the purpose of citing it in Wikipedia is not appropriate and gave rise to reasonable suspicions, particularly as you had not declared that this is what you had done. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC) @Verbcatcher: You are right, it is sophistry to suggest your remarks were not a clear accusation of wrongdoing. Actually even Protagoras would struggle to conceal that connotation. As it happens I created the page for use in my correspondence educating Dr Thrush but there are several other citations in Wikipedia from the 'Perrot Family of Wales.org' pages which have existed for many years. I'm sure you'll now have great fun tracking them down and gleefully describing their contents as self-published - which of course they are, but only in replica form. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2001/07/2020 09:39 - Wikipedia wrote: > I am an inexperienced user but believe my contributions do benefit Wikipedia and > welcome the advice and guidance given to ensure they are properly presented. My > issue is with unfounded accusations of dishonesty made yesterday by Verbcatcher > on the Laugharne Talk Page/Perrot section for which there has been no apology. His > conduct is unacceptable and is now accompanied by disruptive editing which > continues unchecked. My own shortcomings are numerous in terms of protocol and > courtesy but my input is made in good faith and with serious intent. Verbcatcher > has crossed a line and I draw your attention to the matter in the hope the > situation can be remedied. > > -- > This email was sent by user "Sirjohnperrot" on the English Wikipedia to user > "Oversight". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation > cannot be held responsible for its contents. > > The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any information > about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this > email or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you > respond, the sender will know your email address. For further information on > privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see > <https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. > To manage email preferences for user ‪Sirjohnperrot please visit > <https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Mute/Sirjohnperrot>. > From: XXXXX Sent: 01 July 2020 23:40 To: English Wikipedia Oversight Subject: RE: [Ticket#2020070110003506] Wikipedia email from user "Sirjohnperrot" I have reverted the edit in question in two stages and that version remains current as I write. The disruptive edit was by Verbcatcher and is identified with a red arrow on this screenshot of the edit history of the Laugharne article Verbcatcger edit history The context is in current discussion on the Laugharne Talk Page#Perrot and Verbcatcher’s Talk Page#Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe. To: XXXXX Subject: Re: [Ticket#2020070110003506] Wikipedia email from user "Sirjohnperrot" Dear XXXXX, Please note, this is not the place to report disruptive users. We act under a strict policy ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight ) of what we can and can not remove. To report someone's behavior, please try ANI instead ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents ). If you still feel things need oversight after reading our policy, please email us back and be very specific about what needs to be removed. Sincerely, AmandaNP English Wikipedia Oversighter the Snowded decides to have another pop and use this situation to get me blocked User warnings Thank you for your support on my user talk page. For the future, I think it is preferable to put warnings to other users their user talk page (with an edit summary in case the the warning is deleted), so that if an administrator later reviews the editor's actions the warning is explicit. When appropriate, it also helps to use one of the user talk namespace templates (see WikiProject User warnings). We should assume that an admin will not simply count the warnings, but will use them to help review a the issues. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) I've been trying to avoid making it formal. but the time may now be there -----Snowded TALK 14:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC) @Verbcatcher: I think it is becoming a clear case of multiple levels of disruption and an unwillingess to reform or listen so the next stage is probably a case to ANI for a topic pan on anything to do with Perrots, or an 'only proposals on the tale page'. It would be best if s/he learnt how to edit on articles around which there is less personal commiuttment. One of the behaviours is altering source material. #I saw you spotted one example of that. If you would let me have the link I can add it into the draft ANI case. I hope that won't be necessary however.-----Snowded TALK 06:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC) At this point I made the ANI Report given the history of this user given his continuing personal attacks which began with this outright lie about my registration of my username and has continued with multiple interventions claiming he is acting on behalf of a group of editors when it was always just him until he found an ally in Verbcatcher couple of days ago here's where it all kicks off with Snowded in my first ever talkpage exchange Yes 2 years ago - that's what my Talk page says at the top. None of my handful of contributions up to this encounter with you have been about Perrots and your reply yet again fails to address the obvious question asked. Instead it is used as a vehicle for more mendacious absurdities. My mobile phone doesn't seem to recognise the indentation code btw Sirjohnperrot (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC) You have made 50 edits, the first two in July 2019 (less than a year ago) were to Gruffydd ap Rhys which were reverted for failing Wikipedia's criteria for verifiabilty. 80% of those 50 edits related to articles where you are promoting the name Perrot which you have assumed as your nom de plume. There is nothing at the top of your talk or user page which says differently. It is hardly a mendacious absurdity to assume you are on a mission here. I've answered your two questions and tried to help out by suggesting something less ambitious that you could put forward on the Laugharne talk page. -----Snowded TALK 15:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC) The screenshot of the notification panel on my Talk page above, which you claim does not exist, shows my username registration two years ago. It incontrovertibly demonstrates the absurdity of your accusations that I am on here only to promote Perrots. Your characterisation of my post history is equally ridiculous, this current exchange contains the only references to that name. You have repeatedly failed to justify deleting my additions to the notable residents list for Laugharne and are apparently unable to grasp the wikipedia policies on relevance and notability. I am now transferring this discussion back to the article's Talk page in the hope that an editorial consensus will enable my edit adding Sir James Perrot and Sir Thomas Perrot to be restored, as was the case with Sir John Perrot whose entry you also deleted and failed to restore for no good reason. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for sanction

At this point, it seems clear that Sirjohnperrot lacks the ability to work in a collaborative system, and no amount of mentoring will help. I can't see anything gained from a topic ban or a short term block, so it is best if we just cut to the chase. I'm proposing a COMMUNITY block for an indefinite period of time (via WP:DE), meaning unblocking will require community consent as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢

Polling

• Support as proposer. This is turning into a giant time waster as he is never going to get "it". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above . Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps mentorship as part of a WP:STANDARD OFFER. If eligible. I don't think it would work now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Suspending per possible development. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reserve judgment for now. I am trying to work out what is going on (apart from the obvious, of course). Guy (help!) 20:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per all the evidence. Why hasn't this been done yet so that our wonderful Corps of Administration can spend their time more usefully? Hmm. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This person is unsuited for a collaborative project, and has been wasting the time of several productive editors who could otherwise be improving the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I have read through the discussions on Talk:Laugharne, on User talk:Sirjohnperrot, and on User talk:Verbcatcher. Each instance of escalating antagonism seemed to be initiated by Sirjohnperrot, and each conciliatory explanation by Verbcatcher (who demonstrated remarkable patience throughout) just seemed to make Sirjohnperrot angrier. That level of determination to find and embrace offense is unhelpful on Wikipedia. <insert>As Sirjohnperrot's added responses still give no acknowledgement of any problems with their own behavior, I do not support mentorship as an alternative until at least after standard offer.</insert> Schazjmd (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support It has become increasingly evident that "Sirjohnperrot" is unable to act collaboratively, and unable or unwilling to even consider how his own behaviour looks to others, let alone try to modify it. He sees anything and everything that he doesn't like as an attack on him, or deliberate lying, or any of various other dreadful things. He appears to be unable to conceive of the idea of respectfully disagreeing; that means both that he can't do so, and that he can't see that other people are doing so, but sees disrespect where there isn't any. He is not only convinced that he is always right about everything, but also seems to be unable to imagine anyone who disagrees with him (and therefore must be wrong) doing so for anything other than wicked motives. What is more, he shows absolutely no interest whatever in learning from what others say, or changing his approach in any way. Numerous editors have put very large amounts of time into trying to explain things for him, into giving him opportunities to move forward (such as offering mentoring), into suggesting steps we can take to improve things, and so on, but they have achieved nothing. It is time to put an end to this totally unproductive time sink, so that we can move on and do more useful work for the encyclopaedia. JBW (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The mess of material they brought here from their talk page -- as if it was going to justify everything -- was the last straw for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I've spent a lot of time to try to work things out. And others have spent considerably more time than me, and progress is nonexistent. Enough is enough. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 01:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's disappointing that this user has come down to this kind of editing behavior. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, inexcusable conduct.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support mainly following the OP's retaliatory WP:AN thread, which seems to prove the very point under discussion here. ——Serial ^# 09:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Meh. I think it was an act of desperation, rather than retaliation. It's just a highlight of the overall impression of not being a good match for Wikipedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Enough is enough, There's only so much patience the community has and Sir has used all of that up. –Davey2010^Talk 09:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support mainly following the OP's retaliatory WP:AN thread, as three is so much wrong with its assumptions accusation and self justification that it is hard to see how they can be mentored. They have not listened to one thing that has been said to them, not one piece of advice. Even after they have been told they are still not aware of what Diffs are.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

OK lets give mentoring a chance. Who is going to step up?Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I still believe this fellow can be saved, with a mentor. My goodness, we should give it a chance. If after one month with a mentor, nothing has improved? then we can apply appropriate sanctions. If not a mentor? then a topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Mentor, if possible. If a mentor can be found, that would be my preferred course of action. Some users have more growing pains with Wikipedia's learning curve than others. There is still a chance that Sirjohnperrot could become a productive editor. They just need to commit to significant correction. That, alongside the oversight of a mentor, can bring the chances of success here well within the realm of possibility. I choose to be optimistic. El_C 17:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, looks like this is the first noticeboard discussion in which they have been involved, their account has been autoconfirmed for less than six weeks, and evidence is not much stronger than the evidence they provided here of personal attacks by other editors. Peter James (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support with seven day appeal User appears intransigent, unwilling to learn, quick to blame others, quarrelsome (albeit politely), obsessive on minor points, not self-reflective, resentful, etc - qualities we frequently see in problematic users who drain our collective volunteer energy. I have mentored several times, and mentoring can work with users who have made mistakes but are willing to learn, but doesn't work with those who don't see that they are the problem. This user, albeit they have offered to withdraw the complaint which prompted this poll, still thinks that others are to blame rather than themselves. I'm also not comfortable voting for mentorship when nobody has volunteered to mentor. Because this is a new user and we like to give everyone a chance, we should, however, allow an appeal after seven days. If Sirjohnperrot is able to reflect on what people are saying, and demonstrate they understand what they have done wrong, and why we are voting to ban them from contributing to the project, then there is hope there will not be a repeat of this incident. If Sirjohnperrot is unable to reflect on this and come back after seven days with an acceptable appeal, then mentorship is highly unlikely to have worked anyway. SilkTork (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent points, as usual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Quite frankly, I'm amazed that this is still going on. If I had caught it before the 24 reprieve was offered, I would have blocked them at that point. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (sanctions concerning Sirjohnperrot)

• Great Ghu! I have not read any of user's more recent stuff. Carried over from his talk? I also see a response from AmandaNP (DeltaQuad) carried over. FWIW, there is more related content here. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
• Disclaimer please be aware that a large extract from section from User talk:Sirjohnperrot has been pasted into this discussion. This may lead to confusion as pasted content includes signatures from Sirjohnperrot, Snowded and myself for content that we had not posted to this Administrators' noticeboard discussion. This extract also makes this discussion difficult to follow – would it be appropriate to clarify what was been posted from elsewhere, perhaps by placing it in a grey box? Verbcatcher (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I collapsed the confusing stuff; hope I got it right. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm of riper years and with that goes some opinions which seem to be unfashionable on here, such as truth is important. The belief that if you do something crooked, say something untrue - just to gain an advantage - then that gain is not worth having. Ban me if you like but I agree with Mr Kipling - "...on being lied about - don't deal in lies" I don't and if a pack of lies prevails in the community empowered to protect Wikipedia'ss main purpose l it'll be a sad day indeed. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you know, I hadn't read that comment when I posted my comment above, but it is a perfect confirmation of something I said there; you seem to be unable to conceive of anyone sincerely, in good faith, disagreeing with you. Anyone who says or does anything you think is wrong must by lying. Well, in a collaborative project there are always going to be disagreements among participants, and anyone who cannot or will not accept such disagreements as good faith differences of opinion to be worked with, but always sees them as lies and attacks to be uncompromisingly opposed, is, obviously, never going to be able to work collaboratively. JBW (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I suppose if you disregard everybody other than the two involved in my report (+ a few admins) who I've disagreed with amicably and constructively on here then your description of my delinquent state would be correct. There are quite a few of those I like to think but not on this list clearly. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. He's thrown his toys out of his perambulater, now ban him? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 21:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just 'pram' in Stockport Roxy, nothing fancy about folk from here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjohnperrot (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not interested in the Truth®, it is interested in verifiable facts. See WP:TRUTH. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am and so should you be, we're people after all but I agree Wikipedia is about accuracy, which relies on honesty Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is precisely why you can't adapt to editing here within the policies set forth. It requires you adopt a basic set of rules, some you will find common sense, some, less so, but we all agree with function within the bounds of these "rules". The rules (policies and guidelines) are decided by the community and we agree to comply with them. Or we don't, and we leave. Compliance is not optional. Sadly, I would imagine you are nice enough in person, perhaps a little curmudgeonly, but we all can be as we age. But good intentions aren't good enough. Either you can work collaboratively, or you can't. So it isn't personal (it can't be, I don't know you, nor does anyone else here). It is simply that we have better things to do than debate endlessly over what is already accepted by the community, particularly when you are unwilling to bend in the wind the least amount. Your reaction to my comment just above demonstrates this. This just isn't the right platform for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown Why does my last reply show I'm unable to comply with the rules? Your ban proposal and this poll is very unfair. Seeking to write me off as some sort of 'curmudgeonly' lost cause on the basis of this single issue is also both offensive and inaccurate. My relationship with the majority of users I have engaged with on Wikipedia is perfectly good and maybe it's you who need to review your own earlier conduct in this matter and your current prejudicial mode of expression to comply with WP:NPA. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Polls are inherently fair in that they allow the community as a whole to opine and decide an issue, instead of a single admin taking unilateral action. Considering I could have simply blocked you without any input from anyone (that is what admins like myself are granted the tools for), I would consider polling the community to be the ultimate act of fairness, as you aren't subject to the whims or misinterpretations of a single person. The fact that you can't see this is part of the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm getting fed up of the unfounded allegations that Sirjohnperrot is making about various people (myself included), and their continued unwillingness to provide evidence when directly asked to do so. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Redrose64: User has removed the offending passage. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I believe, in fairness, that that comment was hyperbole, but given the amount of effort spent expounding on the need for truth and accuracy, the discussion over its removal is ironic, as is the use of hyperbole in the first place --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• The real Sir John Perrot died in the Tower awaiting execution, probably poisoned by his enemies who thought Elizabeth was about to pardon him and feared his retribution. Hope that doesn't happen to me ;( Sirjohnperrot (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've watched many of these (ANI threads) play out over more than a decade here. It may take a day or so before an uninvolved admin decides the conversation here has run it's course and looks over the evidence to make a decision, but unless you make a some serious course changes fast, you're inability to play and work well with others has pretty much sealed your fate. Which will be exile, not poison. Instead of making statements like the one above, you should probably put on a contrite face, apologize to a few people, and endeavor to work within policies and collaboratively, like everyone else here. If literally everyone you encounter here tells you you are doing it wrong, you may want to take the advice on board and consider there may be something wrong with how you do things. Heiro 23:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have acknowleged my shortcomings in this from the start and collaborate happily most of the time. It's an education to read the comments about me on here - as though trying to confront what I regard as an important problem with two users somehow cancels out all the good relationships with the others and brands me as a hopeless case. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As a neutral observer, I damn sure don't expect Elizabeth to swoop in and save your bacon, it's going to take a modern equivalent of Dee or higher this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

When I got the email note that the Incredible Hulk was on the case there was a brief moment of hope - alas it seems you won't be turning green on my account  :( Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Doubly doubtful, little dude, this account falsely represents the orange Hulkster. Best I can do is advise you train, eat your vitamins, say your prayers and believe in yourself. Then jump out of that tower and flap your pythons as fast as you can, I hear footsteps! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Quite seriously, this is all rather upsetting really. Laugharne is our favourite place and while idly browsing its Wikipedia’s article a couple of weeks ago I noticed that Sir John Perrot, it's most famous resident for 300 years until Dylan Thomas turned up, didn't feature on the town’s Notable People list. I ventured to add him - my last attempted edit was two years ago and like that one it was immediately deleted - which got me here. My faculties must be in steep decline because I did actually manage a successful contribution in 2006 - maybe it was easier then.

My recent Wiki experience was really very positive until now, lots of quality chat with knowledgeable people who are also interested in Welsh medieval history and then onto discussions about poetry, wiki policies on sourcing, copyrights, image formatting and many other topics. It really is puzzling that my attempt to prevent a dishonest claim being repeated through a request to Oversight - and on their recommendation transferred to ANI for action - should result in this profoundly demeaning and unjustified proposal and process. The disconnected bits of various unedifying exchanges I was obliged to cobble together as 'diffs' are now being used to determine "what sanctions I deserve" when only relevant to my report. They are completely unrepresentative of my conduct as an editor when taken out of their wider context but are being used illegitimately as a basis for most the comments made here. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• May I ask if the final verdict of this poll translates into the action proposed or are there further stages in the process? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No further stages. The result here, will be implemented. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well the can appeal after the block is in place, but they will need a much (much!) better case about their actions then they have made here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is the last step. Either a consensus opposes and you walk away, or you are blocked indefinitely and may appeal only to the community at large, or the Arbitration Committee, typically after at least a 6 month break. No single admin can overturn a community block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

They have agreed to a mentor [[24]], any volunteers?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

They also have asked to change their user name to Horatius_At_The Bridge... No I do not think they get it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

9sigh) As a global renamer, I must sadly inform you that renaming is not open to those "under a cloud". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering about that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I hope he's not gotten the idea that changing his name, will somehow avoid his getting banned. It's the individual behind the username that being considered for a ban, not just the username itself. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have informed them already that is the case.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My request for a Username change has nothing to do with this at all. To make progress I will withdraw my report about Snowded. Please advise any action I should take to confirm this and then you can proceed with your deliberations secure in the knowledge that I'm going nowhere. If you wish it I've said before and I repeat that I'm very happy to have a mentor to help steer me through the Wiki shoals and if someone is prepared to take me on I'll be most grateful. I think we would all welcome a speedy resolution of this sorry saga so please press on and do your duty asap Sirjohnperrot (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot: Withdrawal, at this point, will not close this thread, per WP: BOOMERANG. You cannot simply withdraw to avoid sanctions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't for a moment think or suggest it would, it was simply a gesture of goodwill to help simplify the issues here, clarify that I have never been resistant to mentoring if you think that should be offered and to expedite this process if that is possible.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't taken part in the above poll for obvious reasons but I'd support the idea of a one week ban with the right to appeal. I think there has to be some evidence of understanding of why it has got to this stage and a willingness to read, work on understanding and then apply policy. Throught this saga links have been given but apparently ignored. If no one else is willing and/or Sirjohnperrot can't find someone then I'd be willing to take on the mentor role - although I understand that might not be welcome. That would including helping them on or off line understand what will be important in the appeal. The reason I placed the two warnings (3rr and then NPA) was I could see a block coming if a monitoring admin saw the behaviour and hoped some reflection would be triggered. As a community I think mentoring "difficult" editors is something we need to think about and develop an appraoch for. I've had mixed success in a few attempts but we need editors like this who are prepared to do the detailed work. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot: The issue for many is not do we think it would help, do you?Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would, as my old mentor Sir Karl Popper used to say "experience is what we call our mistakes" and I'm clearly very experienced on here ;) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Although parrots can be very affectionate and cute when immature, they often become aggressive when mature and may bite.

-EEng

my old mentor Sir Karl Popper – Oh please. Have you no idea how strained that sounds? EEng 01:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You have only had an account for a year, with less than 200 edits (90% in the last month). No I do not think you are very experienced.11:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Irony doesn't appear to be your strong suit friend. There are clearly some on here who think Wikipedia would be improved if I was just escorted off the premises. To them I say that I believe this platform is a powerful force for good and its aims are irreproachable. I would do nothing to undermine those values and my contributions are intended solely to further them.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I left out a tiled by mistake.

-EEng

That was me, I left out a tiled by mistake. And no irony is not often to pick up, in certain circumstances.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You just reminded me of the time Obi wan asks Yoda : "are we going the right way?" and he answers: "off course, we are" Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I liked it, Sirjohnperrot. Thanks for that. El_C 11:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A question, what other platforms would be affected by a Wikipedia block?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Note this is a more specific technical question, if a block can remove a users ability to use their user name elsewhere that is rather significant, and should affect our willingness to stop people being able to access functionality that is nothing to do with us. I raised it here as until raised by Sirjohnperrot I was not aware it might even be an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• The block is isolated to the English Wikipedia, we don't have the authority to block on any other Wiki. That means unless someone is globally blocked (something we can't do here), they can edit at Commons, Simple, German or any other language Wiki under Wikimedia. That is how community blocks have always worked; limited to the Wiki in which it was enforced. Technically, they can go the German Wikipedia and ask for the name change there, and be granted the change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Alas. This is one of the drawbacks to globalization. Like a username acceptable on de.wiki might not be here. And then there is confusion and other problems because of the globalness of accounts As a global renamer (were I not already involved through this discussion), I would decline based on this still being up in the air. We have discussed this sort of thing amongst ourselves in the past, and the consensus has been to decline. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Request to close

Can we agree to close this on the SilkTork variation? Block but with the right to appeal after 7 days? If we leave access to the talk page then I can work with Sirjohnperrot on the appeal as he has accepted mentorship. That way the workings will be visible to whoever reviews the appeal if/when it is made-----Snowded ^TALK 03:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. All credit to you for intervening. Deb (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If users think this will work fine, go for it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It needs an admin to do it - I don't have the mop so I can't put the block in place and I was involved anyway -----Snowded ^TALK 12:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• There actually isn't a consensus for SilkTork's idea outright, although I won't protest if that is what the closer decides to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No but it was more or less the last response so people didn't have it in mind. It seems reasonable to me - if the user can't get an appeal together what have we lost?-----Snowded ^TALK 15:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Chaipau at Bhawaiya

User:Chaipau keeps on edit-warring ([25], [26], [27]) at Bhawaiya without adhering to the sources and policies. In this edit, he changed the lead sentence against what the sources state, bordering on source falsification. Here, he removed the Bengali-language equivalent name which was added per MOS:LEADLANG. He keeps on referring WP:MOSIS to impose on this trans-boundary topic but MOSIS states, "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, Pakistan or any of India's neighbouring countries". All these issues were already explained at the talkpage two days before, but the user seems to have no intention of fruitfully engaging to reach a consensus. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

user:Kmzayeem is displaying WP:OWN issues in that article. In this revert [28] they claim that the article is not "predominantly" Indian and that the primary language is Bengali, and therefore WP:MOSIS does not apply. The form of music is associated with the erstwhile Koch kingdom which is in India and the historical/cultural footprint of which spans India, Bangladesh and two Indian states-West Bengal and Assam. Chaipau (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bhawaiya spans multiple countries and linguistic regions, and WP:MOSIS applies. Nothing is lost by not having Bhawaiya not listed in the Indic script. Chaipau (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: 'Predominantly' in this context means articles that are solely related to India while Bhawaia is a music which relates to both Bangladesh and India which you have accepted yourself, how does WP:MOSIS apply here? --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kmzayeem: that predominantly means solely is new to me. Chaipau (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: What is 'predominantly' in this context then? And why do you think this article is 'predominantly Indian' when you said it yourself that it "spans multiple countries"? I think you are just gaming the system here. The stable version of the article had always carried the name in local script per MOS:LEADLANG before you started edit-warring. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kmzayeem: Why are you hung up on predominantly? WP:MOSIS was instated to handle precisely this type of conflicts that touch on "multi-cultural" issues. In the discussion Talk:Bhawaiya#Bhawaiya also belongs to India and even Nepal. your position has been that this is about Bangladesh alone. You have even taken the position that Bhawaiya is not an indigenous form in Undivided Goalpara district in Assam and when you were given references with quotes, you have pushed it down claiming Bhawaiya originated in North Bengal alone [29]. Here is yet another reference, this time from Bangladesh itself, which states unambiguously that Bhawaiya is native to Goalpara too [30]. Clearly you are displaying WP:OWN. Chaipau (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There is clearly an issue with your conduct as you are patently lying and giving false accusations. I have clearly stated this topic is a trans-boundary one and relates to both Bangladesh and India multiple times, both at ANI and at the talk page. Earlier I assumed you might be having problems with comprehension but now it appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead. As for my edit, it was also explained here at the talkpage, the quotation you added didn't say it anywhere that Bhawaiya originated in Goalpara. And the emphasize on the word "predominantly" is because it defines the scope of WP:MOSIS, why should we follow WP:MOSIS over MOS:LEADLANG which is the general guideline for all articles in Wikipedia? --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kmzayeem: The accusation of lying is a WP:PA, and you have to give a example where this happened. You have resisted the inclusion of Goalpara as region where Bhawaiya is native and your edit I have reported above is evidence of it. The reference I gave you earlier specifically says that Bhawaiya is from Cooch Behar and that it is also found in Rangpur and Goalpara. I have given additional reference here (above) that Bhawaiya is native to all these regions, including Goalpara.

WP:MOSIS overrides MOS:LEADLANG because WP:MOSIS is a special case made specifically for Indic scripts over the general MOS:LEADLANG. Moreover, Bhawaiya is also related to the Assamese language not just Bengali language. Since Bhawaiya is associated with multiple languages and regions, WP:MOSIS is applicable and not MOS:LEADLANG. The applicable part of the WP:MOSIS is: One reason why Indian scripts are avoided is because often there are too many different languages with their own native script, which can be original names for a topic. Additionally, there are too often problems with verifiability of the accuracy of the non-English spelling. A third reason is frequent disagreements over which native scripts to include; this led to a resolution to avoid all of them. Chaipau (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just a comment. The MOS stuff is guidance rather than policy. However, the rationale for excluding Indic scripts in the lead has a lot of sense attached to it that applies equally to articles relating to Pakistani and Bangladeshi subjects. In particular, we get a lot of back-and-forth going on with slight adjustments to the characters in those scripts or even wholesale replacement. This being the English-language Wikipedia, such changes are mystifying to most readers and occasionally even result in disparaging terms/pejoratives/insults etc being added by vandals and left lying there for weeks, months or even years. The ongoing nationalist issues affecting those articles (not to mention caste/tribe and religious disputes) make this a minefield. So, unless there is a compelling reason to include a native script, there really isn't much point and there is the potential for unwanted and hard-to-discern vandalism. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sitush: Yes, precisely. In many cases readers of English Wikipedia might not have the correct fonts in their systems and it makes no sense to have these scripts in the body either. In these cases, all the reader will see are empty boxes (e.g. Bhawaiya#Example). It makes no sense to have this only in an Indic script without romanization, and even then this has no meaning without a translation. So if these lyrics are associated with many scripts, should we give them in all of them? We may not need these scripts because we have the links to the different language articles on the left panel under "Languages". Chaipau (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: you have multiple times ([31], [32]) stated I'm suggesting this article is solely related to Bangladesh (which is an indirect accusation of nationalist edits) and after being shown instances where I have already explained I'm not, now you are asking for evidence of your lying. That's another form of harassment to be honest. @Sitush: thanks for your input, if it does apply to articles beyond the borders of India, shouldn't it reflect on the page? As currently WP:MOSIS suggests it only applies to "articles that are predominantly India-related" and not to articles about any of India's neighbouring countries. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm just telling you (a) it is guidance, not policy; and (b) how things actually play out with these scripts. The row going on between the pair of you is perhaps in part a manifestation of that because it sure looks a bit like a nationality-based bust-up to me. But it is a content dispute and we have WP:DR for that, so I suggest maybe you both stop reverting each other and use the process. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sitush, excellent points. Guy (help!) 21:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Back to User:NVTHello

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

User was previously reported for unsourced genre changes here and here. User has once again continued their unsourced changes and refuses to use a Talk page, this time including articles related to Cascada and the latest such changes being at Helicopter (Martin Garrix and Firebeatz song). In my second report to this noticeboard, a suggestion was made by the last blocking admin GeneralNotability to indef the user. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I left a note linking WP:Communication is required and urged him to read it before making any further edits. Lets see what happens, while leaving this report open a few days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• They still haven't edited, just wanted to keep this thread alive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Vikasb2003 & Disruptive editing on BLP article

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

---

• Vikasb2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been trying to edit the page of Ramanan Laxminarayan which is a biography of a living person. The section they intend to insert includes original research cited to a tweet (note, even the tweet does not support their addition in full). On being provided warning templates and links to the relevant policies, their response has been to indulge in personal attacks and revert back their edits.

• Special:Diff/965057155 - First addition. I posted a level 3 warning template (Special:Diff/965759027) seeing as they had a history of similar warnings.
• Special:Diff/965710495 - Revertion to the same. I posted a level 4 warning template (Special:Diff/965709485) with an added note on relevant policies.
• Special:Diff/965901140 - Their response to the warning template filled with personal attacks.
• Special:Diff/965909767 - Revertion to the same.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks for WP:NPA, WP:DE. El_C 06:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User:2603:6000:8D40:77F:BD12:50AD:7448:D01

Anonymous user repeatedly making unexplained and unconstructive edits to Vehicle registration plates of Wisconsin:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&type=revision&diff=965985360&oldid=965980919
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&type=revision&diff=966014547&oldid=966011122
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&type=revision&diff=966036430&oldid=966022389
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&type=revision&diff=966038048&oldid=966036673
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Wisconsin&type=revision&diff=966038762&oldid=966038141

And also posting unconstructive gibberish in the talk pages for Roman numerals and 20th Century Studios:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_numerals&diff=965989081&oldid=963318173
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:20th_Century_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=965990616

Three warnings from three different users (myself included) have clearly had no effect.

It's not for me to comment on this individual's state of mind. I will say, however, that I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not supposed to be treated as if it's a toy. Klondike53226 (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Klondike53226, likely a WP:CIR issue here, although the disruptive editing seems to have stopped for now. Maybe something to keep an eye on. Ed6767 talk! 00:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, they haven't edited in over 24 hours, either at the stated address or at another address in the range. I will keep an eye out, however, since Vehicle registration plates of Wisconsin is on my watchlist. Thanks, Ed6767. Klondike53226 (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

IP User Evading Block Thru Sock Puppet

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

---

84.203.69.48 has been blocked for a month due to disruptive edits. However, it seems the user is evading the block with a sock puppet as 84.203.70.13. 84.203.70.13's disruptive edit edits, shown here, here, and here are exactly the same as 84.203.69.48's edits, shown here, here, and here. I tried taking the issue to SPI but there has been no attention given to it so far. While I've been waiting, 84.203.70.13 continues to make disruptive edits, I reverted this one today. Armegon (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for a month again. I'm not really familiar with this ISP, so I'm reluctant to do a range block. Anyway, these IP addresses seem to stick for a long time before changing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Insistence against declared RM consensus and other tendentious editing

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

User:Velayinosu has been active on Wikipedia for less than three months, but has already collected about 10 comments on their User talk page regarding unhelpful and obnoxiously non-collaborative behaviour (together with some accolades). After an RM was closed in which the user had participated and was not fond of the outcome, they have moved the article back to its previous name twice, including after a User talk page comment about that not being appropriate, and without opening a WP:Move review as was suggested to them. The article in question is now again at their preferred title, Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, despite an RM consensus declaration two weeks ago that came out differently. The user has also exhibited a remarkably sophisticated level of knowledge of how to edit Wikipedia for someone who has been around only briefly. Although this person also seems to have done a lot of helpful editing and has been extremely active, I suggest a brief block to get their attention and let them know that they need to learn to play nice with others. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

BarrelProof's complaint to Velayinosu about their unorthodox move was posted at User talk:Velayinosu#Your article title move contrary to a declared consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that anything that I have done warrants being blocked from editing. Organisms that have hyphens and dashes in their name is not addressed by WP:MOS and it has become standard on virus articles to use the hyphen for scientific names of viruses since that is what the ICTV does. My proposal is to keep the article in line with the hyphen standard until the MOS is edited to clarify how this situation should be addressed since the move to the dash is itself disruptive at this point in time. (If that is wrong, then fine, but the MOS issue remains.) I've started a section on the MOS talk page for this and it would be beneficial if others could participate in it (a related discussion is also being held at Talk:Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus). Velayinosu (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The RM was open for two weeks, and Velayinosu's was the sole expression of opposition (on an article that was getting about a thousand views per day). Based on that, it seems hard to say the RM discussion "was closed improperly/prematurely/etc.", as they alleged on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Opening a discussion at WT:MOS is fine, of course, but they should not insist that their preferred outcome must prevail while others consider their proposal to change the MoS to support their point of view. And this is not the only action by this editor that has generated complaint. As I said, their User talk page shows about 10 complaints in a 3-month period of activity in this account which shows a very high amount of expertise and activity for a new user. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I edited the MOS comment to address your concerns. And those warnings on my talk page were for minor things that were all resolved without further issue which I hope is the ultimate result of this discussion. If the problem is the overturning of the move discussion result, then I won't do that from now on, but the MOS issue should be addressed and it would be beneficial if uninvolved people participate in the discussion as well. Velayinosu (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not change what your comments say after someone else has already responded to them, especially if it is to remove statements that have been quoted or commented on specifically in someone else's remarks. That confuses the historical record and makes it impossible to understand the comments that others have made in response. I have reverted your change to what you said at WT:MOS. It is better to add further clarifying remarks as separate new comments, or to apply strikethrough formatting to the original comments and add a note to explain why some remarks have been struck. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed the 9 other complaints on the User talk page, and none of them seem to have turned into protracted disputes. However, a common theme was not providing sufficient WP:edit summary information to explain what the editor is doing. As Velayinosu has already said they will respect RM results, I think this matter can be closed if they will also pledge to try harder to provide adequate edit summaries in the future. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I'll try to be more informative with edit summaries. Velayinosu (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruption from Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a Bulgarian user who is constantly editing articles concerning Macedonia, Macedonian people and the Macedonian language with blatant chauvinistic Bulgarian propaganda and pseudo historic "artificially created nation" myths, and is glorifying Axis occupation as "liberation" by citing dubious and biasedly one sided Bulgarian sources. Examples:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Pavel_Shatev&diff=prev&oldid=963892765

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Day_of_Macedonian_Uprising_in_1941

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Macedonians_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=957238827

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Macedonian_language&diff=954199612&oldid=954196050

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Macedonian_language&diff=954200901&oldid=954199612 Dedokire (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably the case is related to this issue. Wikipedia warriors: The new frontline of the battle for Macedonia organised by the United Macedonian Diaspora. Jingiby (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothere boomerang? Or just close? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What's really great is when outsiders go to the trouble of campaigning against you off Wiki. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked per NOTHERE. The fact that this came out of nowhere from an inactive account smells of sock or meatpuppetry. If I had a dollar for every nationalist/ethnic edit warrior on Wikipedia...Sro23 (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

right-e-o. 9 edits in 10 years and then stuff I ain't sayin' --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Sro23. It is unfair that User:Jingiby's nationality was targeted now just for doing his job. There is a worrisome trend of meatpuppetry on Macedonia-topic articles as of late. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Update: @Sro23 and Deepfriedokra: since you were active here on this discussion, my I ask for your attention at Talk:Prespa agreement? The IPs are now attacking Jingiby again, and this time me as well. In meantime, I made now a Request for Protection at [33] as well. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• I blocked the one. It would take a sizable rangeblock to get them all. Block a whole country???? No. The RFPP people can have a go as well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thats enough, thanks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking of RFPP: I have semi-protected the talk page for a week. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Those IP's are socks of User:Operahome. You know, that Igor Janev-obsessed one. Sro23 (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, MelanieN, and Sro23:, you are awesome, thank you for your swift responses! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Beese84

• Beese84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Beese84 made this edit, listing "the administration of President Donald Trump" as neo-fascist. I reverted this as non-neutral. Beese84 then made the following posts: [34][35], stating: "I would like this matter escalated. I am logging every part of this conversation and will be releasing it on major media outlets unless...". This media release is way out of my pay grade, and I request that someone else take this up.--Mvqr (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've replied on his talk page trying to explain why his post was WP:OR and asked him not to make threats of that manner. Hopefully he'll take it on board. — Czello 12:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mvqr (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Whistleblogger editing Jesselyn Radack in apparent violation of WP:BLPCOI; also EDITWARRING

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

---

The WP:SPA Whistleblogger is editing Jesselyn Radack, in apparent violation of WP:BLPCOI.

Editor previously identified herself as the subject of Jesselyn Radack, on June 9. This was done in these notes, to these edits, both from 9 June 2020:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jesselyn_Radack&diff=prev&oldid=961666885
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jesselyn_Radack&diff=prev&oldid=961668869

The editor has added material to Jesselyn Radack which, if this is actually Jesselyn Radack, is a violation of WP:BLPCOI, in the above edits, also in edits:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jesselyn_Radack&type=revision&diff=961666885&oldid=957291542
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jesselyn_Radack&diff=next&oldid=961666885
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jesselyn_Radack&diff=next&oldid=961667286

The edits make criminal claims against a person who is suing the real Jesselyn Radack in court for malicious prosecution and defamation. Whether or not it's her, these edits are WP:BLP violations.

The editor Whistleblogger is also editwarring, having been reverted several times. Editwarring happens here:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jesselyn_Radack&diff=next&oldid=961667286

The situation needs attention.

NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

See contributions list. Normal Op (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW, which editor is she accusing? Normal Op (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

CORRECTION Looking at the edits, it appears that Whistleblogger is accusing "the person who wrote this section", which, based on the article edit history for that section is mostly NedFausa. Implication is she may be accusing NedFausa of being a person that is suing the real Jesselyn Radack for malicious prosecution and defamation. Which is pretty far-fetched. NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Whistleblogger may have been referring to now-blocked user KalHolmann (talk · contribs), who started the whole Fitzgibbon discussion in 2018. There was also an article for Trevor Scott FitzGibbon which was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Scott FitzGibbon). I think this accused edit warring situation is a little more complicated than the OP makes out. Maybe a CheckUser is in order? Normal Op (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW is right in inferring that Whistleblogger alludes to me in her two edit summaries that accuse the author of "this section". The section in question is FitzGibbon criminal and civil cases. MediaWiki's analytical tool Who Wrote That? does not provide a precise metric, but does indicate that I contributed most of that section as it then stood: 100 of 134 total words (≈ 75%). Accordingly, please let me state for the record that I am not Trevor FitzGibbon, and have never interacted online or offline with Jesselyn Radack, Trevor FitzGibbon, or any of their known associates. And since I am neither a serial predator nor have I ever been reported to the police for sexual assault, I request that an administrator promptly exercise WP:REVDEL to expunge those scurrilous accusations from the edit history of Jesselyn Radack. NedFausa (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully a REVDEL person can redact just the edit summary text, but leave the edit there. Otherwise, future evaluations of behavior won't be possible. Unfortunately, REVDELing the edit summary would also remove Whistleblogger's own OUTing. I think Whistleblogger should be COI'd/blocked before a REVDEL takes place (else the evidence goes poof). Normal Op (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

RevisionDelete allows redaction of edit summaries only, leaving the edit itself visible on the public wiki. Administrators can still review the unredacted summaries. Nothing on the Internet ever truly disappears. But at least Whistleblogger's allegations against me of criminality can be removed from public view. NedFausa (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Conflict of interest disclosure sought. El_C 20:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Man, what a mess. I just read another ANI for another editor of that page. If what he has said about the Fitzg case and Radack is even half true, she doesn't need to be editing her own article. But the other concern I have is that OP of this ANI seems pretty experienced for a new user (one day old). He seems to know about edit warring, User Talk pages, ANI, posting diffs, COI, BLP. He has no edits except related to the Jesselyn Radack article. SPA? Sock (resurrection of one of the older blocked/banned accounts)? Normal Op (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Normal Op: Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: There's a world of difference between an advanced content edit with citations properly formatted... to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (using the non-pejorative sense). And since this editor jumped right into the deep end of something controversial, with at least two prior editors being blocked, it's worth looking into. Normal Op (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have revdeleted the edit summaries under RD2 and have partially blocked Whistleblogger from the page in question due to unanswered autobio concerns and the BLP issues. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This could be a WP:DOLT case. While I'm not sure about the COI's editor's edits, the section of concern seems to have major problems since it seems to rely heavily on court documents in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Regarding Normal Op's WP:BOOMERANG indef block against NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW

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

---

@Normal Op and NedFausa: I feel compelled for some reason to link this rant for posterity: Special:PermaLink/966366704 § User talk:NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW § Sockblock so it lands in the archive of this thread at least, and to ping Ponyo the WP:CheckUser while I do it. I know no good will come of this; I know that it can be seen as needlessly "making enemies" and "picking fights", but it's not my intention, I just feel that this CU request was unnecessary, and I want my voice in the archive if nowhere else. I don't want to be seen as a coward either, writing only on Ned's talk page and not here. I don't know that anything Rechtsstreitigkeiten did warranted this, and I feel like Ponyo could have chosen to simply not run the CU and wait and see if NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW further disrupted the project, given the amazing service they did for the project by uncovering this serious WP:BLPCOI violation. We're penalizing the wrong things, I'm afraid. That's all I have to say, and will now WP:Leave it to the experienced to work it out, but I can't sleep without voicing my dissent, which is not disloyalty. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Another rangeblock against Ottawa music vandal

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

---

Someone using IPs in the area in and around Ottawa has been vandalizing music articles, adding hoax material and wrong dates. Materialscientist blocked the previous range twice, the second time for a month. The top range on the list below is active now. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Jul 2020 – 2607:FEA8:BE20:898:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Apr–Jun 2020 – 2607:FEA8:BE20:1F90:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked twice)
• Aug 2019 – 2607:FEA8:BE20:655:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Oct 2018 – Jul 2019 – 2607:FEA8:BE20:6E0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

These IP ranges seem to stay allocated for a few months. I blocked the latest for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Superb! Many thanks. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User Megacheez

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

---

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

Kind of new to Wikipedia, so not entirely sure whether discussion here is need or not, but aforementioned user Megacheez has been making numerous edits in various baseball-related articles to change single/double-word spelled-out numbers to numerals, in possible violation of manual of style. Megacheez has been warned about this in the past, and because the edits are so numerous (they number in the hundreds per week,) I can only add a few examples:

[36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

Megacheez has also been adding many length unit converts to baseball-related pages but these probably aren't violations.

If this isn't a violation I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Klohinx^talk 06:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This has been going on for several months now. Looking at the user's talk page they have been given specific warnings about this[41][42] and the user has even acknowledge the warnings,[43] yet they persist. I think it it is time for a block to get this editor's attention that this is not acceptable behaviour (when the correct course of action has been pointed out including reference to the MOS) and also to prevent further such disruptive editing. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Several months? Several years, by the looks of it. Looking at the talkpage, they've been warned about the MOSNUM issues at least eight times (not to mention a number of other MOS and similar issues), and they're just carrying on doing it. I think there's possibly a CIR issue here when they reply to a warning with "You're welcome" and then carry on doing exactly what the warning was telling them not to. As a result, I have blocked them indefinitely until they discuss the issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by Kami2018

The User Kami2018 [[44]] is back at removing or adding information to Pashtun and Afghan pages without inserting credible and verifiable source/reference for his edits. For example he removed information from Kharoti without any reason or adding any reference for the changes: [[45]]. Similarly, he made this edit [[46]] to the article Bala Hissar. He removed the word 'Afghan', please be mindful of the fact that same editor was reported twice before, in late 2018 and then early 2020, for removing "afghan' word from articles or changing content of the articles relating to Afghanistan or Afghans in away to leave out the word 'Afghan' and this user repeatedly gets reverted. In yet another an example of his Pakistani-Punjabi nationalist driven agenda here [[47]], he omitted information and the attached sources/references so that he could remove the word 'Pashtunized' from the article. This edit was reverted [[48]] by another user who has been editing the page Delhi Sultanate for a longtime. However, Kami2018 again inserted the same information by removing the references/sources attached. Please view the history of the page for further clarification. He has done the same to other articles, and he has been repeatedly warned for his edits to Pashtun pages. I would expect that the action to be taken against this specific individual. Here are examples of this user removing the word 'Pashtunized' which had been inserted after the agreement came from other users, from the articles

• [[49]]
• [[50]]
• [[51]]

I strongly recommend a ban on this user for a certain period from editing articles related to Pashtuns and Afghans.101.50.92.206 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Racism (at Idris Elba)

Racism at Wikipedia -- just below the surface -- rooted in the notion that black people cannot be English (at best, they can only be British). This idea is apparent here. We also have a talk-page section [52] -- a bit dated, except that there are some recent contributions going along with the first post in the section. It is also apparent in the way Idris Elba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited to favour British over English -- despite clear self-identification ("Listen guys: I'm English".) This is all quite shocking. We simply would not be having the same sort of discussion (and editing) in connection with a white person... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Strange then, that nobody has noticed that six of the seven forwards listed at England national football team#Current squad are not "really" English. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The fuller discussion is on the BLP noticeboard, along with my comments on the matter as it should relate to ANI. Their most recent (5th) change to reintroduce their edit has been reverted, and an admin has warned them not to reinstate it. Let's just see how that goes. Assuming they drop the stick now, I'm not sure (further) admin action is needed. Also, you should've left ANI notices on both Chris Tomic and Ryan Soul's talk pages, as I believe you're referring to them in this matter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have applied a 72 hour block for the edit warring (I note that it was not a 3RR violation, but it was edit warring nonetheless). GeneralNotability (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, Um, really? The edit wars over English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish/British are at leats as old as Wikipedia. It's not racism, it's nationalism. Which is exactly as lame but slightly less problematic, at least mostly. Guy (help!) 23:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's nationalism -- but several of the posts people have made make it crystal clear it's also racism.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG Have you read the talk page discussion? British not English = boring, but not racist, conversation about nationalism. Black people can't be described as English? I guess I can imagine a non-racist way that someone could think that, but I'm really having to stretch the old AGF almost to breaking point. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, that's... disturbing. Guy (help!) 22:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

182.186.108.113

182.186.108.113 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) WP:NOTTHEM behavior on usertalk ([53] including accusing others belonging to the Mafia. Please revoke TPA. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Maybe you inadvertently posted the wrong diffs, but the diffs posted do not support your complaint as they are diffs from an entirely unrelated user. However, having said that, the block hammer seems to have fallen anyway. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know about. I saw the metaphoric comparison of Wikipedia to the Mafia on user talk page. Dismissed it as post-block grousing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Urgent block needed

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

---

It seems that Kwamikagami is replacing straight apostrophes with curled ones and moving a lot of pages. I think a block is urgently needed. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That's an ʻOkina. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 17:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the admin has left an explanation of that in regard to Hawaiian articles at WT:HAWAII. — Maile (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

They are no longer an admin, but otherwise, yes. El_C 20:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironically, a few days ago I requested a list of all WP articles with curly apostrophes in the title, and have been moving them to straight apostrophes. There were over a thousand, which suggests no-one has cleaned this up in a while. — kwami (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

The beginnings or harassing/stalking behavior

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

---

• Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Noloader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It looks like user Alexbrn is in the early stages of harassment/stalking behavior. He/she seems to be following me on wikipedia and indiscriminately reverting edits. See, for example, https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Apitherapy&action=history and https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Open_access&action=history.

It is a creepy feeling when a user is tracking your movements around a site.

Please do something about this editor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Noloader: please provide diffs for the reverts that bother you. All I can see is that Alexbrn is one of the editors who has reverted your edits at Apitherapy, and that they reverted one of your edits at Open access, only to make a self-revert back to your version a couple of minutes later with an edit summary indicating that the first revert was a mistake. --bonadea contributions talk 19:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

bonadea - The Apitherapy was definitely a disagreement. I thought that was the end of things.

I don't believe Alexbrn's arrival at the Open Access article is random. I seem to be an object of user Alexbrn desire, and he/she is now following me around the site. This is very creepy behavior from Alexbrn.

It should lead immediately to the question... Why is Alexbrn now following me around the site and reverting valid edits? Here is the edit (there's only been one edit since the Apitherapy article): https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Open_access&type=revision&diff=966291239&oldid=966255601. (The citation I removed was a duplicate and malformed, like a copy/paste gone bad).

Also take note of Alexbrn's response below. Rather then take responsibility for his/her actions, he seems to want to blame the person he/she is harassing/stalking. As if I am somehow responsible for him/her visiting my profile, clicking on my latest edits, and clicking revert.

Like I said, this is very creepy behavior from Alexbrn.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Noloader, maybe that just clicked on the wrong button to end up at the wrong page. Assume good faith. El_C 20:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C - Sorry, I don't believe it was a mistake. They were intentional actions by user Alexbrn. To be a mistake, user Alexbrn would have had to "accidentally" clicked at least three different times - once into my profile, once into my history, and once to revert the edit. Randomly landing on the Open Access page alone would be a 1 in 6 million event given there are 6,114,482 English pages.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

So what? They are allowed to review your contributions, if they so wish. You should not take offense if they make a mistake in the course of that. El_C 20:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C - I completely agree anyone is allowed to make an edit. Subsequent edits happen all the time on this site. The oddity about this is, it was not a random edit by the next editor nor was it an improvement. User Alexbrn seems to be harassing/stalking me and reverting valid edits and turning them back to the former brokenness. That should at least concern you. If user Alexbrn is willing to harass/stalk me, then he/she will do it to others; and his/her edits are not improving the site - they are diminishing the site.

20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

One error in one article does not a pattern make. El_C 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C - an article error is usually not a problem. The harassing/stalking behavior is a problem. And the willingness to revert edits out of spite is a problem. If you are not seeing the big picture, then maybe you should escalate the issue to Wikipeida administrators or employees. I'm guessing folks with professional training will have a better understanding of the issues at hand.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, your evidence of "harassing/stalking" and "spite" consists of two (2) edits, one of which was almost instantly self-reverted? Dumuzid (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Noloader: I can't really have been "following" you to Apitherapy when I've been editing that article on and off for years before your arrival there. As to the edit yesterday at Open Access, it was a mistake (I misread a diff) and I reverted a few minutes later. I should note this is your second recent report of me to an admin board after your malformed report at AN3[54], and you have said on my talk page that my behaviour is "stalking" and "very creepy".[55] So, I'm beginning to think that yes there might be a problem here, and that it's not me. You've been here long enough that you shouldn't be this WP:clueless. Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Noloader, your evidence is insufficient, and at the moment, serves as an aspersion. Your must show a pattern and show that it makes sense. You report does neither right now. El_C 20:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C - As I posted, we are in the early stages of the harassment/stalking. It is best to stop this sort of thing quickly.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'll just leave this here. Editor Interaction Analyser Noloader edit count: 2138 & Alexbrn edit count: 41581. (who is following whom? or is anyone?) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• To summarise, including talk pages, user talk pages, and notice boards, there are 20 pages in common. Of these 13 were edited first by Alexbrn. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have no memory of having encountered this user before their recent Apitherapy edits, so even in pages we've both edited I suppose we edited different parts and/or edited chronologically far enough apart not to overlap. What gets me is that an editor with > 2,000 edits and ten years' service doesn't seem to grasp the basics of Wikipedia, even down to signing posts. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• So what I see is one article, 6 hours apart. An edit and a revert? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra - If all you see is an edit and revert, then I believe you are missing the bi picture. If you are not seeing the big picture, then maybe you should escalate the issue to Wikipeida administrators or employees. I'm guessing folks with professional training will have a better understanding of the issues at hand.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• There are more eyes on you now than if you hadn't made this report. I am not seeing anything actionable here - if this is stalking/harassment, then I should hand back the keys to my account because I routinely click through to Users' contributions if one of their edits seem a bit suspect. I would withdraw this and carry on as if nothing happened. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Alfie. I think I'll let the request stand because the behavior was obvious and egregious. It is not appropriate behavior to stalk another editor, revert edits out of spite, and put an article into a [formerly] broken state. If you are engaging in the behavior then I think you should rethink your position.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Kremlin IP editing American political articles

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

I first noticed this IP promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory as if they were an American who believed in it (I am one of them since 2 weeks ago, we have official site and etc. We will have one of us in congress soon.). They have also argued that Trump can do whatever he wants with regard to copyright. Now, when a user with an account makes statements that they believe QAnon is real or true, other admins and I have given them maybe one warning before indefinitely blocking them as lacking distinction between reality from fantasy necessary to edit.

There are other edits to non-political articles that don't appear to be problematic but elsewhere the IP sings Putin's praises (for putting in a loophole that will allow him to stay in office indefinitely) and even mocks those who don't join their chorus. They have also asserted that Crimea was not part of the Ukraine (as if Russia's invasion was totally legitimate).

The IP geolocates to the Kremlin. Given that Russia has a history of interfering in various website to skew public opinion, should this IP really be welcome to edit articles relating to international politics? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to partial-block IPs? If so, we should partial-block them if this is what we should expect. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 22:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nuke it from orbit. Heiro 22:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

For clarification: does the IP geolocate to "the Kremlin" (your words), or to the whole city of Moscow? Otherwise, if an IP is disruptive it can be blocked whether it's coming from Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Washington DC, or the North Pole. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not if it's not a Kremlin employee, the IP pretending to be an US citizen fits one of the tricks used by the Russian web brigades. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You said "The IP geolocates to the Kremlin.". Your topic heading is "Kremlin IP editing American political articles". But on the page that you linked to, all I see is Moscow. Am I missing something, or are you assuming that's the same thing? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP location - Latitude:(55° 45′ 9.72″ N),Longitude:(37° 37′ 1.92″ E) shows as Srednyaya Arsenal'naya Bashnya, a military building inside the Kremlin. It's most likely an employee editing since they did not use a series of proxies to hide the location. CBS527^Talk 00:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP "location" is a public park in the dead center of the city, but I strongly doubt that the center of the gigantic red circle ringing Moscow in this link [56] is the actual location of this person's editing. If we're going to jump down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole, a Russian intelligence operation targeting Wikipedia using IPs that geolocate to the center of Moscow is less parsimonious than a teenager's trolling operation to discover our most gullible editors. -Darouet (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

See also the famous case of MaxMind [57]. Never trust IP geolocation data to be more precise than maybe a city unless you have good reason to think otherwise. Even 'city' is sometimes way too precise. Nil Einne (talk)

• I have blocked them for WP:CIR, POV pushing, and being WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether or not they are a Russian state troll. I have emailed ComCom however, as this is sensitive if true. The block length is one month right now, as they've had this same IP for a while. The block may need to be made longer, its possible they have a static IP. Another admin is free to change the block length, or update the block reason, should more info be found regarding their troll status. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

How long do you think it'll be before some of the people involved in this discussion find polonium replacing the sugar in their drinks? 86.181.78.88 (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.78.88 (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Range Blocks Needed

Given the threats and the source, IPv4 and IPv6 range blocks should be implemented. Can't imagine there would be much collateral damage from long term range blocks either. 2600:1003:B85A:8941:58A5:1343:374:B85 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cyberfan195 - Categories & Misleading edit summaries

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

---

This user is constantly making new categories and adding categories left and right, most with one of two edit summaries: "fixed." or "added source(s)". This has been continuing on, despite many warnings against this on their talk page, and even with a block for harassment in February 2020. Many other users, including myself, have been warning them for unconstructive edits, unsourced content, and their misleading edit summaries, with one tonight.

Yet, despite my recent warning, their contribution history shows they continue to use misleading edit summaries, seemingly ignoring that warning. At this point, the user seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Non-responsive, and continuing to use misleading summaries and disruptive edits. Something needs to be done here. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Their only interest appears to be adding categories; of their few edits to talk pages, most were to make small changes to categories that were incorrectly added. (The other edits were unblocking requests.) Trivialist (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked Cyberfan195 indefinitely to force a response to the complaints. Sometimes I think we should just get rid of genres and categories. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks at War of 1812 talk page

Reason for report

Personal attacks

Page

War of 1812 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

My posting: [18:55, 28 June 2020][58]; Elinruby's reply: [Revision as of 19:26, 28 June 2020][59]

Requested remedy

Topic ban on article

Elinruby's personal attacks on me

Oh good lord. I see now why nobody is currently editing the article. [06:12, 24 June 2020][60] I have little patience with wikilawyers who refuse to examine their beliefs. [14:33, 25 June 2020][61] Of course big American bwana know better what happen to me!!!! [07:21, 26 June 2020][62] ...you really understand nothing at all about Canadian history and you should not be in this article at all [07:40, 26 June 2020][63] ...You took an exclamation at your ignorance and tried to say I couldnt prove it...I was trying to explain how insulting you are but I see now that you are incapable of understanding such a thing. You know nothing, Jon Snow....This tells me that I have been wasting my breath. If this were a different article I would suspect paid editing or some other COI. You spout wikijargon very fluently, always inappropriately mind you, but well enough to intimidate many editors. (Bites tongue) Your responses are off-topic, demand proof of assertions that were not made, and never ever provide a source. This is contentious editing and what you call consensus of historians is a cudgel you use when you WP:DONTLIKEIT. I suggest you reflect on your behaviour. You and I are done with this topic [09:10, 28 June 2020][64] You spelled his name wrong AGAIN....{God you are patronizing)...It would also be very nice if you discussed in good faith. [09:25, 28 June 2020][65] I don't call you "pompous", I call you by the name you gave yourself. [20:53, 2 July 2020][66] I still think you need to brush up on Wikipedia policies. [19:43, 2 July 2020][67] I've been on Wikipedia longer than you have actually, and I have actually done some constructive editing, not just trolled on talk pages. [20:47, 2 July 2020][68] So your comments are confusing again. [21:04, 3 July 2020][69]

Elinruby's attacks on other editors

it may astonish you but being wrong for years doesn't mean it's right. Talking to you is like talking to Bolsonaro henchmen, and I would know. I was actually going to suggest partof, but sheer exhaustion overwhelmed me. It's cute that you think you can keep saying there is a consensus. No there is not, because here I am. Exterminating "Indians" is not a good thing, sorry, and it's even worse when you fall it an atrocity when they fight back [22:36, 6 July 2020][70] @Ironic Luck: good luck with that. I have no interest in debating anything so poorly enunciated and ill-founded, which furthermore betrays a fundamental misperception of what the hell I actually said. The change I was talking about in the wiki box is in a completely different section, so I am really not sure why you posted that wall of text? You have a nice day. [23:45, 5 July 2020][71] TL;DR. Perhaps if you focused on specific points rather that grandstanding god help us another section. Meanwhile I see no reason why I should respond to your jejeune remarks about what you think I said somewhere. Improve your reading skills maybe. [15:04, 6 July 2020][72] This is what you and TFD WP:OWN. Hope you are proud. It's really really sloppy [22:54, 6 July 2020][73]

Comments:

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War of 1812 room!

-EEng

Since this editor began editing the article War of 1812 about two weeks ago, they have consistently attacked me and to a lesser extent other editors on a discussion page. While I have requested them to stop, the abuse continues. Most recently, I replaced their comment "You are just trolling" with the template "Personal attack removed" (RPA).[74] Elinruby then replaced the template with:

Hard revert, TFD was just whining about his comments being moved, yet feels entitled to say it's a personal attack when I agree that there are ownership issues on the page. If the shoe fits, dude, but that is not what I said. Your bad behaviour is escalating. It must be sad to be stuck on one topic like this, I feel for you, really. But uh no, we not be deleting random parties to this war to please you. [Elinruby 23:33, 6 July 2020][75]

Since I have tried to discuss this issue with them and they have not changed, I recommend a topic ban for Elinruby from the War of 1812.

TFD (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Have you some insight into this matter you might share? Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: reping w/o the ststutter. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, pls stand by... Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Crusades

I know that WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I am also convinced that enthusiasm of thousands of amateurs (like myself) is the principal driving force behind our community's success. However, a certain level of knowledge is necessary to be able to improve individual articles. An editor who edits an article without actual knowledge about the article's topic can hardly add value, but easily can destroy it. If the same editor is also negligent and unable to make a single edit without spelling mistakes, the problem is multiplied. I visited this noticeboard to report an enthusiastic editor, Norfolkbigfish, who has been editing articles about the crusades for years. I realised that his knowledge about the topic is extremly limited when I read his first remarks on my comments more than eight months ago. Now, I am sure that he has been editing without reading the sources he is citing. Instead, he reads one or two pages, tries to summarize them, but without a deeper knowledge and without understanding the context, his edits always contain a major error. Furthermore, his edits also always contain multiple spelling mistakes. To demonstrate my statements I refer to his following edits (but I can expand the list any time):

• 1. The article contained the following sentence "Raymond lost his life fighting against Nur ad-Din in the Battle of Inab in 1149." Norfolbigfish modified the text, stating that "Raymond II was killed fighting Nur ad-Din at the Battle of Inab." ([76]) After I asked him to refer to the source of his statement ([77]), he stated that the info correct, stating that he added a reference to verify the statement ([78]). The source did not verify the quoted sentence and I again asked him to verify it ([79]). In response, he stated that the sentence about Raymond II's death in the Battle of Inab is verified by the following text from a scholarly work: "Pons was killed and Raymond II captured by Zengi". I had to repeat the question, before he realised that Raymond (I) of Antioch was killed in the Battle of Inab and his death on the battlefield can hardly be verified by a text about the capture of Raymond II of Tripoli in a different battle. The example demonstrates not only Norfolkbigfish's limited knowledge about the crusades, but also his negligence when reading the sources.
• 2. The following edit did not contain a single factual error, but it was filled with typos ([80]). When dealing with him, an edit that only contains typos can be described as an achievement, so I thanked it.
• 3. He could not properly define the term "crusader states" although he had "completed" the article about them ([81], [82], [83]).
• 4. During the review of the article "Crusades" I placed various tags in many sentences that he had written. He did not understand my remarks and collected them and his comments under a separate title on the article's talk page. His comments clearly show he had not read the allegedly cited books or misinterpreted them.

Fixing his errors is an irksome duty. I have to dedicate more than 90% of my time on WP to fix his factual errors and mispellings. I suggested him to try to improve his knowledge about the crusades through editing more specific articles with a limited scope. He ignored my suggestion. After more than eight months I am convinced that articles about the crusades cannot be improved while Norfolkbigfish is allowed to edit them, so I suggest a topic ban for him. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

All my edits have been reliably sourced and cited. I am always willing to discuss on Talk Pages, and acknowledge when I make a mistake through misinterpretation. I am willing to engage in conflict resolution at any time over any of these issues, which are largely content rather than behavioural on my part. I think this is fairly reflected at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Crusader_states. The Crusader States article was moribund when I picked it up (see https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Crusader_states&oldid=900764952). I edited and took it through a successful GAR. Review can be found at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Crusader_states/GA1. The Crusades article was fairly disorganised when I came to the subject. I took that through a successful GAR ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Crusades/GA1 ) and a successful Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history ACR ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Crusades ). There followed three attempts at FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive3, it was at the end of the third FAC that I first came across the complainant. FWIW I also picked up the neglected Historiography of the Crusades and took it through a successful GAR Talk:Historiography of the Crusades/GA1, and acknowledged that was as far as my sources and time would allow. At all times this demonstrated good faith, good sourcing and the ability to work with numerous editors. Both articles are summary articles in an area that is incredibably contested, broad and with vast amounts source material. Consensus requires editors to work together, and even then it may be impossible. I think the complaint is unfounded and the request for a topic ban unwarranted. At the same time, as ever I welcome constructive feedback. By way of context there is this quote referring to the complainant from Johnbod at Talk:Crusades In the 4 months since he started editing this page he has added 177,263 bytes in over 300 posts, producing many complaints about bullying etc, and largely changing the subject of the article by stealth. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have had the pleasure of involvement in this question earlier this year. I found Norfolkbigfish to be a hard working editor whose contributions have been overall positive. I was most impressed by his openness to constructive feedback at the FA review and the article Talk page. I found Borsoka to also be a hard working editor whose contributions have been overall positive. However, I found Borsoka to react extremely aggressively to feedback, and it is a real shame to see that his relationship with Norfolkbigfish has still not improved. I am convinced that if Borsoka had not lost his cool early on, this long-running argument would never have happened. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I can say as someone who theoretically should be involved in editing this topic area (it is, after all, closely related to many of my editing areas), I found the tone of the discourse on the various articles to be sub-par. And it's getting worse. Borsoka is occasionally correct on the issues... it is true that sometimes Norfolkbigfish isn't always perfect in understanding a source or creates typos, but I've found NBFish to be quite willing to correct. Borsoka needs to dramatically improve their talk page manner before anyone such as I feel any desire to step into the editing area - right now why by the gods above should I stick my head into a buzzsaw? --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I used to be User:Lingzhi2. Ealdgyth is correct. This thread misses the mark. OneOffUserName (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I also found the discourse on the talkpage one-sided in tone, with Borsoka's tone significantly more problematic, especially in comparison to the willingness of NBF to listen to criticism/feedback and adjust when necessary. This is my field of training (graduate degree in medieval history with a concentration in crusade history), but I generally stay away from the topic on Wikipedia because of the strong feelings it evokes in many editors. In looking over some of Borsoka's objections/critiques, some were valid while others were...petty. One of the archived talkpage threads linked to is titled "vexatious tagging", which I'd call an accurate summary of the ongoing behavior. For an example, one of the diffs Borsoka provides here involves whether the crusader states of Outremer were established before or during the crusades (it's after, by the way), but did so by repeatedly tagging that line as "dubious", as if it were a significant distinction. Similarly, he argues in the talkpage about whether or not historians generally agree 1291 marked the end of the crusading period (they do) because of Cyprus, to which NBF replies that he meant the crusading period in the Holy Land. Borkosa chides him for not explicitly stating that, but the tagged text explicitly stated that. There isn't ANI-worthy bad behavior here by NBF, who is being courteous and collaborative over a lot of aggression regarding generally minor points. I also don't think there's ANI-worthy bad behavior by Borsoka, either, but he does need to tone it down and get a grip; the passive-aggressive "glad I could correct you" or "happy you were able to understand" comments on the article talkpage every time NBF compromises with him are snotty, as are the repeated statements that "we need an expert". Suggest this is closed with a reminder to Borsoka to assume good faith and for NBF to take a moment to proofread his edits for typos before saving. Grandpallama (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Yes, Norfolkbigfish achieved three GAs. Are you sure the articles were actually GAs? I reviewed the article "Crusades" during its FA candidate. It did not reach the level of a GA - or do you think misinterpreted sources, editorial bias and close paraphrasing are necessary to achieve a GA? OneOffUserName strongly supported its promotion as a FA, even sending me messages and pushing me to also support it - @OneOffUserName: do you really think you are in the position to comment on this issue? Norfolkbigfish's second "GA" is the "Crusader states" article. It also contained major errors - or do you think editors who misinterprete the cited sources and ignore major aspects of the topic should be rewarded? His third "GA" is the Historiography of the Crusades. Please read remarks by editors who are actually experts of the topic during the article's A-class review. 2. My communication style is mentioned in all above remarks. I wonder how would you react if you were described as a vandal after starting the review of an article or you were mentioned as an editor with a Catholic Middle European bias while you are reviewing the article? 3. @Ealdgyth:, you do not want to stick your head into a buzsaw, but I can share the Norfolkbigfish experience with you. For instance, review his last edit: [84]. I hope you realized that it contains not only mispellings, but also mispresentation of the cited source. I can edit the articles on which you are working in his style, because I am not an expert on your favorite fields of knowledge. Can you promise you will not take me to ANI after eight months? 4. Norfolkbigfish is described as a hard-working editor, but his readiness to manipulatively quote the cited sources is not mentioned. Is this the certain sign of a constructive editor? 5. Yes, I expanded the article about the Crusades. I added sections about the development of crusading ideology, about women's role in the movement, about the financing of the military expedition. I do not know how this changed "the subject of the article by stealth" as @Johnbod: claimed, but he probably can explain it. Neither do I understand Johnbod's reference to my complaints about bullying. 6. @Onceinawhile:, I have completed 70+ GAs (among them 10+ articles closely connected to the crusades) and 2 FAs. All articles were reviewed. Do you really think if I had reacted "extremely aggressively to feedback", those articles could have been promoted? In the closing note of one of the FAC reviews, the coordinater mentioned that "It's always gratifying to see serious concerns discussed in a collegial manner, as has been the case here." Norfolkbigfish's ignorance and negligence prevent all constructive discussions. 7. @Grandpallama:, could you refer to a single reliable source stating that the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch were created after the First Crusade as your above statement implies? Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI is for behavior, not content, but I will say there is a difference between the conquest of territories and laying the foundations of the crusader states and the later establishment of the organized, (ostensibly) unified crusader state that occurred only in the wake of the creation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. As far as behavior goes here, if you really think you have the high ground, please re-read your preceding statement (Norfolkbigfish's ignorance and negligence prevent all constructive discussions) and pay attention to the fact that multiple editors are disputing that view. Not to mention the fact that said quote is indicative of the behavior problems multiple editors are saying you are displaying. The diffs you have provided, and the language which you are using, don't make you look particularly collaborative or collegial. Grandpallama (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes ANI is for behaviour, not content, but you made a statement which cannot be verified by reliable sources. I repeat that Norfolkbigfish's ignorance and negligence prevent all consturctive discussions and I also offer you to share the Norfolkbigfish experience with you. I will edit any articles you are working on in his style if you promise you will not take me to ANI. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Refusing to sidetrack this discussion does not equate to an inability to support a statement that I made. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, hi. I'm completely uninvolved in this, and cannot profess to any deep knowledge about the history of the period. That shouldn't really matter, since we're here to discuss conduct rather than content. Above, I observe however that there are three very experienced and talented editors saying that your conduct in this area is more problematic than that of the person you're here to report. I'd like to ask you whether you have reflected on that, and what conclusions you have drawn, if any? GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I reflected on that above: I offered them to edit articles they are working on in Norfolkbigfish's style for months. If they could fix my endless typos, misinterpretations, biased summaries for a period of eight months without making sarcastic remarks about my abilities, I would be ready to accept their judgement. Borsoka (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I'm afraid that I find it hard to interpret an offer like that as being serious, or as evidence of any genuine reflection.

Let me try to put it another way. Normally in a thread like this, Editor A will start a thread saying that Editor B has been disruptively editing in a topic area, and link to CIR. Editors C, D and E will come along and say variations on the theme of 'Yeah, they're really disruptive, but we should give them some ROPE,' or 'Yeah, damn right, support TBAN this has got to stop.' This thread is unusual in that Editor A has said that Editor B is being disruptive, and Editors C, D and E have come along and said 'Actually, Editor A is really difficult to work with, whereas Editor B, while not perfect, is editing in good faith and has the capacity to take criticism on board'. That's unusual, and I'm not sure what to make of it - I'm inviting you to give your take on it. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I maintain that an editor who is unable to make edits without 4-5 spelling mistakes, without misinterpretating the cited source at least once per edit should not edit. My offer is serious. Two or three editors expressed that they think I should cooperate with him and I should tone my behaviour down. I offered them to share the Norfolkbigfish experience with them for months. If they are able to cooperate with me for eight months while I am making typos and presenting my obvious misinterpretations of the cited sources, they are right. Please read his latest edit: it is filled with typos ([85]). (And it also contains misinterpretation of the cited source, but you stated you are not an expert.) Which is your favorite article? As soon as you name it, I will begin to edit it and I can offer you 4-5 typos per edits. I can also misinterprete any source, because English is not my first language. Are you ready to cooperate with an ignorant and negligent editor for months? I am ready to be ignorant and negligent and you can prove your ability to remain nice and cooperative. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, we're not going to topic ban someone on your say-so. If you think that this is a good line of argument to take to convince people that someone else, rather than yourself, has a problem with collaboration, I don't know what to say to you. If you start damaging articles to make a POINT, you can expect to be blocked, whether or not anyone has taken you up on this ridiculous offer. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

–Yes, my offer is as ridiculous as all remarks above. None of you have whenever tried to cooperate with an ignorant and negligent editor for months and none of you is ready to try it. Nevertheless, I am convinced that WP is a healthy community - negligent and ignorant editors cannot survive for long. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the issue - even if I think you are all wrong. Borsoka (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Another "ridiculous remark": You should consider editing in some other areas and leaving the Crusades page alone. Your responses here and refusal to consider the possibility that your words and behavior are less than ideal are worrisome, and as I look through the diffs, so is your insistence that only your understanding of the content is correct. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's examine the core of your first remark sentence by sentence. 1. "This is my field of training (graduate degree in medieval history with a concentration in crusade history), but I generally stay away from the topic on Wikipedia because of the strong feelings it evokes in many editors." Do you really think it is relevant in this context? I have never met an editor to refer to their real life experience or degree, because most editors understand what the statement "WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means. 2. "For an example, one of the diffs Borsoka provides here involves whether the crusader states of Outremer were established before or during the crusades (it's after, by the way), but did so by repeatedly tagging that line as "dubious", as if it were a significant distinction." You are proposing a topic ban, but you have so far failed to refer to a single reliable source stating that the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch were established during the aftermath of the First Crusade. Just for uninvolved editors my remark on the Talk page was the following: "The first sentence of the article is not verified in the main text. (Actually, it contradicts the main text, which says that the crusader states were established as a consequence of the First Crusade)." - interestingly Norfolkbigfish accepted it after three unsuccessful attempt to define the crusader states. 3. "Similarly, he argues in the talkpage about whether or not historians generally agree 1291 marked the end of the crusading period (they do) because of Cyprus, to which NBF replies that he meant the crusading period in the Holy Land. Borkosa chides him for not explicitly stating that, but the tagged text explicitly stated that." The problem is that I did not argue that 1291 marked the end of the crusading period or not and the tagged text explicitly does not say anything about the end of the crusading period. @Grandpallama: sorry but I still think your remarks were ridiculous: you shared an irrelevant detail of your life with us, you made a statement about the crusader states without referring to a single reliable source and you challenged a statement that I never made. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Apart from this thread, you have another open on the talk page, and another from last month where Iridescent warned you about the bombardment with warnings and personal comments from you I see on User talk:Norfolkbigfish. Perhaps a one-way IBan would help? ——Serial ^# 15:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what "a one-way IBan" means. I rarely take other editors to ANI. If "a one-wy IBan" means that I will be banned from editing for ever, I will accept it. I have become more and more convinced that WP is alien to me. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If I may offer some unsolicited advice, you're escalating quite quickly here and it might do well to take a deep breath. On Wikipedia, we are called upon to tolerate those with whom we disagree, those whom we think are less adept editors, and yes, even typos. Article improvement is not a straight line; but even setbacks can ultimately lead to a better final product. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

you shared an irrelevant detail of your life with us Are you fucking kidding me? You're the one who has repeatedly called in his edit summaries for experts to weigh in at the article talkpage. Then I identify my background (for the first time in over a decade on Wikipedia, in fact) in order to explain why I'm weighing in at ANI, and because you don't like what I say, my background is irrelevant? I also didn't propose a topic ban, and your characterizations of your own statements on the article talkpage are factually incorrect (i.e., the diff to the "vexatious tagging" discussion that you provided explicitly shows you arguing about 1291 and the Holy Land as if you hadn't even read the text you tagged); I'm starting to think I should propose a TBAN based on what seems to increasingly be reading comprehension difficulties, whether because of WP:IDHT or because of some other issue, both at the article and at ANI. Walk away and drop the stick, Borsoka. I'm already prepared to support any one-way IBAN proposal regarding NBF, as Serial Number suggested, based upon your demonstrated battleground mentality here and your refusal to even consider you might be the issue. Grandpallama (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think an "expert" in WP is an editor with an academic degree, I think we do not understand each other. I still maintain that you misinterprete my statement about 1291. However, I will gladly accept any ban. Although I still do not know what a "one-way IBan" or "one-way IBAN" means, but I am sure you have been convinced that I have to be punished for my sins. Just another question, can I receive a badge or similar about my one-way IBan or IBAN to place it on my User page? Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

How is the view from up there these days? Dumuzid (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, a one-way iBan means that you are not permitted to interact with, or comment on, the other editor named in the ban - that would extend to reverting their edits. It would perhaps give you a degree of freedom from what you seem to perceive as your duty to correct what you see as mistakes in their editing - if such mistakes occur, you would not be permitted to address them, that would be down to others. You can see more at WP:IBAN. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the above clarification. Now I understand what will be my punishment for my sins. In the region of the world where I live, we are informed about the nature of the punishment before we receive it. I would really enjoy this punishmen. It would give me a place in WP heaven. Can I place a last message on Norfolkbigfish's Talk page before receiving my IBAN? I would like to suggest him to approach the editors who vote for my IBAN, because they would like to experience the joy of cooperating with him for months. He should not deprive them of this joy. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeated insults by Kyteto and problem with an admin

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

A few days ago I got in a minor revert war with the user User:Kyteto in the article BDC Aero Industrie over my removal of a few badly sourced trivial paragraphs. Which he and another user claimed I had removed in a bad faith edit to intentionally make the article seem less notable by removing the sources that the content was attached to. Which simply wasn't factual. When I messaged Kyteto on his talk to work things out he proceeded to insult and attack me in message after message. Including calling me arrogant and hypocritical multiple times (as can be seen in his changeset comments here, and here at the end of his comment). Even after I said I was in the wrong, that I didn't care if the sources that I had removed were restored or retained, and asked him not to insult me anymore.

I probably would have been fine with just letting things go. Except an admin named User:El C got involved, put the whole thing on me by claiming I was the one casting aspersions etc etc and said Kyteto had the right to comment as he saw fit because he's a long standing member. I assume the "comments" that were OK for Kyteto to make related to the insults, because those were the only things he said that I ever took issue with. I'm not really satisfied with the outcome. Especially an admin "resolving" things by saying it's cool that Kyteto called me an arrogant hypocrite repeatedly, among other things, because he's been here a while. I assume the WP:PA still applies to long standing members. If so, then he should be capable for violating it and User:El C shouldn't be telling people it's OK for long standing members to insult them. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Links to the personal attacks are needed. What El_C said may have been misrepresented, as they did not OK personal attacks. Also, I think the removal of sources when such removal decreases the likelihood of an WP:AfD candidate being seen as notable is a poor idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, can you clarify what you meant when saying: “Also, I think the removal sources when such removal decreases...”? It’s a bit ungrammatical. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I thought I provided links to his talk page comments in the first paragraph. At the end of the third line. In his changeset comments he called my approach to this hypocritical twice in the first one and in the second one at the end he said "it comes off as hypocritical, in my opinion - the fact that you compound that with the justification of "bad edits" also comes off as arrogant, in my opinion." I'm pretty sure he said it in other places to, but even he didn't that's more then enough IMO. Especially since I asked him to stop after the first time.

I agree removing the sources might have been a poor idea, but I wasn't thinking about doing the AfD at that point and I said Kyteto could restore them if he wanted when I realized it probably wasn't the best thing to do. Last time I checked though articles can be edited during AfDs anyway and I assume that would include removing badly sourced content. Either way, it doesn't warrant the personal attacks. Although, I removed them before I decided to do one. I don't think I misrepresented what El_C said. There might not have been an outright OK of the personal attacks, but they weren't addressed at all. Which seems like tacit approval to me. Especially since it was combined with the statement that Kyteto could say whatever he wants. Otherwise, El_C should have explicitly said otherwise. He/she was fine calling me out for casting aspersions, when I wasn't the one calling anyone arrogant. So, if he/she had a problem with Kyteto doing it there was zero reason not to just say so. BTW, Kyteto also accused me of intentionally trying to hide what I was doing multiple times for some reason and went off about how I was trying to miss-lead people with my changeset comments. Undid revision 966615420 by Robert McClenon (talk)Which made no sense. Really, most of the interaction seemed like an attempted character assassination or something on his part. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't want to be accused of arrogance and hypocrisy then stop behaving with arrogance and hypocrisy. Kyteto took the time to give a lengthy explanation of how your actions were incorrect without making any personal attack. Read and understand it. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, that's well and good. Except I said already that I did and said multiple he could restore the sources. I'm not sure what's arrogant or hypocritical about agree with the persons and telling them to do what they want. Even if it was though, there's still a civil way to go about things. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted Adamant1 on that article. It's never smart to remove good sources, even if it is trivial, when an article is at AFD. They are smart enough to filter the wheat from the chaff there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, except like I said I removed the sources before I did the AfD. So, I don't know what your talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Removing reliable sources then sending it to AFD is no different than sending it, then removing them. Your Jedi mind tricks don't work around here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: it's a silly thing to edit war over, especially when it's clear that it's an edit-war rather than 3RR (meaning your two reverts would stil be considereed warring). the AfD will see that it all comes out in the wash, one way or another. ——Serial ^# 12:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I think the links provided support the conjecture that you have been casting aspersions. Maybe you're just tetchy today or something, but you are coming across as bellicose. We do edit articles at AfD, BTW. Generally we seek to rescue if possible. As has been noted, removing cites looks like the opposite of WP:BEFORE. If an article is to sink on the shoals of AfD, let her go down with flags flying and brightwork polished. Don't see much here to do of an admin nature-- Block/Protect/Delete --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I never claimed I didn't cast aspersions. Just that it wasn't proportional to or in the same nature as Kyteto's and that he didn't called out for his casting of them while I did. Like I said in my original message I would have been fine letting it go if Ahunt hadn't of came along and chastised me for it without doing the same to Kyteto or saying it was cool for him to do because he's been here awhile. I'm perfectly fine with someone saying my tone could have been better, I'm not fine with me being the only one that gets called out for it though when Kyteto clearly did the same thing. The excuse of long-term membership by El_C wasn't a good way to approach it either. Also, what was bellicose about saying he could restore the sources if he wanted to? He was the one that didn't and continued the argument instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

When referring to Ahunt and Kyteto, Adamant1 wrote: Re sock puppeting. It doesn't matter if you are "individual people." "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. So, I warned Adamant1 that those two users are editors in good standing who may edit and comment as they see fit. I also warned him not to WP:HOUND Kyteto, but instead use ANI for any pattern of problems they may identify. This report is not what I had in mind. Needless to say, I stand by that warning, even if I did let Adamant1 have the last word (at length). Which obviously wasn't enough. But that very lengthy discussion on Kyteto's talk page, that clearly needed to end sooner rather than later. El_C 15:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I have zero problem with you saying Kyteto can edit how he sees fit because he's a long-term member (although I think that's questionable when it comes to edit warring). My problem is with the part that he can "comment" however he wants due to it. Which your not addressing in your message. My original comment about sockpuppeting has nothing to do with it and seems like a whataboutism. I was just explaining to him why I had reverted him and Ahunt in the first place, because at the time I felt like they were working together to slant the AfD in a certain direction. So I'm not sure how it's relevant. It has nothing to do with or justifies him calling me arrogant or hypocritical multiple times . Let alone you not calling him out for doing so. When you where fine calling me out. It's completely ridiculous to act like there's a connection between me explaining myself and him saying I was an arrogant hypocrite, or that there was no reason to say anything to him because of it. It just shows he wasn't willing to accept my explanation and continued badgering me. Which you fully should have said something about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, I'll focus my warnings as I see fit. You are welcome to bring that up to review, which you have done with this report, but I would suggest, again, that you move on from this and take my warning to heart. El_C 19:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a very good way to handle this. I think it's fair to request that you be more balanced and fair in how you focus your warnings and to bring it up when you aren't. Telling me to just move on when I'm bringing up what I think is a legitimate complaint about how you dealt with something is rather muh IMO. Especially since you suggested on Kyteto's talk page that I file complaint if felt like things weren't settled or that otherwise I'd be violating WP:HOUND by continuing it. I can't bring it up for review like you told me to do and also move on from it at the same time. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, I don't know what muh is, but this is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. If you're unable to move on from this, that is on you and not to your credit, I challenge. El_C 21:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I note that despite the original poster's verbosity above we still haven't been given any diffs of personal attacks, rather than valid criticism of edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your talking about. I included the diffs of personal attacks in my first message, at the end of the third line. I'm not sure how I was being verbose either. I thought we were suppose to explain things and people keep miss quoting me, or saying I didn't say things that I did (like with you). So, I felt the need to be more detailed. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)--Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have read the diffs that you provided in your first message and still can't see any personal attacks there. Can you please quote the particular sentence(s) involved which contained personal attacks, rather than criticism of edits? And they were both edits by Kyteto, but you also complained about El_C. How about some diffs for that complaint? Phil Bridger (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Re quotes, for Kyteto

• "You're hear complaining about being reverted several times, but you've done it to me in the same timeframe at more than double the frequency, so it comes off as hypocritical, in my opinion - the fact that you compound that with the justification of "bad edits" also comes off as arrogant."
• "hiding that deletion under the euphemism of 'fixing' is underhanded,"
• "I find it deceptive to be removing the autogenerated Undid revision xxxxxxx by yyyyyy from your edit summaries, as if you're trying to obfuscate your reversion actions from the log,"
• "either your latest version of events is a lie, or your edit summary was, they cannot be both true. False narratives indeed,"
• "you value your own opinions and actions to a higher level than diametrically identical actions being performed by others," "I'm sure you'd be mystified if I suddenly started telling you about the actions of random editors and how their actions should be transposed onto you; in such a circumstance I am certain you'd be unhappy. Again, a double-standard,"
• "my takeaway from this is that your belief is, that when you edit content that's not the same, it 'doesn't count', but when I edit content that's not the same, you're counting it differently? Sounds like a hypocritical approach to me." Etc etc. All that is from only a few messages to.

With El_C the main thing was him saying "Adamant1, a warning: like Kyteto, Ahunt is an editor is good standing. They are entitled to comment as they see fit. Please do not cast aspersions." When Kyteto was the one casting aspersions as I've quoted him here as doing. Which El_C didn't call him out for. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• These aren't personal attacks, they are criticisms. If you can't handle disagreement or criticism, you're not going to have a good time at Wikipedia. Personal attacks are along the lines of "You are an asshat" or "You're a fucking idiot". Those would be actual attacks. Commenting on your actions is, well, commenting on your actions. There is nothing actionable here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how what he said was "criticisms" or how the distinction matters anyway. WP:PA says personal attacks involve "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." So, I assume saying things like I was using changesets comments to hide my reverts, that I was lying, and that I have a hypocritical approach to this whole thing would qualify as personal attacks. No guideline anywhere, WP:PA, WP:AGF, or otherwise says bad behavior is just confined to saying someone is a fucking idiot. Him saying I was using changeset comments to hide things isn't just a disagreement either. I'm totally fine with someone disagreeing with me or commenting on my actions. That wasn't all he was doing though. Also, if what he said is just normal stuff that people on Wikipedia have to tolerate I don't see why El_C would have ever called me out for casting aspirations. It's kind of a weird double standard to argue that what Kyteto said was normal criticism that I just deal with, but then to also claim El_C calling me out for casting aspersions was legitimate and the appropriate thing to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, I'm a lot more sensitive to aspersions about socking than I am about some jabs that are lightly interspersed in a very lengthy discussion thread. Especially when these are borderline, at best. Also, do you not see a problem with the manner in which you engaged this very report? My sincere hope is that you will be able to draw some lessons from this. Please rely more on your critical faculties and introspect. El_C 16:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, quit casting aspirations and just wallow in the mud with the rest of us. Grandpallama (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Aspiration effect in casting: [86] --T*U (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hope this does not turn into Aspiration pneumonia from mud wallowing --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring over canvassing notifications

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

---

Can somebody please help impart some clue to Leemsj2075 (talk · contribs)? He's fresh off a 72-hour block for edit-warring and has been edit-warring again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea to reinstate a rather blatantly inappropriate canvassing "come and help" note for an RfC at Talk:Liancourt Rocks. I normally act as an uninvolved admin on those pages and would have blocked, but in the particular RfC in question I registered an opinion, so I won't do it on this occasion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't want to make edit warring. Because I have been blocked by this reason. But the things that need to fix, must be fix. I want to solve this problem by discussion not edit warring. --Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 12:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

And also I say I never meant to cause an edit warring. --Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 12:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It is actually quite easy to avoid edit warring: You just don't do it! And certainly not by repeatedly reinserting an inappropriate canvassing note against the advice of other editors (plural). --T*U (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Hi, The3Kittens has on the Chutti TV article made this threat, They're also edit warring over the content but figured the threat was far more important, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for that edit. Not to mention they were heading that way for the constant edit warring, however the legal threat was enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, Many thanks RickinBaltimore for your swift actions here, I don't think I've ever seen someone be blocked that quick before! :), Anyway thanks again for your help it's much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Turning article talk page into personal attacks platform

• Boris Malagurski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to report this section of Talk:Boris Malagurski, as User:Mikola22 and User:EdJohnston are turning the article talk page into a platform for attacking me, making accusations against me, simply because of my interest in Boris Malagurski related topics.

--UrbanVillager (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Whilst true the correct place to discus you actions is not on an articles talk page, but here. I am also not sure you wanted to draw attention to this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not an attack on you. I was interested in what Wikipedia rules say about this. It seems as you editing article instead of Boris Malagurski. You are interested in him and there is no problem with that. I didn’t know it was allowed, now I know. Mikola22 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Recently (July 4) I put full protection on the Boris Malagurski article due to edit warring. The dispute was whether three tags ought to be kept on the article: for COI, autobiography and NPOV. On 1 July UrbanVillager removed the three tags as part of the edit war. The thread on article talk is intended to reach agreement on whether the three tags should be kept. One of the issues to be resolved is if the 'COI' tag is justified. Apparently the claimed COI is about UrbanVillager. If he would prefer not to have the discussion about him on article talk, then I can relocate it to WP:COIN and then link to it from the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to request that an administrator other than User:EdJohnston assesses this incident, as EdJohnston is involved in the incident. I'd also like to add that this isn't the first time users are personally attacking me on the Boris Malagurski talk page because of my interest in Boris Malagurski related topics -- Previously, User:Santasa99 created a section titled Editor Urban Villager. My edits on articles are NPOV and I add facts without inputting a single bit of my personal POV, while I do my very best to find reliable sources for every single sentence that I add to any article. On the other hand, I see users coming with very strong opinions on Boris Malagurski and his work, as evident on the article talk page as well as the talk pages of Malagurski's films, and then attacking me for being one of the few constructive editors of the article. As for the removal of the tags, there was no consensus for adding the tags, but User:Santasa99 started an edit war over them. I'm not sure why EdJohnston protected the articles after User:Santasa99's revert, thus leaving the tags protected before consensus is reached on whether they should be added, but Wikipedia:Wrong Version is a great excuse for that. I see EdJohnston tried to remedy the fact that he added 2,600 characters of personal attacks against me, mentioning several other users as if he's trying to invite them to continue the attacks and accusations against me, by suggesting that maybe this isn't the place to discuss this, and that the witch hunt against me should continue elsewhere. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm going to limit this to conversation on that talk page only, as I'm not up to go research vague claims about past actions without diffs. What I see is Mikola22 asking a question about a COI regarding you on the talk page of the very article the COI would cover. Not a comfortable discussion, and perhaps better asked at WP:COIN but it is the 2nd best place to ask. EdJohnston, who is an admin and we assume knowledgeable about these things, answer it in detail, spelling out the history without injecting his own opinion, except to say he probably would have closed with the same result (no action). When pressed further on this issue, the first words out of Ed's mouth (keyboard) was "In my opinion, if there is a need for a longer COI discussion it should take place over at WP:COIN. " In short, I'm sure it is uncomfortable for you, but I can't see any issue with EdJohnston's actions, which were quite neutral. It would have been better if Mikola22 simply went to WP:COIN to start with, but it would have been worse if he had come to WP:ANI, where we are now. Again, I don't see any obvious bad faith. In the future, he will likely know where to go. I don't see any policy violation, even if the discussion was started in a less than optimal place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• There is no "personal attacks", there is expressed concerns on suspicion that your editing is in COI, and as it happened, I misread COI and COIN instruction regarding sequence of appropriate steps, that should be taken before formal report is filed, so instead of initiating discussion on your TP I started it on article TP. However, I admitted my mistake there, but conversation has already commenced and you have taken part in it, without complain. But when EdJohnston decided to protect the page it suddenly became a problem, and you resorted to generating suspicion regarding Edjohnston's involvement and actions.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the principle of neutrality has been broken and I can see why UV is filling like he/she has been attacked - there is no more than ample evidence (plus the general style used) on the TP. There is no breathing space for people to discuss in good faith, not to mention that the RfC was started after an edit war, which was followed by report/s, all of which included the same mediator. The last comment on the TP suggests that the fellow editor UrbanVillager is a targeted for massive hounding and dirt digging, or that's my impression at least?! [87] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Fake allegations by user from multiple accounts

• Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pixel Lupus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• XxPixel WarriorxX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user from multiple accounts disturbing and targeting me with fake allegations on my talk page without any proof or explanation please take a review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytpks896 (talk • contribs)

I note that all of these accounts are declared as operated by the same person on Pixel Lupus's userpage (though it also says that Tylertoney Dude perfect is no longer used, which is self-evidently not true). Tylertoney Dude perfect/Pixel Lupus/XxPixel WarriorxX/whatever you want to be called, Ytpks896 is permitted to remove your comments from your talk page and has indicated that they do not want you to post to their talk page - please respect that. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok Now my part of the story, You may see that I said I do not operate Tylertoney Dude Perfect but my main account XxPixel WarriorxX is lost now and I could not log in so I needed to use another account if I wanted to edit Wikipedia so I used Tylertoney Dude Perfect. Done with this fact and now about Fake Allegations (Allegations- A type of Blame out on a person if the person that puts found him guilty) So practically I did not put allegation on him. Yeah..Yeah I know you will say about Neutrality and all so understand his edits centred Pakistan and I found Many Unfair on India's side and mostly for Sensitive and Disputed regions so I left a message saying whenever you edit keep mindset of both sides before editing that he actually did not follow according to me(Proofs I will give you)that is what I said. OK.Pixel Lupus (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• You say you don't operate it, yet you did use it to post on your page, along with your main account. Since you don't use it, I assume you have no problem if I just block the Tylertoney Dude Perfect and XxPixel WarriorxX so we don't have this problem (confusion) in the future? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)Unless I'm missing something, this is bizarre. Firstly, if Pixel Lupus doesn't control those accounts, then the obvious question is, who does? Secondly, if in fact, they are theirs and that was an erroneous statement, then using three different accounts to warn another editor about the same issue has got to be about as blatant a misapplication of WP:VALIDALT in a long time. ——Serial ^# 16:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

At least you all can talk to me at my talk page if you have any doubts, All the three accounts ate mine only, By that statement I meant that I used XxPixel WarriorxX and Tylertoney Dude Perfect was inactive, but My XxPixel WarriorxX got lost so I started using Tylertoney Dude Perfect and about Pixel Lupus it is a account which I use when my accounts are unavailable cause they are at different phones so when they are Unavailable then I use this. Understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• This user creating lots of confusion and making erroneous statements they also reverting my edits from different accounts and warning me from different account, I hope this user's other accounts must be blocked.

As long as you are correct I may support you but if you are not then I must not. I never have reverted any edit of except one: 1.) Kashmir Conflict Map which you.. You.. Reverted of ABHIMAN 19 and was a correct map so I added on his behalf cause he was blocked.. Thanks to you... For that..

Case is Different here:

2.) Afghanistan you.. You.. Reverted my edit stating it was not a good source so I agreed and went for a search for a good reliable source...

So pretty much.... I have defied your claims from your recent edits here...Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Pixel Lupus unlike Dennis Brown I'm not as nice. I find your use of two different accounts in one section here disruptive and confusing. So I blocked the lost account and the one you claim you are not using. If another admin feels like unblocking one or both of the alternate accounts feel free. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I just had all this rope and wanted to see how he was going to hang himself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and Pixel Lupus, if you do that again with multiple accounts, you can expect to be blocked for socking. Declaring alt accounts doesn't give you carte blanche to use them to unnecessarily cause confusion. If fact, you have to have an alt account, may I suggest "Pixel Lupus (alt)". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(Alt) what is that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixel Lupus (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Pixel Lupus, 'alt' it is an abbreviation for 'alternative' - it's a way of showing that two accounts are controlled by the same person. I don't really understand why you think it necessary to have multiple accounts to edit from multiple devices - I edit from several devices using this account. If there is some overriding reason why you can't do that, ensure that any other accounts are a variation on your existing username. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

User Redirecting Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe to Christopher Langan without consensus on talk page.

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

---

Back in 2006 two articles were written on the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe. They didn't pass AfD at the time. One was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive_Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe (without the hypen) and the other was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe. The later was redirected to Christopher Langan, the author of the CTMU. Since 2006 more as been written about the CTMU and I believe it deserves a shot at passing the GNG as determined by a consensus of editors on Wikipedia as the version that I've written. Instead of nominating the new version for AfD and having the appropriate discussion ජපස is replacing it with the redirect back to Christopher Langan and arguing for a request for comment on the topic of the new version of the article. I don't believe an RfC addresses this appropriately as (1) the consensus that was reached in 2006 was on entirely different version of the article (2) all of the sources in the 2020 version were published after 2006 (3) I see no evidence that the editors involved in the decision 14 years ago are still active on this article.

If ජපස believes the article is non-notable, I believe the appropriate action to take is an AfD. If there is an AfD, I'll respect whatever the outcome of the AfD is. - Scarpy (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Scarpy, please review and observe WP:ONUS. The longstanding version of the page has been as a redirect, for many years. Gain the consensus if you wish it to be otherwise. El_C 04:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a mainspace content dispute and I am doubtful that it belongs at ANI. That said, I would note that the last major discussion of this took place in 2006. An argument could be made that the 2006 discussion and consensus may be stale and due for a review. All of which said, this is not the forum for that discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem what would be the forum for that discussion? - Scarpy (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C I would ask the same question. What would the appropriate forum for changing consensus on this point be when none of the editors that determined it in 2006 are active on the topic. You're talking about something that's 14 years old. - Scarpy (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion for an RfC seems reasonable to me. You could also post a neutrally worded alert to the discussion on the talk pages of relevant wiki projects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur. El_C 04:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - Scarpy (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Chris Tomic

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

This edit to Idris Elba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) neatly encapsulates the problem with Chris Tomic's editing: It doesn't matter what he himself describes himself as. A criminal in a court of law describes himself/herself as innocent; THAT DOES NOT MEAN however that HE OR SHE IS INNOCENT IN ACTUAL FACT. Ethnicity is a definition, not a description or self-chosen identity. It assertts not only that English is an ethnicity (a tendentious claim), but that it is only an ethnicity and not a nationality (which is doubly tendentious). It uses an analogy of criminality to assert that a black man somehow cannot be English, which at best is profoundly tone deaf. It is worth noting here that Elba was born in Hackney, which is within the sound of Bow Bells. Not only is he English, he's a Cockney! Anyway, I think Chris Tomic's edits are sufficiently disturbing that they mnay warrant a topic ban from the topics of nationality, race or ethnicity. Guy (help!) 09:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've had a quick look through Chris Tomic's recent contributions. They returned from something of an editing hiatus earlier this year; since then, the majority of his edits have been related to the nationality of subjects - they're either unexplained changes from English/Welsh to British (e.g. this, this and this), changing a nationality to reflect ethnicity (e.g. this), or discussing nationality on talk pages (e.g. Talk:Niko Bellic). Randomly spot-checking some of their older contribs from before the hiatus, their interests seemed more diverse, but I did come across this and this which are about the subjects' Jewish heritage; the whole area of ethnicity seems to be of particular interest to them. I agree with JzG's conclusion that some of their recent comments are at best reprehensibly tone-deaf. Chris Tomic is currently blocked for edit warring at Idris Elba in the face of an obvious consensus at BLPN; if their first edit upon the expiration of the block is not a statement at this thread along the lines of "Oh my goodness, I'm so sorry, I've said some really stupid things; I will now carefully read MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:OPENPARABIO and WP:UKNATIONALS and ensure that I don't make any more changes that aren't fully compliant with all three", then I would support a TBAN from this whole area. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible breach of edit restrictions

Das osmnezz is subject to editing restrictions not allowing them to create BLPs directly into article space- the notice for it is at the top of their talkpage. However, they created List of foreign English Non-League players, a list consisting almost entirely of living people. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says that "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.", therefore I believe this list is a BLP according to that page. Thus, according to that definition of BLP, Das osmnezz has broken their edit restrictions. Pinging Ad Orientem as the admin who enforced these edit restrictions in 2017. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Those editing restrictions seem to be withdrawn. Reyk _YO! 14:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Didn't notice that. However, they first created this article in article space in February 2019, which would still be a violation. And if this is the standard of articles they're going to be producing, then maybe the restrictions were correct to be in place. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• If that's the case then I'd guess this article was known to Ad Orientem when they decided to unban. But let's see what AO says about it. Reyk _YO! 14:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. A few points. I have provisionally lifted the editing restrictions based on a gradual improvement in their article creation. To date he has created over 700 articles. Most of those are stubs but clearly do pass GNG and cleared AfC. I was not aware of this list, but the BLP and general quality concerns raised appear valid to me. Regards the breach of editing restrictions; it's possible he may not have understood that the list was covered in those restrictions (I don't think English is their first language). In any event the breach is from a year and a half ago, so I am inclined to treat this as stale sans evidence that it is part of a pattern of behavior. As far as I can tell he was pretty good about abiding by the restrictions and I am aware of only one other breach, which was minor and treated as a no harm no foul event. Having said this, I am not at all impressed by this list and may chime in at the AfD. I would very much like Das osmnezz to join us here, acknowledge the concerns raised above and assure us that this is not going to be the sort of thing we can expect in the future. Lastly, I would caution Das osmnezz, formally, that editing restrictions can be reinstated if sloppy editing and/or questionable page creation starts to become a recurring problem. We all make mistakes and even experienced editors have had pages they created deleted. But I don't want to see this becoming a pattern. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Sulfurboy:... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is really stupid. That was created in mainspace back in 2019, probably accidentally, and moved back to mainspace on 3 July. There's a reasonable argument that the article wasn't directly about a BLP, and it's so far back that it's not an urgent issue. This should have been dealt with back then, but I don't support any further sanctions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• I second what SportingFlyer states. AO pinged me to this as I recommended to them that the restrictions on Das be lifted. I have reviewed a few dozen of their articles via the AfC process and all passed notability guidelines with flying colors. Trying to nitpick on some year and a half old list article is a case of WP:DEADHORSE Sulfurboy (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Spam-only account

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

---

Status:     Done

• BALA YESU SCHOOL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Spam-only account, soft blocked. Change to hard block because it is a spam-only account and username violates policy as promotional. I tried submitting this to WP:AIV, but it got removed by a bot. –User456541 14:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

User456541, the account was blocked by the (very experienced) admin who declined their draft article - I trust that Deepfriedokra took the account's contributions into account when deciding on what type of block to apply. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Post close reply on block of BALA YESU SCHOOL--

Reblocked by Deb as a SPAMU. Which is fine. SPAMU places obstacles to article creation, so I went with SOFTER block and a COI notice. The subject may or may not turn out to be notable. Actually, it would have been better, User456541, to discuss with me before taking the matter to WP:AIV or here. Also, as this concerned an action I took, it would have been nice to have been notified me of this discussion. I also chose SOFTER in an effort to be less bitey. There has been a concern with driving good faith editors away with overly enthusiastic blocks. Yes, a SPAMU block is acceptable under policy. I just did not feel it necessary. That Deb changed it is fine, though. We all have different thresholds and different sensibilities. (I used to only block possible VOA's for a week. A certain other admin kept changing them to INDEF.) ANd I've made it clear over the years that changing an admin action of mine is at the discretion of any other admin. Oh good grief, I just saw the "vandal" label on the template. So much for WP:AGF. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see I did not delete the draft. It was tagged by OP. Once again, different sensibilities and threshold. The draft did not meet my threshold for WP:G11. Promotional tones, but I did not see it as "unambiguously promotional". That Deb deleted it is, once again fine. However, I don't see a single errant attempt to create an article as sufficient to brand a new user as a "spam only" account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I guess we've pretty much given up on explaining how WP works to newbies before blocking them. This is what we do to some kid who dared to make two misguided but good faith edits, with no edits after the first message on their talk page, in draft space, about their school. To be clear, those messages weren't after they continued to edit; they all came after they made their two edits. The hard block was a nice touch. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  I shall increase my efforts to welcome and warn. Yes, I know we are all tired, burned out, and sometimes COVID-adled (waves hand). Sometimes the easy thing is not the best thing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm being too harsh and snarky, sorry. I think I'm less annoyed that you and Deb did what you did, and more annoyed that this seems to be what almost everyone is doing these days to almost all newbies in similar situations. I mean, a rename was obviously needed eventually, and that's the standard template, and there were links to the teahouse, so this all seems like SOP. But if I was a newbie faced with a user talk page like that, after just two good-faith (if misguided) edits, with two different (contradictory) block notices at the bottom, including one that says I have to convince an admin that I'm not a spammer before I'm allowed to create a new username, I'd just throw up my hands and walk away. You don't need to increase your efforts so much as we need to increase our efforts. We have to figure out a way to differentiate between actual spammers, and new editors who don't know any better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar

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

Belteshazzar is an editor with just under 7,000 edits, of which at least 200 relate to Bates method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) either directly or indirectly. His advocacy of fringe content at that article has been going on for over a year, and his vigorous talk page advocacy for at least four months, including not just WP:FRINGE material but also sources that fail RS (and especially MEDRS), blatant WP:SYN and more. As he himself added to WP:IDHT, "if you obstinately stick with one argument for too long, other editors might then assume that anything else you advocate for is wrong." He is a disruptive presence at that article and shows no sign of dropping the stick. I request that he be topic banned from articles related eyesight. Guy (help!) 16:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, or you can save everyone some time and just AE ban that topic area per WP:ARBPS. I would support. El_C 16:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

We've already discussed taking Belteshazzar to ArbEnf. There's no need for discussion here. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"over a year" is misleading, as I edited very rarely until March of this year.

Please note that I asked an optometrist for help, which I obviously wouldn't do if I were advocating for the Bates method. (He has not yet responded, probably because he knows of no better sources.)

Most recently, I simply tried to more accurately reflect the source and sources it cites, which say there is sometimes an improvement of more than two lines in acuity from the initial blur after glasses are removed. That would seem to be more than "slight". Belteshazzar (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Primal Groudon and OR

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

User is continuing to add original research to articles despite warnings at Book of Ruth and Book of Joshua (e.g., here and here). How their own analysis of Biblical text constituted OR was explained to them late last year at Talk:Book of Ruth#Original research by multiple other editors. I just dropped a final warning on their talk page, but another attempt was made to add the same text back. (They've also now made a 4th revert at Book of Joshua too as I'm writing this). There are some other indications in their editing history that suggest that they're unwilling or unable to cite sources. It might be time for some sanctions here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Now you're lying about the number of reverts and the fact that my edits weren't original research? How despicable. Primal Groudon (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You've now made 3 at Book of Ruth, and 4 at Book of Joshua. My original post had the wrong one at 4, and I've since corrected that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

In reality, I'v only made two on each. Primal Groudon (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Here are now the 5 reverts at Book of Joshua: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92] and 3 at Book of Ruth: [93], [94], [95] (not even including the initial edit which was to re-introduce material that you were trying to add to the article several months ago). Insisting that something isn't a revert in an edit summary doesn't make it so.–Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• After a long break, Primal Groudon recently returned to editing Wikipedia. Today they made their first edit after the break. They do appear to be restarting the campaign of original research about Bible topics that they were warned about previously, in December 2019. Unless they agree to stop, I suggest a block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked. Some very strange edit summaries from Primal Groudon, claiming their reverts on Book of Joshua aren't violations of 3RR "as this edit isn't a revert". Instead they believe it's "the vandalism that constantly reverts me" that violates 3RR. I'm baffled, but I suppose a highly AGF explanation could be that they don't understand, or have not seen, the definition of a revert: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". They don't seem to understand, or know, the "whether in whole or in part" part. And are unwilling to learn — the "How despicable" above is not promising. Anyway, they have now reverted Book of Joshua five times in less than an hour [sic], with those kinds of aggressive and IDHT edit summaries, and are also edit warring to insert original research in Book of Ruth. I have blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring. It's a pretty short block considering the disruption, but then it's their first. Bishonen | tålk 19:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC).

WP:NOTHERE, WP:RGW and WP:STICK

LéKashmiriSocialiste, who was indeffed per WP:NOTHERE then unblocked upon promises to engage in better behavior,[96] is here mainly for engaging in POV pushing as he refers all American and Indian sources as "biased" because "United States government is an anti-communist and anti-Chinese government".[97] Clearly he is engaging in WP:RGW.

He is failing to drop WP:STICK as well. He was rightfully blocked for 1 week for edit warring as he made more than 4 reverts over same content, and since the expiry of the block he has continued to attack admin Yamla with words like "do they allow dictators like you?... how does it feel to be abusing power and beating someone to near death over a lost penny"[98], "Yamla here recklessly and harshly blocked for mere 2 reverts",[99] even after being to stop it. But he remains hostile to users.[100] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Religious POV pushing and personal attacks

• Sanjoydey33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User appears to be pushing a narrative suggesting that events from Hindu mythology were historical. During the last week alone, they twice removed or replaced the word "mythology" in section titles which discuss Hindu gods.[101][102] In the second case, they justified their actions by directly stating that it was due to their personal belief that a medieval chronicle with heavy mythological elements was a "true history". In a later discussion with me, they justified the removal of sourced content in another article because they saw it as contradicting two-thousand-year-old religious texts and mythological epics.[103] When I said how problematic such a rational was,[104] they launched a series of personal attacks against me, accusing me of "Hinduphobia" and having an "Islamic supremacist agenda".[105]

Note that I have twice warned them that their actions constituted a potential violation of WP:RNPOV,[106][107] though this has apparently been ignored.
Alivardi (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Accusations of "Hinduphobia" and "Islamic supremacist agenda" over editing disagreements are completely unacceptable, and so is treating ancient texts as "true history". Unfortunately the user has not received a discretionary sanctions alert since 2018, or I would have considered a lengthy topic ban. As it is, I've blocked them for a week. (And given them a DS alert for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.) Bishonen | tålk 19:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC).

vandal-only account

User account Real phil rudd was created on 2020-07-04 and since that time 100% of their edits have been unconstructive. Multiple warnings over a period of several days have done nothing to stop this behaviour. Sanctions might get the message across. SolarFlash^Discussion 20:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed as NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride: Annual accusations of bias

If others have feedback to offer at Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Loves_Pride#Bias, by all means. I'm over it. You lost me at 'Wiki Loves Domestic Violence'.

Wiki Loves Pride is an annual campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content across Wikimedia projects, among other goals such as making the editing community more inclusive and working with LGBT-related institutions. I've helped organize this campaign for several years now, and each year I get to read comments about how the campaign does not comply with Wikipedia's neutrality standards, see a stream of disparaging (if not hateful) comments on Wikipedia's Facebook page after sharing anything LGBT/Wiki Loves Pride, and even sometimes receive hateful messages in my email inbox.

If editors have constructive feedback about the campaign, or can think of improvements to project pages so I don't have to read these same comments every year (some sort of banner or FAQ or something?), I invite you to share thoughts on the talk page.

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've hatted that noxious mess per WP:NOTFORUM. Sorry you have to put up with this sort of abusive nonsense - goes with the territory on Wikipedia these days, I'm afraid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

For edits such as this, this, and the final warning they received, I have blocked Somua35 for this edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

NitinMlk

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

Dear Wikipedia admins,a user named NitinMlk, is targeting biography BLP pages in name of caste factor continuously.He belongs to a particular caste 'Jat' himself and is trying to spoil all genuine history articles in pursuit of vandalism. His pattern of spoiling articles is uniform and always targetted against biographies,BLP of all castes of India, expect his own.Almost all times he doesn't even read the references provided and simply modifies all articles and mentions his particular caste in all articles. Respected, admins I urge you to monitor such racist and casteist users like NitinMlk and keep Wikipedia free platform for all well-sourced content.

Thanks & Regards 27.255.238.114 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP who opened this discussion did not inform NitinMlk of its opening. I have left them a note on their talk page informing them of the thread. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• "He doesn't read the references"? This revert you made of Nitinmlk actually contains no sources at all, as one webcite saying a book exists isn't actually a source, and the other paragraph has no source at all, so unless I hear a good reason why your version is superior, I'm going to revert it as well. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please revdel edit summary containing offensive, ableist personal attack from User:John Maynard Friedman

• Diff.

Please revdel the edit summary only, which contains an ableist personal attack from User:John Maynard Friedman, in direct contravention to Wikipedia:No personal attacks § What is considered to be a personal attack?Nᵒ1, under WP:CRDNᵒˢ2 & 3.

I did not see this slur when I wrote out Special:PermaLink/966743960 (see very bottom of page), only later did I see it in the edit summary. That edit summarizes the controversy before I discovered this edit summary.

An image of me showing my height (File:Fredrick Brennan selfie.jpg) is on my user page. My user page also links to the article here about me which features the same image in the first sentence, as well as a link to a 12 May 2020 ANI discussion proving it's me. I am 26 years old. I am not a teenager and certainly no longer a boy. I have osteogenesis imperfecta which caused my congenital, permanent dwarfism.

[L]ittle boy, along with little man, is most commonly directed at me by QAnon people and 8chan users I've angered by campaigning for 8chan to be closed. In fact, they usually use the softer little man, but John Maynard Friedman has here gone for the harshest form of this insult, implying I'm immature due to being a dwarf. Other editors should get the message that this will not be tolerated. It is a clear-cut personal attack. Amazingly, he has the chutzpah to declare my good faith attempt at an olive branch through humor a "provocation", and then decides to call a dwarf a little boy. If my olive branch and improving Wiktionary, which I would have done anyway, is a personal attack, I'll accept chastisement or sanction. But I will not accept editors mocking my disability, and he should immediately apologize.

I cannot request an apology from him as it could be seen as Wikipedia:Harassment because he requested a voluntary WP:IBAN. And, I don't think just an apology is enough. The community should know about this behavior. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As EEng said, there are better ways to sort this out than going to ANI. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have revdeleted the offending edit summary. We aim to be inclusive to the utmost on Wikipedia. Any mocking of one's disability will be responded to most harshly. That said, I can't tell if that was the intent here, but I will warn the user against doing so in no uncertain terms. Are you sure you want this report to remain visible, Psiĥedelisto? El_C 00:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to request at least a cursory look at whether there's a boomerang concerning this editor's consistent battleground mentality and disruptive editing at template:Char and its associated TFD. There seems to be a pretty consistent WP:NOT HERE and WP:DE pattern in this user's refusal to edit collaboratively. A couple days ago, it looked like he might be turning over a new leaf by engaging a bit with User:Spitzak, but that seems to have been wishful thinking on my part when I held off on going to ANEW. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, Vanisaac. That is callous. El_C 01:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I see no evidence that JMF engaged in a deliberate reference to this user's condition, which as far as I can see was not mentioned once in the buildup to the offending edit. And although it was clearly a violation of NPA, it's not like it just came out of nowhere. I disengaged because of OP's disruptive and uncollaborative approach, but bringing this matter here feels more like an attempt to game the system to retaliate against an editor that disagrees with him than anything else. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I think we should block Friedman until we get a satisfactory answer. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop-gap block on image competition editor please

I thought the Do's and Don'ts of that abominable image spamming competition had been communicated to participants by now, but obviously not. Could an admin please apply the brakes to Ababio70 while I clean up their trail of duplicates (argh), random keyword matches (argh), and nonsensical captions (argh). They don't seem to notice comments on their talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Shame we can't do more with Filter 1073 here, the editors that are treating this damn thing properly are simply getting outweighed by the spammers. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, I'm open to suggestions for a warn or throttle variant of the filter if someone can suggest good rules for it. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

POV Editing at The Daily Stormer

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

Soibangla recently added a quote from Andrew Anglin, the founder of the White Supremacist website The Daily Stormer, describing Tucker Carlson as "literally our greatest ally," adding that Tucker Carlson Tonight "is basically 'Daily Stormer: The Show'. Other than the language used, he is covering all of our talking points."[108] The source for these claims was an attack piece posted on Buzzfeed here. I subsequently reverted the edit here citing BLP, UNDUE and NPOV. Soibangla questioned my reversion in a talk page discussion which can be found here.

Soibangla's initial edit, and the cited source, appear to be a fairly transparent attempt to paint Mr. Carlson, a controversial political talk show host, as being an ally of White Supremacists. The fact the source is a naked attack piece from a website that has been frequently the subject of criticism at WP:RSN, and is without supporting coverage from other sources is also highly problematic. The talk page discussion suggests that Soibangla does not grasp some of our more important policies that deal with posting highly negative claims about persons who are protected by BLP. Under even the most benevolent interpretation of their edit and the subsequent discussion, I believe serious concerns exist regarding their general competence to be editing subjects of a highly sensitive and controversial nature and am seriously considering calling for a topic ban from American Politics (post 1932). -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, both the WP:AWARE criteria of BLP and AP2 have been satisfied. You, as a single admin, may topic ban them accordingly for any length you see fit, including indefinitely, as an AE action. El_C 01:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El C, I am aware of that. However, out of an abundance of caution, I am requesting input from experienced editors before taking any direct action. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Aware of AWARE, you say? Anyway, has there been similar issues like these with this user? Because if so, a topic ban is probably due. El_C 01:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)