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

User:Terjen

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

---

Shortly after being unblocked by User:Dennis Brown, here are some of Terjen's constructive contributions: obvious needling followed by further needling and this dishonest bs; their contribution here is similar. Clearly unblocking was a mistake, as AmPol does not need this kind of shit-stirring. --JBL (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Terjen seems to be a bit of a bull in the china shop but I'm not sure these Talk page comments are so outrageous they're not something that can't be corrected by guidance and counseling. I'm personally of the opinion we need a much wider pattern of behavior before we can say that being mildly passive aggressive on user Talk pages is causing disruption, particularly since it's always within the remit of individual users to restrict other users from their own Talk pages if they find them annoying. The block appears to have been for edits to mainspace so I'm not sure this constitutes a direct continuation of the original problem. That said, it's good JBL noted these issues as no chance of voluntary correction would be possible without wider awareness of an emerging issue. Anyway, just my passing thoughts after looking at this. I defer to others to take or decline action. Chetsford (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Chetsford, an editor has to be open to guidance and counseling before they'll help. I'm not sure that's what I'm seeing. —valereee (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Good point, that's very true. Though, in general, I think if impacted editors simply request offending editors to stop posting to their Talk page per WP:NOBAN we can usually tie these problems up without requiring the application of any editing restrictions. My personal view is that blocks should be used only when every conceivable other alternative has been tried and failed. In the case of these annoying comments to a Talk page, I'm not sure that level of exhaustion has been reached yet in the absence of a NOBAN request. That said, I defer to your and others' judgment. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Awaiting a response by Terjen. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't support a block. Although everyone involved would probably be better off if Terjen spent a week or two editing non-political topics (it's a big encyclopedia), I don't see cause for an admin-imposed AP2 topic-ban. To a certain extent, making insinuations about institutional bias is permitted and constructive, but editors should not make a habit of complaining to new users about their litany of injustices. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• "How come you feel this is offending you?" is indeed dishonest. Bacondrum had good reason to place that template, and Terjen's "warning" essentially tells the warned editor that the warning came from an "activist" and thus is not to be taken seriously, a violation of good faith. One wonders why Terjen didn't place a warning like that under the edit war warning left by Acroterion, in the section below Bacondrum's. Why not, Terjen? Drmies (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

He did, immediately after you raised the issue https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AErlend_Kvitrud&type=revision&diff=1024116423&oldid=1023702066. Is an admin going to action this complaint? The discussion has become really nasty and intractable. I think it is time it was wound up. Bacondrum 01:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This message is the second link in the complaint, posted at 06:12, 20 May 2021, not "immediately after you raised the issue" but hours before. It is discussed further in my response below. Terjen (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected, he appears to have realised the optics were not good, just before you noticed. Bacondrum 03:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I too was concerned that Terjen seemed to be placing advice telling a new editor not to trust whatever processes they encounter here. That just doesn't seem all that helpful. —valereee (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Discussed in my response below. Terjen (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Just adding that Terjen's response to this included this - Terjen had not previously commented on that page, and appeared just to tell another editor to disregard Bacondrum, specifically citing this discussion. I don't feel that's acceptable - overtly dragging a disagreement with an editor onto another page and directly trying to rally another editor against them falls afoul of both WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLEGROUND; that sort of behavior contributes to making disputes intractable. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is misleading and incorrect. I commented on that page May 16, three days before Bacondrum arrived to post this. Terjen (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And that was 8 days after this block was lifted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#1RR_violation_by_User:Terjen_reported_by_User:Bacondrum_(Result:_Blocked_per_AE) So the first time they edited this article was 8 days after this. More bullshitting.

Why do they suddenly appear at all these articles and talk pages that involve me directly after the block. Aquillion is spot on. I want something done about the hounding and battleground behavior - Blind Freddy could see the deceit and harassment going on with this user. They are being deceitful and have even turned much of this discussion into a discussion about everything and anything other than their own shifty behavior. It's also incorrect that I "arrived" at that article after Terjen, I have a long history of contributing to that article, I'm one of top ten contributors in-fact https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Antifa_%28United_States%29 Terjen turned up there for the first time, out of the blue, 8 days after the a block was lifted that involved me, he turned up to hound me, end of story. Bacondrum 00:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum had no comments on the Antifa talk page when I made my first post on May 16, but shows up three days later to post, then claim I am following them around. It makes no sense. Terjen (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Been editing that article and talk page for years and you know it. More bullshitting. Bacondrum 03:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Point of Order Valereee was earlier in the year involved in the ANI blocking of an editor who argued to expand the viewpoints of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, with Bacondrum having raised the complaint. Terjen (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Terjen - going after uninvolved Valereee, who in the diff you provided, wrote I'd appreciate you suggesting the least-restrictive possible solution, is very poor judgment. Rather than establish a conspiracy, this is more likely to backfire on you. starship.paint (exalt) 02:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint I am not "going after" or trying to establish a conspiracy. Admins having a potential conflict should recuse themselves. Hence the point of order. Terjen (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Terjen - Valereee has no conflict of interest from merely posting @Bacondrum, @Newimpartial, can you propose a solution? Are we talking a p-block from article space, or what? I'd appreciate you suggesting the least-restrictive possible solution. She didn't even enact the block. There is no need for her to recuse. starship.paint (exalt) 03:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen, sorry, not enough coffee yet...how does that represent a potential conflict? —valereee (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: No worries, I trust your good judgment. Terjen (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Terjen is WP:NOTHERE

I was just on my way here to launch my own ANI regarding Terjen.

• They started out being super disruptive and edit warring against a very firm consensus at Talk:Boogaloo movement, this went to Arbitration and the Edit warring noticeboard:
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive285#Terjen
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#1RR_violation_by_User:Terjen_reported_by_User:Bacondrum_(Result:_Blocked_per_AE)
• Where they received a block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Terjen#Arbitration_Enforcement

They appealed the block and claimed to have corrected their behavior - admin Dennis Brown accepted them at their word and unblocked them. Terjen then went straight back into more or less the same behavior, simply being more discrete ie: WP:SEALION. going to starship.paint and basically demanding that the now closed discussion that lead tot he block be re-opened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starship.paint#Request_for_reopening_discussion

• They are Gaming the system And appear to be WP:PUSHing their point of view (seems to be having issues contributing constructively with regard to American politics) with WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:Battleground behavior.
• WP:personal attack I then noticed this weird "welcome" where they essentially say I'm an activist and harassing other editors, which is bloody nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erlend_Kvitrud&diff=next&oldid=1023696373 I asked them politely to remove this personal attack and he then throws his hands up like "what me? nah I was just being friendly" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Terjen#Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks which is obviously nonsense. they then go on to make not so subtle accusations of bad faith against Acroterion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erlend_Kvitrud&diff=next&oldid=1023702066k

To summarise, we appear to have a disruptive and tendentious editor who is gaming us and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I think an indef block is the correct response at this time, they have deliberately disrupted, expressed knowledge of what they are doing (and kept doing it anyway), acted in a blatantly battleground manner, attacked other editors tried to game wikipedia etc. If not indefed, they should be blocked from contemporary American Politics (aka AP2). Bacondrum 22:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose indef at this point - I will say I don’t think Terjen was sealioning when they approached me to undo my close. I think Terjen was within their rights to make such a request. I rejected it and Terjen did not press the matter. The sarcasm and criticism at User talk:Erlend Kvitrud and WP:AE is something Terjen should apologise for. However I don’t think it rises to the level of WP:NOTHERE. starship.paint (exalt) 00:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Point of Order I told Terjen I wasn't going to mention anything weird going on here this time, but Bacondrum subsequently made it extra weird by whatever sort of "game" it is where you repeatedly alternate between good cop and bad cop, drag a guy to AN/I on suspicion of being disruptive and cryptic [1], suddenly revert to friendly and apologetic again, withdraw the complaint (simultaneously edit-conflicting the defense) [2][3], then wish one all the best [4], before abruptly telling the same to fuck off [5]. I move to declare his testimony here incredible. Can't paste diffs, sorry, technical issues. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Diffs added above, by myself, because InedibleHulk can't. starship.paint (exalt) 02:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the first or the last to think InedibleHulk's comments and edit summaries were disruptive, I acknowledged I was wrong and withdrew the complaint, made an apology and got this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABacondrum&type=revision&diff=1024245200&oldid=1024244947 some rude cryptic comment about who he does and doesn't like and I told him to "fuck off then", which is fair enough all things considered. This is all illustrates the point that InedibleHulk "colourful" comments and edit summaries are in fact disruptive. Bacondrum 02:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't rude or cryptic, it was plain Canadian English, with the only allusion I suspected you might need an assist with conveniently Wikilinked. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: - I perfectly understood the comment, well, because it was a pro-wrestling reference, he's saying you were going back and forth (which was also stated in the comment). It wasn't rude. He did clearly write: I don't like you and don't dislike you. You don't have a leg to stand on regarding rudeness when you're saying "fuck off then", which is fair enough all things considered. starship.paint (exalt) 03:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, getting told to fuck off was the least of my problems with Bacon, just naturally happened to be the last one. I don't want him to lose any privileges here. Just casting doubt on his claims. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I lost my cool and told old mate to fuck off, this whole discourse is a bit of a joke really - seemed to me that he was being rude or antagonistic, but I can never tell what is meant by his oddball comments. I'm not engaging with this discussion anymore, I have better things to do. Bacondrum 04:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If I can fuck off and leave with you just one solid morsel of food for thought, never conflate a sea lion with a Canadian, whole realer true Northern politeness up here (think harbour seal, if any pinniped must be presumed at all). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Be my guest. Bacondrum 05:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Response by Terjen:

Here are some of the contributions I made shortly after being unblocked earlier in the month:

• Added a new section to the Esequiel Hernández Jr. article.
• Expanded the motive section for the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings article.
• Summarized a Reason article on the confusion surrounding the Death of Brian Sicknick.

The complaint regards messages I posted to Erlend Kvitrud, a relatively new editor with only 85 edits. WP:DNB says we must "treat newcomers with kindness and patience" and reminds us that "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". WP:CIVIL advises us to be careful with user warning templates, in particular to be "careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers ... Consider using a personal message instead of, or in addition to, the templated message."

Bacondrum had posted a warning template to this new editor stating "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia" but did not add a personal message.

I added a friendly welcome message directed to Kviterud:

A belated welcome to Wikipedia! Here is an introduction you may find instructive. Hipp hipp hurra! Terjen (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There are no reasons for Kviterud to find this message offensive, nor are Kviterud part of this complaint. I was puzzled by Starship.paint suggesting it to be "sarcasm and criticism", but realize it may have to do with a misunderstanding about the Hipp hipp hurra! expression: Erlend Kvitrud is Norwegian; The welcome message was posted on their Constitution day when this is a common exclamation. It is not a sarcastic "hurray".

I am of course open to ideas and further discussions about how to better welcome new editors. I made another post to Kviterud emphasizing key processes to follow when editing AP2, much like I would have liked to receive myself when returning to edit AP2, so I could have avoided getting my first block earlier this month.

Bacondrum has refused to articulate why they took the welcome message as a personal offense, and have failed to explain why the welcome message above violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. For them to feel the linked Wikipedia essay on hostile activists implied they are an activist, they must have thought they had been hostile. The warning template they posted hardly qualifies. However, following the link from the template leads to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory talk where Kviterud, despite announcing he is "new to this and still learning", is met with language like this from Bacondrum and others:

• "Please sign your posts (using four tildes) just like everyone else does."
• "NOTFORUM all this general discussion and opinion is disruptive. No one cares what you think of LaRouche or US standards."
• "I am a dyed in the wool Marxist, so you're not exactly ingratiating yourself with other editors here."
• "Literally nobody cares what you think is reasonable"
• "Don’t expect other editors to do your work for you."
• "This is all just your opinion. If you've come here to push your opinions or attack leftists then you are in the wrong place."
• "Erlend Kvitrud, by going with what the sources say, I meant whether they describe him as right wing, not sitting around the dorm with our Libertarian friends and conducting our own research."
• "Erlend Kvitrud Mate, this is not a forum. You are right to give up disrupting this talk page."

Erlend Kvitrud leaves, saying "since your minds seem to be made up, I give up on this one."

JBL participated in the discussion on the Talk page but did not intervene.

Terjen (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: - "criticism" refers to the activist link (among other things), it has nothing to do with "Hipp hipp hurra". Exactly who were you implying to be activists, if you weren't referring to Bacondrum? starship.paint (exalt) 11:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint, what is the point of asking someone to explain obvious, dishonest bullshitting? --JBL (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: - to offer a path of redemption. If we're not interested in at least trying to set things right, we might as well just indef and get it over with. starship.paint (exalt) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for redemption myself, but the response is indeed bullshit. If one feels someone else is being bitten, then a more proper response would be to leave a message on the talk page of the alleged biter, not to discredit them in a pretty sneaky way on the talk page of the bitten. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I too am absolutely for learning from mistakes and correcting behavior. It has to be said though that Terjen certainly is bullshitting. Don't know what to say other than that it appears they are WP:NOTHERE, as I've already said. Bacondrum 23:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Those quotes, many were not me, the ones that were me are offered up here completely out of context in what I believe is a deliberate attempt to mislead...more bullshitting. Bacondrum 00:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is the full context - the same link as posted just above the quotes. Terjen (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: It's a link to the WP:Activist essay, recommended for working in AP2. It doesn't imply that anybody specifically is an activist. Terjen (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't buy that, sorry. starship.paint (exalt) 02:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Assuming good faith may help. Terjen (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty hard to assume good faith when you are not acting in good faith, when you tell bald faced lies. At the end of the day none of us want to see editors indefed, but you cant wage wars against other editors, battle over content etc...and you definitely can't tell blatant lies when you are caught out. Own and change the problematic behavior in a sincere manner and we can all move on knowing it's not going to keep happening. We all want to give you a chance to do better, you need to meet us halfway by not lying, acknowledging what you've done wrong and stop doing it. Bacondrum 08:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum saying I am lying is a serious accusation, requiring serious evidence. Your claims are a breach of WP:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, please refrain from othering. We're all in this together. Terjen (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

you have been lying and continue to do so, as evidenced throughout this report. A number of admins have also said you are “bullshitting” I’d stop bullshitting and come clean if I was you. Bacondrum 09:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

considering you are still lying and clearly acting in bad faith, I’m done trying to help you help yourself. I will no longer respond to dishonest nonsense. Bacondrum 09:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• it should also be noted that Terjen has never edited the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, nor had any interaction with Erlend Kvitrud previously. Evidence that they clearly went through my contributions and launched this shifty attack with intent. Bacondrum 10:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  Erlend Kvitrud had earlier edited the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings article, where I have been a regular contributor. I haven't had much interest in your Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article (or the topic in general) but it seems like it could benefit from representing additional viewpoints. Terjen (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Come on, no body is buying that. A good start would be some honesty. Bacondrum 08:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Says the guy who said he wouldn't interact with me in the future, and drags me to this board (in admitted error) one day and ten minutes later. Says the guy with a Barnstar of Diplomacy on his talk page pledging to be a lot less combative. Opinions like yours change like the weather, but the diffs and other links Terjen shows have firmly matched his claims from the start, consistently, and recent history suggests you may simply be reading something here in a way not intended. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I can give the benefit of the doubt on regarding Erlend Kvitrud's edit overlap with Terjen. What I do find peculiar was Terjen bringing up Swood100's ANI case where Bacondrum and Valereee participated. Swood100 was blocked on 12 January 2021, after edits focused on Cultural Marxism [6]. Terjen resumed editing Wikipedia on 8 January 2021 [7], focused on the storming of the Capitol. Terjen has said that they haven't had much interest in your Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article (or the topic in general). One wonders how did Terjen come across Swood100's ANI case then? starship.paint (exalt) 10:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Val's been overlapping with several of us for years in tangled webs like this, only natural that a bit of due diligence before stepping into the circle with any of us would uncover something of hers in one of our recent histories sooner or later. Not sure where he's going with this COI angle, though. Assuming good faith. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint I came across Swood100's related ANI case while browsing the public archives of this noticeboard. What are you insinuating here? Terjen (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: - I’m puzzled why would you be browsing the public archives of WP:ANI? Seems like a very uncommon thing to do here. Next thing that you’re going to tell me is that for Editors, even admins, that disagree with your POV (including if that's WP:NPOV) may use this to sanction you from having editing privileges - you weren’t referring to any particular editor, or any particular admin, that generated this thought? starship.paint (exalt) 02:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint This falls under casting aspersions. Terjen (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: - that's a bit of a vague response, I suppose you can't be saying that you were casting aspersions, so I suppose you are saying that it is I who am casting aspersions against you? starship.paint (exalt) 05:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• And this, no previous contributions to this article either https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAntifa_%28United_States%29&type=revision&diff=1024095203&oldid=1024075444 Bacondrum 21:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum is making a bald-faced lie when claiming I had made no previous contributions to this article. The evidence is right there on the same Talk page: Just 3 days earlier, I posted several messages starting with an encouragement to represent significant viewpoints. Terjen (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not a liar, I do not lie and take exceptional offense to your completely unfounded claim. I demand it be revoked immediately and with an apology. They had never edited that article before this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#1RR_violation_by_User:Terjen_reported_by_User:Bacondrum_(Result:_Blocked_per_AE) and since then have hounded me around Wikipedia. As several editors and Admins have pointed out, he is bullshitting (ie:lying) it is inconceivable that any editor can take Terjen in good faith. An utterly dishonest editor, hounding me, making unfounded bad faith accusation and gaming us all. At what point does this BS get him indef blocked? Bacondrum 08:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Point of order. What is the reason for InedibleHulk's involvemnet in this discussion? They seem to be here purely to attack me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1024245200&type=revision Bacondrum 03:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  When you showed up to pile on to the original complaint (the literal very next edit after saying you wouldn't interact with "this user"), your "Gaming the system" section pretty much accused me of conspiracy in whatever you think is wrong here. "'Solidarity' or colluding" was how you paraphrased me. Then you linked a discussion between Starship and I, as if it backed whatever now-deleted theory you were pushing before the first three minutes of May 21 (can't paste diffs). Now, I'm just calling you on hypocrisy as I see it. Terjen's May 16 Antifa contribution was before May 20, and doubling down on this lying about his lying just makes you look desperate to hurt someone and bad at math. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

If I said what I actually think of you I'd be indefed. I've nothing more to say. Bacondrum 11:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And if you threatened me with another AN/I report, then changed your mind again while edit conflicting my honest reaction to your calling me disingenuous, you'd be disruptive and wishy-washy. I'd kind of like to still know whether what you deleted at 11:14 today was what you really thought of me, or just pointless bullshit. Not asking, though, "no worries"! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• At this point, it could have been interesting to hear the perspective of the owner of the Talk page where the welcome message was posted. Unfortunately, Erlend Kvitrud has not returned to Wikipedia after the discussions on Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. That's a loss for the project. He is a promising editor and writer. For all the badgering about him attacking leftists[8], not ingratiating himself with the Marxists[9], and sitting around the dorm with his Libertarian friends[10], turns out Kvitrud professes to be a Democratic Socialist of the Scandinavian kind.[11] We need editors like that, not wearing a POV on their sleeves but taking NPOV to heart, willing to stand up against editorial bias and open to significant viewpoints, even those they don't hold themselves. If Kvitrud comes back, I hope I will get a chance to collaborate with him on improving the encyclopedia. Terjen (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I can't really be bothered to carefully sift through each diff and figure out who's the 'worst' in all of this, but reading a couple of the diffs, and equally importantly just the discussion above, I think multiple people could benefit from reviewing WP:BATTLE, starting with the very first sentence: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Difficult to remember in the American politics topic area, I know... ProcSock (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have said absolutely nothing about Terjen's ideological stance, not a word, I have no idea which way he leans politically, and I don't care. We are here because another editor noticed he is hounding me around Wikipedia insinuating that I'm an activist. End of story. All this other stuff is him and his mate trying to get at me and distract from the dishonest and harassing behavior. Bacondrum 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

We're here primarily because of concerns regarding the impacted editor Erlend Kvitrud, owner of User Talk:Erlend Kvitrud where the welcome message and editing advice were posted. Terjen (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

• I was going to try to figure out what this whole wall of text really was, and while I'm not sure I agree that there's nothing here, and I do think Terjen is being at minimum coy, I'm willing to let it go for now. I have to say, Terjen: that 'point of order' diff re: a single comment I made six months ago is to me clear evidence of you following Bacondrum around trying to dig up dirt. And the message on the new editor's user talk wasn't helpful in the least. If you want to leave a helpful message for a new editor, start a discussion like human beings do instead of a cryptic link that looks like you're warning them of some conspiracy. —valereee (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, of course. It is a real mystery to me why anyone is pretending Terjen's behavior has been anything other than an attempt to needle BaconDrum and stir shit -- and now they've been rewarded for their bad behavior. --JBL (talk)

• Bacondrum has vanished from Wikipedia, so that's the end of this conflict. starship.paint (exalt) 13:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Filetime and Providence article images

User:Filetime appears to believe that they have WP:OWNERSHIP of images in articles about Providence, Rhode Island. They have consistently reverted my changes to these articles, and, when challenged, have WP:CANVASSed editors they believe will support their position to the discussions, and have refused to compromise, although I have done so (see Talk:Brick Schoolhouse, for instance, in which I dropped my support for my own image in favor of another editor's, or Talk:Providence City Hall, in which once another editor had provided a new image for the infobox, I dropped support for my own.)

• Congdon Street Baptist Church - [12], [13]

• Discussion - Talk:Congdon Street Baptist Church#Dispute

• Brick Schoolhouse - [14], [15], [16], [17]

• Discussion - [18], [19]

• National Register of Historic Places listings in Providence, Rhode Island - [20], [21]

• Discussion - [22]

• Waterplace Park - [23], new: [24]
• Providence City Hall - [25], [26], [27]

• Discussion - Talk:Providence City Hall#Images

• Shepard Company Building - [28], [29], [30], [31]

• Discussion - Talk:Shepard Company Building#Images

• Roger Williams National Memorial - [32]
• Rhode Island State House - [33], new: [34], [35], [36]

• Discussion - [37], new: [38]

The nub of the problem here is the Filetime seems to believe that any photograph which I have taken, or any image by anyone else that I have selected for use in any article, is automatically of "low quality", although their standard for that is variable: see for instance the discussion on Talk:Shepard Company Building in which they insist that an image (not by me) is unusable in the infobox because the resolution is too small, but when replaced by the highest resolution image in the category on Commons, one that I happened to take, rejected it as well because he didn't like the image's "quality". (Her again, when alternate images were suggested by another editor, I uploaded them from Flickr and added them to the article in place of my own.)

Certainly, there are inevitably going to be disputes in good faith between editors over what images to use in articles, but it simply cannot be the case that every image I select is bad, and every image that Filetime prefers is good. Their inability to judge images as neutrally as possible (something that I try very hard to do, i.e. I never replace a current image with one of my own unless mine is appreciably an improvement; simply being newer or of better resolution is not sufficient to replace an image which serves its function -- such as use in an infobox -- better) and their digging in once they've made a decision are counter to collaboration between editors. Further, their continued violation of WP:CANVASS by pinging to discussions only selected editors, in the face of their being told directly that they should not do this, flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS. (The latest instance of this can be seen at Talk:Rhode Island State House.) Their apparent automatic rejection of my contributions is beginning to border on WP:HARASSMENT.

I am not asking for Filetime to be topic banned from Providence articles, that would be unduly harsh, as well as counter-productive for the encyclopedia, since their contributions to those articles overall are quite useful and generally improve them, but some way needs to be found to stop Filetime from automatically rejecting any images I add to articles, and to get them to stop violating WP:CANVASS.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Edits marked "new were added after the original posting of this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• I also wanted to add that this has been going on since April 27th. In other words, I waited three-and-a-half weeks before bringing this to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• After checking a couple of these disputes, I think I agree with Filetime. For example, the first one (File:2021 Congdon Street Baptist Church, 11 Congdon Street, Providence.jpg is the one you (BMK) are advocating), the stated reason for removing the image is that it's out of focus. Well, it IS out of focus. Especially the top of the building is quite blurry and perspective distortion is serious. File:2021_Brick_Schoolhouse,_24_Meeting_Street,_Providence.jpg is even more blurry. Aesthetic quality is not the only or even main thing that we look at in infobox images, but when an image is seriously out of focus its encyclopedic value is also much less. The photographs taken by Filetime are more technically proficient and I think you (BMK) should show more understanding. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to note that independent editors have repeatedly characterized @Beyond My Ken:'s constant replacing of high quality images in articles relating to Rhode Island as shoehorning. These images are of low visual quality and often reflect errors in photography and editing techniques (blurriness, poor white balance, distracting visual elements). Furthermore, discussions have consistently found that the images added by the editor are of lower quality than those previously included. These editors often note that the difference in quality is not ambiguous. In the case of Rhode Island State House, one independent editor wrote that deciding the previous image was of better quality was an "Easy choice, IMO." Reverting edits that consensus consistently finds to be un-constructive, low quality, and possible shoehorning has nothing to do with ownership. Filetime (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I was one of the editors "canvassed" to the discussion at Talk:Rhode Island State House, and I'm not sure how notifying me would be canvasing, a policy which permits notifying editors "who have made substantial edits to the topic or article"? I have previously edited the images on this article, and User:Kzirkel, who was also invited to the discussion, has also made edits to the photos on this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Replacing images - especially the main image in the infobox - is one thing, and indeed one that I would agree with if the images were poorer. However, in the case of Congdon Street Baptist Church, you are just removing an additional image that BMK has inserted. Given that BMKs image is more recent, and not technically terrible, removing it does not seem to me to be a useful edit. Ditto removing an image completely here. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Canvassing again, this time on Roger Williams National Memorial [39], along with wholesale reversion of all the changes I made to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• I happened to see Filetime's revert at Van Wickle Gates just now, in Recent changes, and I reverted, because a. I don't accept the edit summary (this wasn't a major formatting change) and b. because I think it is better to have captions for images than not. And it's the same images, of course, so there's nothing here about quality. And if, in another article, I compare BMK's version with Filetime's version, it seems pretty obvious to me that BMK's is better--just look at that terrible picture in the infobox. I think having a picture of a sign in the infobox is pretty silly, but in Filetime's version you can't even barely see that it's a sign. And Filetime's edit summaries are highly tendentious, as if they're itching for a fight. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, so Filetime can't be arsed to come by here and explain, but they did find the time to make this completely unexplained and unreasonable edit. They did leave an irrelevant note on the talk page--whatever. No, this editor is not being very collaborative here. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: According to you "can't be arsed to come by here and explain" though I literally wrote five lines of text an hour and a half before your first comment. As for the park, a photograph of the park itself is a "a picture of nothing"? Look into any travel guide or on google images and I assure you you will not find grainy photographs of parks signs but rather photographs of the outdoor spaces themselves. If you are so confident in your stance, I encourage you to try and promote this "picture of nothing" argument on the articles for Central Park or Grant Park and convince them that they should use images of signs for their infoboxes. Filetime (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
      • This dappled and unclear image, esp. in thumbnail size, File:Roger Williams National Memoria entrance sign, Providence Rhode Island.jpg should not be mentioned in the same sentence as this one, File:Central Park - The Pond (48377220157).jpg . Drmies (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • ANI doesn't seem like a great place to hash out which version is better, but I disagree on the Roger Williams National Memorial. Being an article about a park, it makes sense to me to have a picture which displays the park rather than only the sign (and it's better not to have the multi-column cluster of images on the right). But it's certainly not the case that either is obviously better such that either party should be edit warring or going to battle over this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Haha, but "their" picture was a picture of nothing. At least the picture of the sign showed a sign! Drmies (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Regarding the picture of the sign: I also don't think that a picture of a sign is the best choice for the infobox, but after going through the relatively small number of images available on Commons, I understood why Filetime put his sign picture there -- there just weren't a lot of good choices. I replaced it with my picture of a sign for exactly the reason that Drmies points out, that at the size it is displayed at in the infobox, my image was at least readable as a sign, while Filetime's was not.
        This is actually a problem with many of Filetime's choices, that he refuses to understand that an image in an infobox has to function at the size it is presented at. An image which is not the best possible shot of a building can look just fine in an infobox at a small size, and a very good picture can look shitty when presented at sub-postage stamp size in a gallery. For Filetime, though, an image is intrinsically either good or bad, without any consideration about how it is being used, or at what size it is being presented. That does a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Misinterpretation of MOS - In this edit on Rhode Island State House, Filetime reverts my edits on the grounds that MOS calls for images to be right-aligned. This, of course, is not the case. As I point out in an edit summary MOS:IMAGELOCATION says "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left"; while Help:Pictures#Alternating left and right says "Perhaps the easiest way to handle multiple floating pictures is to alternate them left then right (or right then left); this way they do not come into contact with one another, and so cannot stack up in an unattractive way.". In point of fact -- as any editor who has worked in article layout knows -- stacking images on the right side can be very boring for the reader, so alternating sides (without squeezing text between images) provides visual variety to the article and makes it more enjoyable to read. I am only making this arguent here instead of on the article talk page, because, once again, this is Filetime rejecting edits primarily because I made them, not because he has the best interest of the article at heart. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be content to see some kind of image-related 1RR/BRD or other kind of edit warring-related restriction for both BMK and Filetime here. A restriction that basically just asks editors to approach editing like basically everyone else does shouldn't be necessary, but it seems called for here. Filetime for tendentious edit warring and edit summaries over a short amount of time, and BMK for a years-long default dispute resolution style of edit warring and taking a battleground approach to pushing through preferred versions of articles. Note that in all of the examples that BMK provided, BMK changed the status quo, Filetime challenged it (sometimes with the support of others), and BMK just went ahead and restored it. Sometimes with an accusatory edit summary, sometimes with no edit summary, but always just jump right into edit warring to force a preferred version putting the burden on the other person to find consensus. This kind of behavior regarding personal image-related preferences images was the subject of a large ANI thread a couple years ago. There were also a couple times where Filetime changed the images, BMK reverted, and Filetime likewise edit warred, lest it seem like I think Filetime is entirely in the right here.
  In some cases Filetime's version was better (I weighed in on one of those); in some cases BMK's was better (I weighed in on one of those, too). But this most definitely is not the venue to get into which version was better. Suffice to say it's not uniformly clear and nobody should be taking the approach that they're taking here. It's disruptive and causes a miserable editing atmosphere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Adding: just since this thread was opened:
    • BMK still edit warring over images/image style
    • BMK still edit warring over images/image style
    • BMK still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
  • Again -- while this thread is open. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - In regards to the gallery size disputes, and correct me if I'm wrong, shouldn't we still be following WP:IMGSIZE? I don't think there's any good reason to force image sizes for these galleries, just as there should not be fixed image sizes for thumbnails. Pbrks (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just a reminder: The issue here is the capricious and automatic deletion of an editor's good faith attempts to contribute to Wikipedia articles by an editor with an inflated sense of OWNERSHIP over an entire range of articles, amply shown by the diffs provided above. Further, the editor continually CANVASSes like-minded editors to discussions in order to prevail. In that situation, any apparent "consensus" reached is a WP:FALSECONSENSUS and is not binding, as it does not truly represent the sense of the community. This behavior needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I was one of the people pinged by Filetime. I've never had an interaction with them prior to all of this and was only brought into it after Filetime asked for opinions at the photography workshop regarding different photos. Clearly, (at least in my case) this is not CANVASSing. Your edits may be in good faith, but that does not mean they are always better. In every scenario I have been involved with, I have found that the reverts that Filetime had made have been justified, as the photos that you took and replaced in those articles have been technically worse. Pbrks (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, that is precisely CANVASSING - Filetime pinged you because he had a previous relationship with you. You should actually read WP:CANVASS sometime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t be rude. I have read it, and it is not canvassing. I refer you to fifth bullet point under “Appropriate notification”. Pbrks (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wait, isn't it a conflict of interest to edit war or revert to reinsert your own image? Didn't this get another user topic banned?[40] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  That is an interesting way to look at it. I had not considered the COI aspect of them edit waring their pictures into articles. Looks like promo work. PackMecEng (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Based on my understanding of the many past ANI threads and general practice, users are indeed encouraged to add their own photos to articles as long as they improve those articles. But if someone challenges it, you shouldn't restore it without finding consensus to do so first. So I guess it's just basic BRD and edit warring guidance, but with the added emphasis because COI can be argued if you continue. Adding photos to articles is not itself a COI any more than adding text to articles is a COI. If someone advocates on a talk page for their picture being the better one for the article, I don't see that as much different than arguing for their version of a block of text. But if it seems like you're edit warring/arguing to include them without regard for the quality of the article, then yeah COI can come into play. It gets more complicated if the person in question has a photography business, but as I don't think that applies to anyone here, we can stem that tangent. Ultimately, the sanction imposed on Toglenn in the thread Morbidthoughts links above is just the advice I give all newbies about adding one's own images (and what I do by default). It shouldn't take a sanction, in other words. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I give up

Not to get all WP:DIVA about it, but I've just noticed that Filetime's last dozen edits were all about undoing my contributions to his articles, and no one -- except, ironically, the two admins who have commented here -- seems to think that there's any behavioral problem with doing stuff like that. It's really just too much hassle for me to deal with this editor, so I'm going to scrub my plan to edit other Providence articles at this time. Maybe at some point in the future, when Filetime has finally been indef blocked -- because the behavior he's exhibiting now is not likely to stop, and will only get worse -- I can pick up that project again, but for the time being I'll put my energy into more productive areas.

I've put away my copy of Guide to Providence Architecture, and I formally withdraw my complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've posted images and edited articles about buildings and sites all other the country [41], and the editors of Providence are the first to have actively made me feel unwelcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to note that the behavior chronicled here, i.e. the OWNERSHIP of a group of articles and the running off of a good-faith editor trying to contribute to them, is deeply antithetical to the Wikipedia ethos, and dangerous to the encyclopedia if allowed to thrive and spread. After all, we're not talking about reverting vandalism, or protecting the project from promotion or political propaganda, we're talking about simple disputes about the use of images being weaponized and utilized as a bludgeon. That Filetime continued (and for all I know continues, as I have not cared to check their contribution list since earlier today) even after their behavior has been exposed is disturbing, and potentially dangerous. Filetime has shown interest in other geographical areas as well: Massachusetts, specifically Boston, and Chicago, for instance. Will they replicate their exclusionary behavior in articles about those places as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Dangerous? Excuse me? Maybe dial down the rhetoric a bit. The pictures I checked that you uploaded were not improvements. When your work is removed it hurts, I get it. But let’s not make this into something it’s not. Maybe this is an opportunity for you to revisit some of those sites and try to improve your photography skills. If they are better I will join you in getting them added to the relevant articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Ernie (now that you're here, I know that I'm in the right), "dangerous". Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus. When one editor takes it upon themselves, without the community's approval, to prevent another one from participating in a certain subject, collaboration is out the window, and when they call upon like-minded editors to back them up, without a general call for participation, consensus is undermined. If collaboration and consensus are gone, Wikipedia can no longer be what it intends to be -- so, yes, "dangerous" is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the subject topic at hand, this section just feels like you're throwing a tantrum, BMK. If multiple other people are disagreeing with you, then it's clearly not just Filetime supporting these changes. From what I can tell from looking at the above linked talk pages and examples, you're correct in some cases with your images, but incorrect on others and instead are supporting inferior images. Silverseren^C 02:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Filetime's crew, and a few long-time adversaries who come out of the woodworks every time my name comes up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

🙄 Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Quoddy earache demon stranded?  :) ——Serial 13:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It's ironic that BMK is making claims of WP:OWNERSHIP, because I'm seeing the reverse. ANI is revealing a long-standing behavioral problem, yet again. This is a content dispute that should not have made its way to ANI. There are editors who cannot withstand having their edits altered or deleted in good faith and in accordance with policy. These editors, regardless of their editing talent, tenure, or friends here, are largely a net negative for the project if they're repeatedly unwilling to acknowledge their disruptive behavior. Frankly, at some point, BMK has to look at the common denominator. His colleagues are doing him a disservice by insisting on rushing to his defense rather than encouraging him to participate more collaboratively and develop methods to mentally overcome dissent to his edits. Worse, he begins a new section to passive-aggressively accuse his opponents of operating an anti-BMK cabal. This battleground mentality is a disruptive time-dump. RandomGnome (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Violation of sanctions

(Non-administrator comment) Isn't this the reason BMK has agreed to the following sanctions from the previous ANI?

There is community consensus for the following pledges made by Beyond My Ken:

• BMK will put all article images within the section they relate to whenever and wherever possible.
• When another editor disputes BMK's judgement whether it is or isn't possible to put an image inside the relevant section, he will defer to their decision.

Beyond My Ken has also agreed that failure to stick to the above pledges may be enforced by blocks.
— User:Ritchie333

The conduct described here definitely violates the second bullet point, as evidenced by an apparent image-related dispute (specifically concerning the infobox of Shepard Company Building) that BMK himself carried over to Talk:Shepard Company Building. I'm not sure if bullet #1 has been violated, or if there have been any similar incidents involving BMK in 7 March 2019. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The second clause relates only to the first clause. It is not a general statement. Nice try, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Bold Revert Discuss

I'm with BMK here. He's a respected and experienced editor in good standing. There clearly has been canvassing. At the end of the day, Filetime wants to keep their WP:OWN photos, cool we all appreciate the time and effort involved in taking the pics and they are good pics...but WP:BRD is a key part of editing Wikipedia. Once the edits were challenged it is on edtors to discuss in good faith and without calling in as many sympathetic editors as possible, ie WP:CANVAS. BMK has done nothing wrong, it is Filetime who is not discussing properly, engaging in an edit war and canvassing for support...IMO Bacondrum 09:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You have it exactly backwards. In just about all (if not all) of these examples, it was BMK adding his own photos to articles and Filetime objecting, then BMK starting an edit war to force them in. In some cases Filetime restored their own photo, and in other cases they restored the work of third parties like Kzirkel. In all cases, BMK edit warred to introduce his own photos after being challenged. In all cases I've seen, it was BMK who did not follow BRD, gaining consensus on the talk page before restoring his photo. As for canvassing, did you actually look at who Filetime allegedly "canvassed"? I guess it's possible I missed some actual canvassing, but BMK was calling canvassing just the simple act of pinging particular people. I haven't seen evidence that it was actually canvassing (i.e. that they were pinged only because Filetime thought they'd agree with a particular position -- pinging specific people isn't automatically canvassing). At the time Filetime pinged me, I had just supported one of BMK's photos in one of their disputes, and yet BMK accused Filetime of canvassing when I was pinged. Other people have just been active in RI articles, had responded to the previous WikiProject posting, or active in adding photos to Wikipedia. A WikiProject post would be better, I guess, but calling it canvassing seems like a big stretch. Filetime is a problem here, too, with the edit warring and jabs in edit summaries, but BMK has done nothing wrong is demonstrably false even by BMK's own evidence. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into details, because I've withdrawn this complaint, but your description is not accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Ibn Daud

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

---

Fresh off an attempted outing, User:Ibn Daud has accused me of making fervently ... anti-Semitic edits and then when asked for diffs of said edits replies with a link to an off-wiki harassment site. Me thinks a ban hammer is in order, but if unsupported accusations of anti-semitism and linking to webpages used to out editors isnt the ban worthy offense it used to be would be nice to know that. nableezy - 23:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There is also a 1RR violation at State of Palestine, but can take that to AE to be dealt with if need be. nableezy - 23:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are my preliminary thoughts, although I hope that other administrators and editors will also evaluate and comment. Editors with a pro-Palestinian or a pro-Israel POV are welcome to edit this encyclopedia, as long as they comply with our core content policies and key behavioral guidelines, have the necessary experience, and work toward consensus and NPOV. The fact that Nableezy has been active here as long as they have while editing in a highly contentious topic area is a testament (non-religious) to that editor's understanding of these policies and guidelines. Editors who choose to contribute anonymously are entitled to do so without snoops trying to dox them, and linking to off-Wiki hate sites targeting specific editors is not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Zero0000 has erased part of my talk page in which I point out that historically User:Nableezy has issued several false SPI’s to silence or remove pro-Israel editors. There are numerous examples of this. Nableezy, Zero0000, User:Nishidani, User:Selfstudier and many other Pro-Palestine, Anti-Zionist users are all savvy editors who have been able to maintain an anti-Israel status quo on Wikipedia for a long time. They have done this through a series of manipulative tactics and have been immensely successful in doing so. I see now that they are much too influential on this website for anything to be done about this. Perhaps at some point, one day, some administrators will look into and maybe even fix this, but for now, I see that it is impossible, for me to try to revert or combat their anti-Israel agenda. That “off-wiki harassment site”, though definitely, fervent and a little unprofessional is not wrong in describing and cataloging examples of the following user’s manipulative tactics, which they use to force their viewpoint on one of the internet’s largest websites. For this reason, Wikipedia has a somewhat subtle and even sometimes evidently clear Anti-Israel bias, which is read by millions of individuals across the world. It’s truly a remarkable accomplishment that has only been achieved through thousands of hours of tireless Anti-Israel editing by users such as Zero0000, Nishidani, Nableezy, Selfstudier User:Huldra, User:Onceinawhile ect. I know I’m probably going to be topic banned, which I’m honestly fine with, as I now realize that right now, there is no changing this unfortunate status quo. Perhaps this message may even be censored or deleted, in the name of WP:PA, which would really just prove my point. I don’t mean to personally attack anyone, but I am instead just bringing up a disappointing reality. All in all, I’ll stop trying to edit on Israel/Palestine-related topics, and go back to editing my topics in my usual realm of interests, which are without a doubt much less controversial. Ibn Daud (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy was just recently brought to the drama boards for his posts, that you ignored it is fine. I would also ask that asking any new pro-Israel editor if they ever edited Wikipedia before is not CIVIL and yes, we do have an issue with false SPI being filed and anyone in certain timezones are immediately banned as socks because our team doesn't have the technical knowledge to investigate. Your post is clear as to why there is conflict on Wiki when you think it's one sided. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Linking to said harassment site on ANI is special. nableezy - 05:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ibn Daud, thank you for revealing that, unlike the other editors you revile, you have no intention of following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and are here only to do battle with your ideological opponents rather than to collaborate to produce neutral content that accurately summarizes all points of view. You have presented no evidence of "manipulative tactics" used by these editors to maintain an "anti-Israel status quo on Wikipedia for a long time", perhaps because Wikipedia's job is to report on the full range of what reliable sources say about these topics, as opposed to repeating what the Netanyahu government says at this particular moment in time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If its any consolation Ibn Daud you’re probably not looking at a topic ban but a more general WP:NOTHERE ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, I would suggest that this editor read up a little. There is vast shouting in the press, reliable mainstream organs, about 'pro-Palestinians' hogging the discourse and spewing hate. We have a recent book on the phenomenon by an undisputed expert with all of the required credentials. Kenneth Stern, The Conflict Over the Conflict,, University of Toronto Press ISBN 978-1-487-53610-7. If one hasn't time for the long read, the gist is excerpted in Ed Pilkington's article today: 'US campuses become a growing front in Israeli-Palestinian conflict,' The Guardian 21 May 2021. Despite the title, the statistics show the realities on the ground have a far lower profile than what hysteria about groups, like the fictitious wiki mafia Ibn Daud conjures up, ganging up suggest in press reports. 'The paradox of such attempts to restrict academic exploration of the Middle East crisis, Stern told the Guardian, was that it gave the impression that US universities were on fire with pro-Palestinian activism when in fact major confrontations were relatively rare. “People paint campuses as burning over this issue, and anti-Israel activity as ubiquitous, but the data doesn’t bear that out,” he said.' Idem here. The I/P area, so often called 'toxic' no man's land, is a much quieter area than it was a decade ago, and the general conversation is civil, and well-informed between editors. Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support a WP:NOTHERE ban. Ibn Daud's defence above was very convincing that way. Bishonen | tålk 08:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC).
• Even worse, I also note that the outing occurred at a talkpage of a subject outside Ibn Daud's normal interests, where they had blatantly pursued Nishidani there merely to cast an opposing vote on a Requested Move. This is the sort of thing that WP:NOTHERE was invented for, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  Indeffed for outing attempts. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

No, User talk:Cullen328. The fact that a problematic editor like Nableezy is still on Wikipedia is a testament to the fact that admins have made poor and biased decisions over and over again. You and other admins have damaged this project by banning and blocking editors with many good and valuable contributions, like User:Ibn Daud, just because they didn't always avoid conflict. That is poor judgement, and a loss for this project. Debresser (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought the last block for violating your topic ban would have sent the message home to stop doing that. nableezy - 13:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Debresser:, please self-revert. You know Nableezy is going to make a federal case about this when you both violate your topic ban and attack them, so why do it? To quote a wikipedian I respect greatly "That is poor judgement, and a loss for this project." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point out that indefinitely blocking (not that a block should have been avoided) an editor that has created several articles [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] (these in 2021, see history of the user's sandbox going back to 2019 [48]), which are by the way not related to Palestine but rather to Jews in Belarus and Lithuania, for WP:NOTHERE looks excessive. I agree with Debresser that this is a loss for the project. Super Ψ Dro 14:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

They have been "Indeffed for outing attempts." not for NOTHERE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I assumed WP:NOTHERE was the reason as I noticed it more than the word "outing" (didn't know its meaning before) in this thread. Super Ψ Dro 15:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

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

46.97.170.0/24

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

---

Individual IPs:

• 46.97.170.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Range:

• 46.97.170.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78

• BLPN Discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gina Carano

User appears to be here for the sole purpose of bludgeoning, picking fights and pushing a particular POV.

• "it is a well known fact that Hungary is, and to some degree always has been a hotbed of right wing populism and nationalist sentiments"[49]
• "There is no "left" on wikipedia. But if right wingers want to win more edit wars, they should care more about objective facts."[50]
• "look at the kind of people who make it their business to regugularly defend him. You will notice that all of them are either republican pundits, or alt-right/alt-lite influencers. "[51]
• "This is what I meant when I said that Babylon Bee is no different from any other right wing disinfo site. Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Bounding into Comics, you name it, they're all the same."[52]
• "Evidence? You mean aside from every single breadtuber that ever analyzed his ideologies in depth, and aside from the fact that all of Jordan Peterson's fans on youtube are members of or associated with the alt right? I souldn't need to prove what's common knowledge and easily verifyable."[53]
• "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is."[54]
• "Also, no mention that her holocaust comments were interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany"[55]
• "The point is that putting Peterson's words into the mouth of a skull faced nazi character makes them sound like a villain monologue. But Peterson apologists are too devoid of self awareness to realize that."[56]
• "We're talking about a newspaper that FIRED a long time employee because he wasn't a trump bootlicker, and prohibited a reporter from covering the George Floyd protests on basis of skin color. I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Wikipedia's list of reliable sources and learned that it wasn't blacklisted like Breitbart, the Daily Wire or other right wing trumpist rags."[57] (He is talking about the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• "I only brought up Trump because like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society. Yes, one had actual political power, and nearly destroyed the country. But people like Peterson are part of the reason there are people dumb enough to actually vote for trump. Their carreer's are uncomparable, but they represent the same toxic far right ideology."[58]
• "The first paragraph of the section is nothing but right wing pundits flapping their mouths and spouting right wing punditry, and should be deleted entirely."[59]

Also:

• Deleting other user's talk page comments.[60] (The deleted comment was right-wing stupidity, but no worse than what 46.97.170.0/24 regularly posts.)
• Removing sources because "they are agenda driven"[61]

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Two things before I address the broader issue: Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control, so there's no point leaving a notification on one I'm no longer using - it's not likely I will be assigned that particular IP again. Second, I find the last two claims to be unfair. The talk page in question has had several similar comments removed by other users, on the grounds that they are off topic and have nothing to do with the subject. I apologize if I got the wrong impression that this is standard practice. Regarding the sources I removed from How_to_Be_an_Antiracist, other contributors CONFIRMED that I had the right idea. You can read it on the talk page.

The vast majority of problem lines, quite honestly confuse me. I tried to avoid picking fights ever since last year's incidents. I'd be the first to admit fault if it turns out I wasn't always entirely successful in that regard, but many of my lines presented here don't seem to make sense. My comment on the Gina Carano talk page, regarding her holocaust comments expecially strikes me as out of place, because it's just a near word for word reference to content from the article itself. Some of the stronger opinions are no worse than what registered contributors, including some admins have said. I've read essays on wikipedia that use stronger language. The last ANI report was most certainly justified, seeing as I made baseless accusations of vandalism, and made some rather inappropriate comments. The only thing presented here that comes anywhere near that, when looket at in context, appears to be my comments on the Post-Gazette, which, looking back, definitely feels like something I should not have said. Maybe the trump comment too - that's was a pointless tangent, and the Ben Shapiro one is definitely a BLP violation. I'm going to redact these immediately. There's also that long off-topic argument on Jordan Peterson's talk page, that carried on far too long, but I was not the sole responsible party there, and it was not my intention to go off topic.

That's three comments, that are inappropriate, maybe two where I used harsher language than I should have, and one that was probably put here by mistake, because it's a sentence fragment from the article - not my words. I'm not seeing the problem with the rest, however. I wasn't trying to pick fights. I received two warnings in april which I tried to discuss and clarify, but unfortunately I didn't get any responses. Still, it is true that wikipedia isn't a forum, and some of the discussions I involved myself in, did unfortunately go in that direction, which was not my intent. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my opinion, even if you are unfailingly polite towards other users, expressing your POV with phrases like "far right grifter", "trump bootlicker", "the same cancer that's destroying modern society" and "nearly destroyed the country" shows me that you are more interested in promoting your political ideology than in building an encyclopedia. I am actually sympathetic because I shore many of your opinions about certain recent politicians, but I mostly keep those opinions to myself because they are out of place here.

The other problem I see is WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't just express your political opinions. You keep expressing your political opinions again and again even when it has become clear that the consensus is against you. What I am not seeing is any hint of compromise or cooperation.

In my opinion, you should be topic banned from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The unregistered editor wrote: "Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control". No. That is under your control, in that you can register an account. It is only outside your control if you insist on not registering. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention one of the three users who supported your version felt the need to write that "Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia" so no prizes for guessing what their agenda here is.[62]

Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame. [63] redacted by another editor

Link to open BLP/N thread

I've only had extensive experience with this editor on the Gina Carano article, and in general it hasn't been very pleasant. They have no issue with making BLP violating comments on the talk page, or accusing editors of having an agenda. The two quotes above give, I think, a reasonable distillation of what discussions with them are like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been watching this IP editor for a month or so (since they joined the Peterson article). I raised a concern with their talk page comments on their talk page here [[64]]. I share Guy Macon's concerns. I do think it is a positive sign that they have, after posting here, started removing some of their offending comments (example [[65]]). I also will say I don't see disruption of the article's themselves, just frustrating talk page behavior. My feeling is they are on a fence. If they recognize the issue and are willing to fix the problem I think any additional sanctions would be punitive. However, if they continue I would support some type of Tban. It might have to be an IP range block due to the lack of a named account. It also would be good if they created an account. The combination of aggressive comments and shifting IPs is a problem. Several of the talk pages have similar warnings. Springee (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• As with Springee above, I am willing to grant a very short length of WP:ROPE given that the user in question appears to be willing to redact their earlier offensive comments and commit to being better behaved moving forward. I'd have considered a ban had they not just done so, and would be willing to consider a formal ban of some sort if the shenanigans continue, however. --Jayron32 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• My initial tendency on this one was to also go for a warning given my assumption this was a new editor and WP is a different environment than most others. However, I'm not sure I agree anymore. Now that I've seen this behavior has gone on for a while and only seems to change when ANI gets involved. I would recommend reading the previous incident report and noting that IP was already on a short rope. I might also be a bit more supportive if the user was making constructive edits otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. This feels very much like a user who wants a forum and to POV push and thinks they can walk the line on behavior, backing off just shy of getting banned. I'd recommend a Tban as well, but can support a warning if we think that is more prudent. Just a note to future ANI administrators in case this comes up again. Squatch347 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Having just reviewed the earlier ANI, I'm going to suggest a short rope strategy that might not be technically possible. I would suggest range blocking the IP but offering the option to create an account that isn't blocked (is that possible?). If they mess up the account gets blocked and future IP edits can be blocked per EVADE. However, they still have ROPE so they can show that they were listening. Springee (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Guy Macon for the comprehensive report. I've also seen this IP tendentiously attack BLPs and other editors, so I wasn't surprised when someone reported them to WP:BLP/N. They eerily remind me of the sock who was harassing me when I first started editing. The IP has been warned more than enough times from plenty of experienced editors, so I don't think offering them anymore chances will do any good. I included some additional diffs in case anyone wants to take a peak. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional Diffs

. Calling a BLP a "white supremacist" in mainspace without a source [66] "Volokh is a right wing hack. Of course he's going to read it in a way that makes his side and his people look good."[67] " Gina is C-list actress with no talent, who got the role out of pitty by Favreau whom she put into a difficult situation, playing a replaceable supporting character"[68] " The fact that Gina Carano's idiotic beliefs are shared by half of americans, is exactly why the rest of the world sees americans as stupid"[69] " Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame." [70] "Not only is Musk not a scientist, his dangerous lies about COVID-19 has proven that he's a science-denier."[71] "None of these nameless idiots are notable enough to deserve even the slightest mention."[72] "Sanger isn't anyone important. He's just some chud who had ties with wikipedias founders at one point, yet his fellow trumptards are using him like he was an authoritative source on all things wikipedia, when he's little more than a parasite, trying to use the works of pthers to become relevant.his opinion on wikipedia, couldn't matter any less."[73] "Barr's opinion is of course bullshit"[74] "Now, do you have anything meaningful to say or are you just going to talk out of your ass? Everybody with a brain knows what the Alternative Influencer Network means by Red Pill"[75] " Read Mr Ernie's mosta on this talk page. His intention is very obviously to downplay the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh"[76] "Unsigned comment by a trump supporter, not worthy oc consideration"[77] "This is a fluff piece of a right wing pundit. The entire article is promotional in nature, and presents Sowell's views and ideologies without the slightest effort to present the objections of his critics. Considering how contentious his claims about politics, race and ethnicity are (there's even a mention of the race and IQ corellation, a well known white supremacist talking point), it's preposterous to pretend he never got any pushback from high profile academics. Nor is there any mention of his less popular views, such as his climate change denialism."[78] " Mr Ernie has stated ON THIS VERY TALK PAGE, several paragraphs above that he does not believe the allegations against Kavanaugh and claims that they have been proven false. His edit attempted to trim down the section on the allegations, which would've diminished Wikipedia's coverage of them. It is obvious that he has an agenda here, and that his edit was in line with thay agenda"[79] "This is wikipedia, not some alt right propaganda outlet. We don't cover irrelevant, politically motivated rumors. I don't understand how anyone could even consider this. On a sidenote, user: Mr Ernie has a history or making politically motivated edits to whitewash the GOP. Maybe some of the moderators should investigate him"[80]

I oppose giving this IP more rope, based upon:

1. The promises given in the previous ANI report and the rope they were given at that time.
2. Their heartfelt belief that anything other than demonizing any person and any source that shows the slightest trace of conservatism is a NPOV violation that must be fought tooth and nail no matter what the consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to agree with Guy Macon here. They were given a chance in the previous AN/I thread and they've gone right back to the behaviour that got them reported in the first place. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I am going to try and address as much of this as possible. I will say this first, I don't have any objections to a topic ban if it's decided that's necessary. The arguments for it do sound convincing. That being said, some of the claims here appear unfair to me.

• To start off, many of the offending comments being brought up here, are from last year, and have already been a subject of an ANI. I have admitted to wrongdoing then, redacted many of the offending comments, and refrained from further activity on the site for the rest of the year. The comments I made then included actual potentially libellous statements on BLP subjects, personal attacks on other users, including unfair accusations of vandalism, and a couple of minor edits that could be considered vandalism. I do not think any of my recent comments are of that nature, or even close. I have tried to refrain from that behavior, keeping last year's ANI in mind. I don't see the point in bringing those up again.
• Some of the specific accusations are simply wrong. I have been accused multiple times of calling Coleman Hughes an "alt right grifter", which I did not do. And due to unfortunate wording, my comment to clarify that I was referring to Ben Shapiro, not Hughes, was just used to incriminate me further. Dr Swag Lord brings that point up against me in the above BLP Noticeboard discussion (of which I received no notification for some reason), along with the claim that I also called Jordan Peterson a "nazi supervillain", which is also not true, as was pointed out to him. He began bringing up last years incidents after he and several others with BLP violation complaints against me were told that they don't have a strong case against me. He also seems to suspect me of being someone he had a previous conflict with - I don't know what the basis of this assumption is.
• On the Jordan Peterson talk page, aside from the one comment I redacted, the only real objectionable thing I did is getting involved in a long thread derailment, when another user tried to debate the contents of two sources, arguing that they were using guilt by association. I understand that wikipedia is not a forum, and I shouldn't have gotten into that argument as far as I did, but I was not the sole responsible party.
• The assessment that I find anything less than demonization of anyone even remotely associated with conservatism to be NPOV, and that I fight tooth and nail against consensus, strikes me as unfair. Especially seeing as my comments on the Thomas Sowell article seem to be the impetus - correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that my choice of words was far from neutral, but to say I was fighting tooth and nail against consensus, so the article would demonize the subject is an exxagerration. Thomas Sowell is a controversial figure, but his article doesn't reflect that at all. I have also argued that over a quarter of sources are primary and come from the subject himself. If I'm wrong about that, that's due to me misinterpreting WP:ABOUTSELF, not the desire to "demonize".
• Similarly, on the Gina Carano talk page, where I've been the most active, and where the "tooth and nail" remark does apply, I wasn't fighting for the demonization of the subject but over the inclusion of information that was already in the existing sources. I objected to the use of a specific wording, which is only used by one source, and asked for the inclusion of relevant information that was in multiple sources, and was previously part of the article. The only comments I made about on the subject herself, had to do with her notability, and the relative notability of the social media controversy. My comments about users "pushing an agenda" was referring to contributors supporting the exclusion of information based on their own personal interpretation of primary sources, rather than what reliable sources say. This has been already covered in the BLP noticeboard discussion above. Morbidthoughts made correct observations about my comments without me having to defend myself, so I don't see why ScottishFinnishRaddish keep insisting that my only goal is to throw insults.
• Regarding Squatch347's comments I think it's fair to point out that I have made constructive edits in the past. I know I used a lot of politically charged language, and sometimes go off into unnecessary tangents when giving my reasoning but a lot of the content I have removed have been justified. On How to Be and Antiracist, the consensus was ultimately on my side, and multiple attempts to restore my deletions have been reverted by registered users. I also nominated the article on Dan Fraga for deletion due to the self-promotional nature of it. I had a rather long and exhausting dispute on the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials regarding the reliablility of some of the sources in the "academic commentary" section. I'm also involved in the discussion on the talk page of the upcoming The Little Mermaid film, regarding an alleged casting controversy, which I don't believe is notable enough to warrant mentioning. I also removed a guilt by association claim from Ibram X. Kendi and warned of incoming vandalism on that article and on Heidi Heitkamp. I know this is overshadowed by my annoying habit of getting into unnecessarily long arguments and using language that is oftentimes unwarranted, I just felt the need to point out that I did make constructive edits.

Now, this is mostly my response to the nature of the claims made against me, not really to the core issue (i.e. frustrating talk page behavior), which I don't dispute. Like I said, if a topic ban is found to be appropriate, I'm not going to object to it. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where I've said your only goal is to throw insults. Do you have a diff or two of that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP. from the BLPN discussion. It's possible I'm misunderstanding. Notice that the words "racist" and "bootlicker" are in quotation marks. Those are not my words, those are from comments made about the subject as reported by the sources. My argument was that she was being criticised rather than bullied. I was trying to argue for the same wording I brought up again recently but I ended up dropping it because not enough sources justify it. In the case of many other comments I made about Gina Carano personally, I was arguing about how much coverage the controversy should receive in proportion to the rest of the article. I do admit some of it did sound insulting, and not at all neutral, but Morbidthoughts managed to get my intentions without me having to say a single word. Anyway, I'll probably be out for the weekend. I'll see what the decision is when I get back. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers.[81] was the diff I linked, which I was commenting on. You yourself said that the sources didn't touch on it and that she was not noteworthy for her political beliefs, then called her beliefs insane. I would say that that specific diff that I was describing was not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support the inclusion and that you were complaining about and insulting a BLP. It also wasn't a comment that your only goal was to throw insults, and to say so is disingenuous as there was clearly a diff attached. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. I can see why people would misunderstand that comment, but that wasn't referring to the controversy. It was referring specifically to her ties to Comicsgate, which indeed isn't covered by reliable sources. In the first couple of months when this was fresh news, I was expecting some kind of expose from the media, but it never happened. Point is, I was talking about an issue not directly related to the controversy as it was covered by reliable sources. So I wasn't admitting that the things I was arguing for weren't covered by reliable sources, I was talking about something else that I was initially hoping for eventually being included not being covered by reliable sources, if that makes sense. I know it's not obvious, and my wording certainly didn't help. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem, 46.97, is the use of rhetoric such as "as insane and nonsensical as they are" and "far right echo chamber". Your statement without those portions, The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs to be of any relevance. would have been a sufficient comment on the situation; the pejorative and disdainful rhetoric is actually distracting from what was otherwise a cogent and good point, and many people (including those of us who, in a less formal setting than Wikipedia like at a bar enjoying a few beverages together, would likely agree with your analysis) find such asides to be rude and distracting. Regardless of our opinions on the politics of others (such as other users, or the people of subjects we are writing about on Wikipedia and discussing), we're still expected to maintain a level of decorum and grant those people (and those around us) a certain level of dignity. Comments like "insane and nonsensical" have no place in such discussions at Wikipedia, and people tire of them when you keep using rhetoric like that. THAT is the crux of the problem. --Jayron32 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A relevant comment[82] from User:Nil Einne from the last time ANI was ashed to deal with this:

"Needing to be brought to ANI before you recognise your fault is often not a good sign. Of course it does depend on what attempts were made to discuss this with first so I checked out your talk page and found [83] where you already agreed you got carried away. Which would be great if you hadn't caused major issues since then. But the unsupported wikipedia vandal claim is after that acknowledgement [84] and as Pudeo said you got challenged yet doubled down once [85]. The best solution by far would be if this doesn't happen again. If you keep finding yourself getting carried away or irrational, you need to find some way to deal with it that doesn't involve problem edits and then fixing them when people complain enough. Either take a break before posting, or stop editing in the subject areas where you're finding it difficult to control yourself."

I don't think we can trust any further promises from 46.97.170.0/24 to stop the objectionable behavior and I do not believe that at this time 46.97.170.0/24 has the ability to contribute productively in the area of post-1992 politics of the United States. I say we should impose a topic ban and invite them to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer to appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I tend to agree with you, especially after seeing the attempts already made to address the issue with them and their responses above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

One final thought (written for the average editor: admins know all of this already); we traditionally only block IPs for shortish periods because the ISP could assign the IP to someone else tomorrow. Blocks from editing certain pages can be longer; the odds of that second person using the same IP not only editing Wikipedia but editing the same page are very small. But in this case I am thinking that no actual block is needed. Just tell 46.97.170.0/24 that they are topic banned from post-1992 politics of the United States broadly construed, give them a clear explanation of what Wikipedia:Broadly construed means, and I think they will obey the restriction. This will also give them a good argument when and if they later request that the topic ban be lifted: "I spent X months without a topic ban violation". The ultimate goal is not to stop people from editing. The ultimate goal is to convert them to productive and valuable editors. Back in 2006 I was an extremely disruptive IP editor, but when a veteran editor calmly explained to me how Wikipedia is different from your average social media website, I learned how to be a good editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest including a BLP tban just in case. I also think if they agree to create an account we should give them a very small amount of rope. I would hope that Jayron32 (talk · contribs)'s later post was sufficient to illustrate the sort of talk page comments that are not helpful. Springee (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Have they ever caused any disruption on BLP pages or talk pages not related to post-1992 politics of the United States? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Most disruption has been focused on WP:AMPOL related BLP pages. But they also caused disruption on BLPs like Mark Waid [86], Joe Rogan[87], Elon Musk[88], Larry Sanger[89], and Jacob Gardner[90]. Joe Rogan may fall under AP2, but I don't think the other ones do. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You make a strong case. That Mark Waid edit, for example, was a serious BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears that they have caught the WP:ANIFLU. Note to self: if you ever get into trouble at ANI just stop editing. It doesn't always work, but it often leads to the report being archived or closed with a "no recent activity" comment. Further note to self: Do not immediately restart the behavior. People notice that sort of thing. Either start misbehaving on a new page or wait a couple of months before starting up again on the same page.   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Call for close ( 46.97.170.0/24 )

It is unlikely that further discussion will change the result of this discussion. May we have an uninvolved administrator evaluate the consensus, write up a summary, and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we entertained the IP editor long enough. If someone calls a leading First Amendment scholar "a right wing hack" and so on, the editor is either trolling or incompetent to edit BLPs. Or at least the area of American Politics. Ban them and let them appeal if they learn to adhere to core policies and guidelines. Politrukki (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) ---Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that there's little energy to close this because there's little in the way of any actionable proposals. Other than a few large walls of text between the primary complainant (yourself) and the defense made by 46.97... there isn't much in the way of a firm way forward. Some people have proposed a few half-hearted hints at sanction ideas, but it is difficult for an admin to enact any sanctions based on such vagaries and any lack of clear consensus among the uninvolved. If you want this resolved in some sort of active sanction, you're going to need to call the question and propose a concise, concrete way forward. --Jayron32 15:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My concrete proposal: A community-imposed topic ban from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed, with the usual invitation to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer of allowing an appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. I recommend no block or partial block at this time; let's see if they abide by the TB voluntarily.

Dr.Swag Lord thinks the TB should be extended to all BLPs. I say we wait on that and see if there is a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Guy Macon's proposal (see my initial post for details). This would remove the topics that have cause the most problems for the IP and still all them to edit Wiki in other areas and, perhaps, pick up the norms. Squatch347 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support the proposal, would also support the BLP topic ban as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support the proposal Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reviewing the diffs shows that the ip holds strong opinions about the subjects in discussions about content choice allowable under WP:BLPTALK. I do not see the disruption here as I expect the community to have stronger tolerance and expectations that contentious subjects yield contentious opinions. BLP should not be used as a sword to hush these opinions because editors think they amount to IDONTLIKE and ILIKEIT rationales. We've shown great tolerance for other users who hold less than noble opinions in deletion discussions. I don't see how this should be any different. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  Seriously? You actually think that "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is" and "Like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society" are allowed under BLPTALK? How do you explain the fact that 46.97.170.0/24 freely admitted that their comments violated our policies and retracted them? (46.97.170.0/24 does that every time they are reported an ANI and then go right back to the same behavior once the report is archived, but it is still an admission that they understand that what they are doing is not allowed.) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The Shapiro comment was in context of whether his opinions were WP:UNDUE for the article and in response to another editor's accusations while the Peterson quote was in context of whether a section was WP:DUE (responding to an editor who commented on misogyny and nationalism from Peterson), qualifying BLPTALK.(See [91][92][93]) The ip's previous admissions only means they got heated and are willing to defer or yield to consensus; something again they have shown here. Let me ask how have these comments been disruptive to move for sanctions? Have they somehow improperly made to article space, improperly sway article discussion on what has gone into article space, or enraged other editors to the point of disruptive bludgeoning that distract from the actual content issue? You all are better than that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: "how have these comments been disruptive?" please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gina Carano, and the other comments in this section. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Which door were you picking? You cited personal attacks from almost a year ago, which is different than what is brought up here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• The most recent edits by 46.97.170.0/24 are to reasonably comment here and to remove some of their screeds. If similar recurs, please let me know and I will issue escalating blocks for the range. @Morbidthoughts: You're wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  You will have to be more specific. The very first sentence of WP:BLPTALK is as clear as day, and I have pointed out history supporting this. Is this an administrators decree or a WP:SUPERVOTE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Morbidthoughts, I think it's discretionary sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  I've modified the above comment indentation to comply with WP:Accessibility. Anyway I've purposely avoided getting involved in this but FWIW I agree with most others than the IP's comments, as apparently even they agree, go beyond the limits of BLPTALK. Editors are free to have whatever personal opinions they want of subjects, but they need to take care to ensure their comments actually relate to improving Wikipedia when they touch on subjects. If there is a way to make the point without commenting on a subject, they should do so. Continued failure to do so is likely a problem. It generally doesn't even matter how many people share that point of view. While it's reasonable to have some leeway especially for extremely notable people e.g. I think it's rare comments on Donald Trump or Jo Biden or Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack Obama or for that matter Jacinda Ardern or John Key at least from a BLP standpoint (other issues may cause concern though) if enough editors express concern that an editor is persistently crossing the line then they need to take this feedback on board. An editor can think subject X is an irrelevant nobody as much as they want. It's largely irrelevant to us. What matters are reliable sources and reliable source coverage. Notably from what I saw most or all of the examples did not involved material directly sourced to the subjects concerned, so their alleged unreliability was not that germane to the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  I just want to see this closed one way or the other. I am fine with a "no action required, user cautioned" close. The worse that could happen is that we end up here again in a few weeks. What I really want to do is unwatch this page. Having it on my watch list tempts me to post here, and apparently there is an unwritten rule that if you ever want to run for RfA you are required to show zero interest in AN, ANI, AE, or Jimbotalk. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Idahocool30 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. They claim they're "trying to fix and add valuable information that will help other article seekers to find information they are looking for." All they're really doing is spamming the article KTVA and my talk page. See this diff: [94] I reported them at WP:AIV but got rebuffed. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Also a personal attack on my talk page. [95] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

24 block by C Fred for edit warring, but they are a they". It's a group account.. See also UTRS appeal #43644. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Usage of talk page as a forum

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

---

Since they joined about a month ago, User:Blamazon has almost exclusively used the talk page of tank and firearm articles as a discussion forum, despite being given a first warning on 30 March, and a final warning yesterday. Their behaviour includes responding to discussions which had long been resolved, such as this question asked in 2006 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M1919_Browning_machine_gun&oldid=1014016005), as well as starting their own sections, most of which have little, if any, pertinence to developing the article. I have linked them to WP:NOTAFORUM on multiple occasions, and yesterday I explained on my talk page the purpose of talk pages, that they are not to be used be for general discussion, and that they should use the RD or another site if they'd like to ask questions of this nature, but they've gone straight back to it today. I somewhat get the impression that they're WP:Not here to build an encyclopedia, instead being more interested in giving their personal opinions about things, i.e. original research. Their comments are often replete with "in my opinion", or "I think", and rarely, if ever, supported by any sources. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chauchat&oldid=1023168262, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiger_I&oldid=1020378014, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FG_42&diff=prev&oldid=1015161749&diffmode=source

One of their few edits into mainspace was this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M1_Garand&diff=prev&oldid=1022467104&diffmode=source, which shares most of the same problems: OR, where they mention how certain things "might have been better", and "probably did not happen". After I reverted this edit, they took it my talk page, and asked me if I knew about the Garand ping myth, and once I said yes (but not actually prompting them to talk about it), they gave me another OR wall of text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loafiewa&diff=prev&oldid=1022991563&diffmode=source

There are also signs of WP:IDHT, on my talk page, after explaining that using talk pages as a forum is against policy, and they may be blocked for it, they seemed to completely disregard it, on account of the fact that other people have also used the talk pages to ask questions in a similar manner, a complete refusal to learn or change. Loafiewa (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I contribute to this discussion?Blamazon (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Put forward your response. DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. First, I want to point out that I agree that talk pages are not forums. I want to learn and I want to follow the rules.

On Loafiewa's talk page, I arrogantly said that I have not edited any talk sections that have been officially closed. And I said that I thought it was weird that I was being called out for my edits because a large portion of wikipedia talk pages are not about the article itself. In retrospect, I admit I shouldn't have said this because I was bit aggravated about Loafiewa reverting so many of my edits. I felt like I was being targeted and my mood reflected in my posts.

Second, I am not a long time user. Loafiewa said at the beginning that I joined about a month ago. That said, I don't know much about wikipedia's rules. And I am not trying to break them.

I want to use the talk pages for their intended purpose. And I also want to answer the questions that people post on talk pages. But most of all, I want to learn. If there is something I can do to be a better user, I would like to know.Blamazon (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages should only be used to discuss edits or potential edits to the article. If someone, in contravention of that, posts a general discussion point on the topic, it doesn’t mean you should answer. They should be reverted per WP:NOTFORUM. If they are not reverted it still doesn’t mean that you should engage. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Should I delete/revert content(made by me and other users) on talk pages that is not related to editing the article?Blamazon (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Blamazon, meh. I just reverted some stuff on Talk:Panzerfaust, but it's not a huge deal. We're more concerned, I think, with whether you understand what all this was about, and it seems to me that you do. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand what I did wrong and I am doing my best to improve.Blamazon (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:George Vu

Please block User:George Vu for this: [96] Mztourist (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Daniel (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit summary containing a personal attack is particularly nasty. In fact, I think it should be RD3'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) — Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Note as well: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/George Vu Laplorfill (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Need admin review

Could an admin review this recent diff? Easily in the WP:NPA area, and in my view, offering violence is way over the top. Thanks, Jusdafax (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's ridiculous. Blocked indefinitely by NRP, who beat me to it by a second. Daniel (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks to you both. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • He's apologized in an unblock request. For what it's worth, I don't think that was a threat of physical violence. If I understand correctly, it was a challenge to play against him in a video game, where he would presumably prove his edit was within policy by pummeling you virtually. That kind of over-the-top screamy, insult-laden behavior still falls under WP:NOTHERE as far as I'm concerned, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
    • In the decade plus that I've been editing, this is a very common pattern. Bluster, abuse, threats, block, sweat promise to do better, repeat. Given the pinging and taunting, followed by a sudden miraculous apology, I don't believe this character will be an asset to the 'pedia. Good preventative block! Jusdafax (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

      As I understand it, it's more like the old phrase "if you've got a problem with someone, would you say the stuff you do online to their face?" Still, I have had a word. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

      Modified Ritchie333's indenting to comply with WP:Accessibility. I don't really know what purpose it would serve but I agree with NinjaRobotPirate, it was clearly a suggestion they should duke it out in 1 v 1 in PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds rather than a suggesting for physically fighting. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Super.mix5101 edit warring and IDHT behavior

User:Super.mix5101 is a relatively new user here who edits mostly in Egyptian topics. As one can see at User contributions for Super.mix5101, an unusually large portion of their edits have been reverted. I encountered them at Egyptian–Libyan War in late April, where they have repeatedly tried to alter the "result" parameter to basically show Egypt's position in the outcome more favorably. As per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, I have been reverting them for trying to make the result more detailed and complicated than it should be. One other user has also reverted them here. I have asked them to use the talk page but they have not engaged in any discussion, showing WP:IDHT problems. User:Vif12vf has posted two warnings on their talk page which have elicited no response. They have a history of simply reverting reverts of their edits without providing any explanation in the edit summary of what they're trying to achieve, such as here. Admin assistance would be appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

And despite this ANI report they are continuing to edit war with no communication. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Now the guy literally just insulted me on the talk-page of Sinai insurgency‎, literally the first interaction me makes with any of us! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Um no one has edited that talk page since December last year. Can you provide a diff? Canterbury Tail talk 21:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops sorry, that should have been Talk:Egyptian revolution of 1952. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Averybenedictxezonaki vandalising own talk page

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

---

Averybenedictxezonaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted to fake their unblock request being accepted. See [97]. AIV doesn't seem like the right place to report an indeffed vandal, so I'm taking this to the dramaboards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudhhr (talk • contribs) 21:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Avery has not been unblocked. An admin was considering unblocking them. Apparently they now want to leave Wikipedia and are saying that the vandalism was done by their son.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Well they've been CU blocked as a sockmaster, so it probably wasn't their son doing it. dudhhr 00:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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

What a curious story. I can't really grok all the specifics of the block, as it were, but I think it's worthwhile to point out that one of their articles was not a hoax. This micro-stub they created turned out to be this guy. --- Possibly (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

JS1 PRN

JS1 PRN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Many of this users edit have something to do with altering/removing information to do with the number of ethnicities of a place - seems like Wikipedia:Tendentious editing to me- Some examples;

[98] [99] [100] [101] [102][103] [104] [105] [106]

Regarding his edits, he has claimed that My source is people in Afghanistan, when I get the reference I shall link it. and also recently justified his edits (?) with this comment Post naval statistics is guilty of identity censorship.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Bumping so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

108.167.78.36 Whack-A-Mole

As previously discussed in a previous thread and blocked by Izno (who is currently offline), another sock of currently blocked vandal 108.167.78.36 has popped up. I'm hoping this one can be dealt with also.

Izno blocked the original account for three months and the previous sock for three months. I am asking for the same here.

The anon admits he is using sockpuppets in question on his original account's talk page, while also calling for my block. Hilarious. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Really? No one? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If they're an LTA, you should be able to report them at WP:AIV. Given that they know how to change their IP and they haven't edited for 24 hours, I'm not sure what you are suggesting admins can do now. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@力: They are a sock of a blocked user. This has been here for 24 hours, that's not my problem. What I'm suggesting is an admin block the account(s) or just the entire range (like Izno did) for 3 months. AIV is going to kick it because it's stale or suggest it go to ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Very uncivil behaviour from user 2600:1000:b012:918e:98d5:804f:72c0:b94d

Greetings administrators

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:USCWWeapons&action=history

And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_weapons_in_the_American_Civil_War&action=history

Also its I.P. seems to change every minute

Thank you 4noname4 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for making personal attacks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare just now saw it, great thanks for the kind words to the talk page, appreciating it 4noname4 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: the whole range Special:Contribs/2600:1000:B012:918E:943:B609:D117:499B/41 is making personal attacks and vandalising. Their personal attack allcaps edit summaries should probably get revdel'd dudhhr 01:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I've expanded the block range. I'll revdel a few of the more egregious summaries. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@dudhhr you are completely correct 4noname4 (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare just to inform you that the same user pops out as a gremlin changes its I.P. rapidly to whatever number and continues the same

Please notice the same numbers that this I.P. starts such as: 2600:1000:

And thanks for the cooperation 4noname4 (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@4noname4: Yep, that is how I have blocked the IP range (first the /64, now expanded to the /41). There is more information at WP:Rangeblock if you are curious. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Warrior4565666666

Warrior4565666666 (talk · contribs · logs) has been making disruptive edits after multiple requests to stop and a level 4 warning, and is unwilling or unable to learn basic Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:AGF, inserting own editorial comments into articles and not being WP:CIVIL with other users when their edits are reverted. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ytoyoda: This sounds like a relatively simple case that could go to WP:AIV. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

IP Address 98.4.181.121

If it isn’t ok to post this here, I understand. But this IP is removing content without explanation, edit warring (both at Rocket Power), and so far as shown no interest in discussing our content dispute. I have provided warnings on their talkpage for edit warring and removing content with an adequate explanation. I would like some assistance with this issue. If this IP provided a reasonable explanation for why they do not believe the content should be in the article, I would leave it alone, but they have yet to do so. Thank you in advance!--Rockchalk717 02:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: might be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. Sigh. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Yikes. I hope not.--Rockchalk717 02:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems this IP has been blocked following my request at WP:AIV. I only posted here because of how long it was taking.--Rockchalk717 04:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Spam crosswiki

The user Pablogarciadeportes and his sockpuppets does spam crosswiki about Walter Ezequiel Matthysse in enwiki, eswiki and wikidata. This user has been blocked indefinitely in eswiki; please see this list of sockpuppets in eswiki and the history of the article Walter Matthysse, article vandalized with persistent spam about that person. Valdemar2018 (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The user has not edited en.wiki in almost a year. I see no reason to take any administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Persistent removal of relevant sourced content

Sri Lankan wiki user UMDP has been persistently removing relevant content covering atrocities committed against Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka. Please see the latest discussion and edit warring taking place in this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Eastern_Province_massacres

He has also downplayed atrocities against Tamil civilians on this page, removing references to Tamil people and the anti-Tamil pogrom in 1958:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1009479994

Unfortunately, I see little hope of resolution with said user as he appears adamant from his past editting history to be propagating an one sided narrative regarding the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict. I do not think this is consistent with the balance and objectivity of Wikipedia. I would appreciate if an admin chimes in. Thank you Oz346 (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The page is about atrocities against Sinhalese, the user wants to add extensive details of the 1985 Trincomalee massacres to the page. Also I did not remove the content, only summarizes and added a link to the 1985 incident. Adding excessive details about 1985 masscres to the 1987 masscres results in the weight being shifted to a different topic. - UmdP 12:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Right now this looks like a content dispute, which is best handled on the talk page or, if that fails, by following the instructions at WP:DISPUTE. No one here is going to solve your content dispute; this noticeboard is for chronic behavior issues. I'm not sure it's quite at edit-warring yet, but it does look like both of you are right up against it. I'd highly recommend you and other editors at the page stop reverting one another and start talking about what kinds of compromise you can find. Oz346, the WP:ONUS is on the person adding information to an article to gain consensus for those additions, so please do not revert again but instead discuss. —valereee (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Valereee the said information was on this page for months, and was quite stable with no issue from the other editors of this page (including the original creator/author of the page). It is only now that user UMDP has been repeatedly removing it from the page. We will not reach any consensus, he has been repeatedly reverting things on another page despite it being reliable content. This need 3rd party mediation, I will follow the advice on WP:DISPUTE.Oz346 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346, well, there are only 7 page watchers, only 3 of whom have visited recent edits, so the fact the info has been on the page for months probably doesn't mean much. I'd say you haven't really spent much time discussing, but asking for a third opinion is always a good idea. You can do that at WP:3O. I'll also ping @Blackknight12, @Hugo999and @RoySmith, all of whom are experienced editors who have edited the page but not recently. —valereee (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend WP:3O just yet. Respondents there would want to see more discussion at the talk page. Oz346, please don't give up yet on the possibility of consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any need for admin involvement here. There's a content disagreement, and people are discussing it on the talk page. This is how it's supposed to work. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I had closed this discussion as a content dispute, I have self-reverted following a request by valereee on the article talk-page. --JBL (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Neutral Editor

Third Opinion was mentioned. This dispute has already been to Third Opinion. I provided the opinion that I thought that the content in question did not belong in that article. There were two groups of atrocities in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka, in 1985 and in 1987. The article in question is about the 1987 massacres, but the filing editor wants to include information about the 1985 massacres, which has its own article. This is a case where "Removal of sourced content" is being used as a codeword for a dispute about due weight. In other words, this is a content dispute, but the filing editor doesn't like the way that the content resolution was working out. My suggestion at this point is either to remove the mention of the 1985 massacres, or to use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Occasionally a dispute is closed too quickly here as a content dispute without looking at whether there are conduct issues getting in the way of the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you provided the third opinion, Oz364 hasn't made any edits to that article or talk page. What suggests that they don't "like the way that the content resolution was working out"?

I'm attempting some minor mind-reading here, but I think this section was re-opened because of a specific misconduct allegation, namely that Oz364 had double-posted at WP:3O. That turns out to have been untrue and just a miscommunication. Besides opening an ANI thread for a content dispute, an issue that I think was well addressed by valereee, are there any other conduct issues to discuss? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I apologize. I misread the posting time of this ANI. The ANI was posted before, not after, the Third Opinion. In that case, I have provided a Third Opinion, and there are no conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Definitely been there. Could an admin please close? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

186.139.255.129

Reporting this user for personal attacks by this user on issues with rude/inappropriate commentary Examples can be seen here and vandalizing my talk page here: here. I apologize if this is the wrong place to do it, but I'm not sure where else we are supposed to do it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC) User has also attacked other users here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked by L235 (talk · contribs). Some of this user's contributions (see here) need to be RD2'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu

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

User seems to have a strong opinion (to say the least) to anything Iran-related, coming up with accusations/rants like this;

You can't Indirect decide that these are not realible or well also by hiding Turkics number of İran on Wikipedia won't help upcoming Irani civil war. Iranian nationalism is all I see here.

This is not true! I do not understand your purpose! I added it to half a dozen citations and those articles have the term whole azerbaijan dozens of times. This is not Iran's platform for ethnic cleansing. If you revert once again, you will be reported. WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:RVAN

Why are you deleting also the map? WP:SNEAKY You guys cant hide ethnic minorities in Iran either You cannot do informational ethnic cleansing either. The flag issue is controversial, what about the map?

Added 7 academic citations, you can examine geographical sections. It will not be late for me to request the admin page at the first revert to be deleted from now on. Please torpise your ethnic hostility on a different platform. This is not a place where Iran is trying to wipe out its ethnic minorities, it is a free encyclopedia

In just one month, he has reverted Khorasani Turks 6 times [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] (4 of them today), attempting to force a fictional flag and map onto the article. He justifies his addition of the map by adding various random sources not even related to it.

Looking at all this, this seems like a WP:TENDENTIOUS issue to me at the very least. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You keep always reverting sourced information and its not a slander you guys in a constant effort to hide the Turkic minority in Iran related articles. Btw i dont reverted YOU GUYS DELETING & reverting my edits. I putted tons of citations yet dare to report me without seeing his own fault. They constantly erase the articles and delete the sourced information about Turkic people's in Iran. They are the ones who reverted, although I have provided 7 academic sources right now. Pure Informational ethnic cleansing in my opinion. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I rest my case. I'll let the admins deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

+ It's not a fictional map even on Wikimedia states; Based on Dr.Papoli Yazdi work (فصلنامه تحقیقات جغرافیایی، سال سوم شماره 2 ، پاییز 1376، دکتر محمد حسین پاپلی یزدی ) Geographical Research Quarterly, Third Year No. 2, Fall 1997, Dr. Mohammad Hossein Papli Yazdi. Also, I removed the flag myself and already asked why did you remove the map together with the flag? That's also WP:SNEAKY. Although I did not mention 7 academic sources supporting the map, you reverted it again. Ethnicities in Iran ; If you look at this page, you will see a focused version of the same map. It is unwise to delete this or you revert for different purposes..To my own opinion, you are trying to hide ethnic identities here. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

[113] That map literally says "Source: Own Work", its a textbook example of WP:OR, of some random wikipedia member drawing up a map by himself based on his interpretation of a book. The fact that you're unable to understand basic Wikipedia rules about sourcing and have to resort to ethnosectarian accusations and fantasy ramblings about "ethnic cleansing" and "civil war" shows that you're very clearly engaging in disruptive editing. Your rants don't change the fact that your additions are baseless. --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Quick cursory digging in his recent posts shows this [114] which is a straight-up personal attack on another editor he was disagreeing with (claiming his eyes aren't working properly). --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack? You sad 2x times that you don't see Khorasani Turks in this dozen of citations my friendly advice is seeing eye doctor or try to use CTRL+F if you can't locate stuff. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment Cengizsogutlu has a long history of attacks towards other users that disagree with them and POV pushing :

• "Congratulations, You play the sneaky and stupid role very well".
• "I want this in a civilized way, most likely you hate Turks oky whatever everyone's own life".
• "Then I recommend you go to an ophthalmologist.".

This editor does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia and i have not been able to find out how he/she has been a net positive to the project.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What a nice example of Etnic nationalism, One more example of persianization of things. I'm Grateful for the Wikipedia seen this kinda ethno facism. You guys even tried to change drink called Ayran name into Doogh also deleted Turkish section etc. If I need to remind you, I have already received a 24-hour mute from these comments. Yet that didnt helped your Doogh name effort Ayran name still REMAINS ♥. I understand your hatred guys, it makes you sad that I disrupt your ethnic stuff changing games. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The above comment is very instructive as to the kind of editor Cengizsogutlu is.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The above comment is very instructive as to the kind of editor Cengizsogutlu is. That's what i mean You play the sneaky and stupid role very well. This is not an insult I apologize if you understand this that way, but this is an an irregular situation. What you are trying to do to erase an edit that you do not like, saying "he insulted me" "his style is not normal" "" he is an editor of this kind ", always stay away from the main subject and play the role of the victim. During this time, the other party is blocked, and no matter how wrong the subject you are defending, remains on wikipedia. It's a nice sneaky strategy btw. Sorry, but these excuses are not enough to hide your mission to hide ethnic minorities in Iran guys. Keep trying to let me banned but it won't change the truth. You are constantly talking about personal insult.

You play the sneaky role

If you can't find it from a dozen of citations and if you are not malicious, then you should go to your ophthalmologist

I apologize if you saw these as insults. My aim is definitely not insulting. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If you say that there is no word on the citations in this article that match, it means you are either maliciously intended to find excuse to delete or have a bad eye. If you can't find something, it doesn't give you the right to revert. Friendly advice is appearing to ophthalmologist. The bad intention is that, in my opinion, because of your ethnic nationalism, you cannot tolerate these facts. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This editor does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia i made articles much more than you deleted sir. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to so many nonsenses. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu, I suggest you edit in another area for a while. Ethnic debates are notoriously bad places for a relatively new user, you're going to make mistakes and wind up in arguments very frequently. And yes, your statements towards other users absolutely come across as personal attacks, so that needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu has been POV-pushing and actively engaging in edit-warring in Whole Azerbaijan. In response to me asking them to quote the sources they are referring to (I am familiar with the sources and have reasons to believe they do not support Cengizsogutlu's claims), they said: if you cant locate with Ctrl+F go to an ophthalmologist and ask if you have astigmatism. I find this in violation of WP:CIVILITY and request that the administrators review this case and take measures if necessary. I must specify that the user has been warned on different occasions by fellow editors that they had been engaging in disruptive editing: [115], [116], [117]. Parishan (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

HandThatFeeds has a good point. Based on the above evidence, I propose that Cengizsogutlu should be banned from making edits related to Iran and Turkic peoples (1), which is the usual outcome of discussions like this. In fact, Devlet Geray (talk · contribs) got handed a similar topic ban in a February ANI for tendentious editing about Turkic peoples — Cengizsogutlu's editing at Khorasani Turks and Doogh sure looks tendentious.

I'm also proposing a topic ban from Turkey-related topics (2a), or at least from the Turkish Armed Forces (2b), as well — twice did they blank a statement in Ağrı Province involving Armenians (diff, diff), and at Turkish Land Forces they restored a paragraph (Special:Diff/1021263224, Special:Diff/1021265483) removed by Visnelma (talk · contribs) per a discussion at the talk page, though their edits at List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces such as Special:Diff/1024691317 might be okay, despite using primary sources. The aforementioned discussion mentioned that they were p-blocked in February for edit warring, including the exact same dispute at the article in question (diff, diff). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Proposals (1 and 2a): broadly construed. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support both proposals (1 and 2a).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 2a it does not appear that the block and p-block (by myself and El_C) have made any difference. Black Kite (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support both proposals (1 and 2a) per his conduct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 2a, it's clear this user isn't able to edit objectively on this subject. Perhaps he can appeal this in a year or two as he's still a relatively new user, and editing in less-controversial areas might hone his abilities. — Czello 09:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 2a per LaundryPizza03, and Cengizsogutlu's battleground comments. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Question So im technically banned although I do give academic based citations about Khorasani Turks in Iran & Whole Azerbaijan stuff, Because I replaced Armenian claims propaganda of Agri province to history secion, Because I am defending that the history in the logo and official claim of date 209 BC better remains on Turkish Land Forces article, Also try to explain what Orda (organization) is to Visneelma? ? Anyway i am not doing any other editions here expect from Turkey, Military & defence industry edits. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Pure strawman strategy on your side, this won't be helpful in your situation.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Rupert1904

Rupert1904 (talk · contribs) has been a problem for a while. NB this is not a content dispute - he is edit warring to change a long established stable version of a page, against MOS. He has admitted deliberately editing against MOS, because he thinks he can, and has now breached 3RR at the page in question (Ike Ugbo) - attempts at discussing on his talk page have simply resulted in him making more reverts and also insulting me, making comments like calling me a "creep" and very bizarre comments (same diff) like "You still haven't bought me dinner or asked permission from my parents yet to take me out on a date". Further input on the issue/conduct welcome. GiantSnowman 16:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

NB the MOS issues will also be raised shortly at WT:FOOTBALL to deal with that aspect. This post here is to deal with Rupert's conduct and attitude/insults. GiantSnowman 16:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No this is a content dispute. As the MOS clearly states, it is a recommendation and is subject to change and should not be followed word for word. You think it's gospel that needs to be followed blindly and is not open to change or improvement BUT the MOS says it is open to change. On Ike Ugbo you insist on putting in blank rows into his career stats table for the 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20, and 2020–21 seasons with parent club Chelsea. This is wrong and inaccurate for so many reasons. He has never been registered or given a number with the senior squad. So he has never been included in the squad list for ANY competition during those four seasons. He has been sent on loan to other clubs before season starts so it is factually inaccurate to include these seasons with Chelsea in a stats table because that would suggest that he was in a lineup or could have featured for the club during that season which is not true. Then when I ask why you won't fix this supposed MOS problem on other player articles you refuse to answer the question because you think you're above me. You then tried to start a discussion about this on my talk page and you brought in another editor into said discussion but they sided with my argument and not yours so now you're all upset. And lastly, you have a pattern of following my edits and reverting me and you even admitted to having my talk page on your watch list. That is incredibly weird and not appropriate. You need to stop! Rupert1904 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Your accusations of me following your round are entirely unfounded. I think you'll find you have a habit of editing articles I created and therefore have in my watchlist (meaning I see your changes). That is all. If we are talking about "incredibly weird and not appropriate" why did you call me a creep and why do you keep talking about me taking you on a date?! GiantSnowman 16:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rupert is now removing my talk page posts. GiantSnowman 16:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not unfounded. I have voiced my concern that you follow me around on multiple occasions and a search of your edit history and all your reverts of my edits throughout the years would support my concern. I have never hounded you out and tried to revert your edits but it seems like you get pleasure from following my edits and reverting me. It is very concerning and frustrating as I've already indicated to you time and time again. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, you clearly don't understand what "unfounded" means. You are also ignorant about WP:AGF (amongst other things). GiantSnowman 16:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a diff clearly showing you deleting my post at the WikiProjetc talk page. Why did you do it and why are you now lying about it? GiantSnowman 16:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't delete. If anything, it was an edit conflict as I keep trying to post but you keep adding more and more notes. You act so holier than thou in this witch hunt of me. I do not understand why you follow my talk page and follow my contributions so that you can then revert me. This seems to happen weekly. I said you are a creep and said you should take me on a date because you follow me around and revert my edits so much. It goes hand in hand. You take the MOS too literally. It should not be followed word for word. It is very frustrating and unnerving that you have chosen me as the object of your attention and it feels very uncomfortable and like a personal attack. I never follow your edits but I am sure if I did as you do mine, then I could nitpick yours too. You have shown a pattern throughout the years of following me and even made it known today that you do. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If it was an edit conflict then you will have had a notification telling you so. Did you or didn't you? Whatever your excuse, your conduct speaks for itself, as does your admission that you (1) happily insulted me and made other bizarre and inappropriate comments, as well as (2) edit warred to ignore the MOS to make your preferred edits. I'll wait for other editors to comment. GiantSnowman 16:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

All you do is happily insult me and now you try to play a victim. You freely admitted to following my talk page and contributions and have now started this discussion because you want to insult and disparage me. I have let it known that I feel very uncomfortable with the extent that you follow my edits and make comments on my talk page and find it incredibly inappropriate that you continue to do so. I have asked you many times to stop following me all the time and you refuse to do so. You track my every edit on wikipedia. It is very creepy but I take solace in the fact this is digital and you do not know where I live or who I am because I am not sure what you are capable of doing in real life. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I told you I watch listed your talk page - because we were having a discussion there, so I knew when there was something to respond to? That is all. I have not admitted to following you and your contributions, because I have done neither. Your comments are becoming increasingly bizarre and unhinged. GiantSnowman 17:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk about insulting someone! Please stop. I am so tired of you insulting me all the time and following my edits. I've been asking you to stop following me for years and you won't. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. GiantSnowman 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And let it be known to this forum that many wikipedia editors have sided with me in the content dispute in question. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Any content dispute is irrelevant; this page is about your conduct, your insults, your behaviour. GiantSnowman 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This should also be about your continued online abuse of me and years of following my contributions and my continued asking of you to stop following me and your refusal to do so.Rupert1904 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You are now making serious accusations without providing a shred of evidence. Either substantiate your comments with diffs or retract them. GiantSnowman 17:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It can be found in the history of our talk pages and my contributions that you have continuously reverted. I have been clear on multiple occasions that I feel like you single me out for abuse, are incredibly rude to me, make me feel uncomfortable, make me feel like I am lesser than you (which you have done in this very thread and in the current discussion on Wikiprojectfootball) and that you follow my edits. This is now the latest example of it. I do not know if I wronged you in a past life but I have never sought you out like you do with me. I have said multiple times that you are a bully and I am tired of it and do not want to take your abuse anymore. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rupert1904, calling another editor a "creep" is a personal attack, and your remark about buying dinner or asking your parents for permission and going out on a date is just plain strange and quite inappropriate. GiantSnowman provided a diff showing exactly what you wrote. In this conversation, you repeatedly accuse GiantSnowman of misconduct but you haven't provided any evidence such as diffs or even direct quotes or links to anything inappropriate. I hope that you understand how important evidence is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Cullen - to discredit me, the person being attacked, is incredibly poor form. Also, is calling some strange not a personal attack? I called GS a creep because GS has displayed a pattern of following my every move on wikipedia and reverting me. This has happened for years and years. Thus my comment and joke about taking me to dinner since GS has tracked me so much. I do not have the time nor the energy to look through over a decade of history of GS berating me but I have included a couple points below from what GS had said just today. Also I do not know what diff means. I am not a religious wikipedia editor. I edit on wikipedia because I enjoy updating it and making it more accurate. For me, it is not a day job but a hobby. I do not want to continue editing if I am going to be attacked and harangued in a digital kangaroo court.

Just today, GS purposefully said that “Rupert thinks we can ignore MOS” and misquoted me as having said “oh well the MOS is not supposed to be followed”. GS posted this on this forum at 16:42 UTC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Career_stats_MOS_-_parent_club_rows). I NEVER said that and GS certainly isn't inside my mind to know what I think. This is blatant disregard of the truth. That is a lie that GS propagated in a clear attempt to sully my reputation and edits and discredit me in a discussion we were having with other editors. That is a tactic a strong man uses to silence their opponents. Also today, GS wrote on my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rupert1904) calling me a “brick wall” and saying that I am “childishly dramatic” because GS doesn’t agree with my points. If we are talking about personal attacks, then I would say that falls into the realm too. And the content discussion that GS started on Wikiproject Football has now shown that more editors agree with me on the edit that I implemented but it seems that GS always needs to have the final word and be the victor in an argument especially since I am just a brick wall. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rupert1904, I anticipated that you might not know what a diff is, and so I provided you a link to a helpful page explaining it. Did you notice that or read it? As for the content matter, this noticeboard does not deal with content. Are you really arguing that it is OK for you to call another editor a "creep" and ramble on about that strange dating stuff, but not OK for the other editor to refer to not wanting to talk to a brick wall? I think that both of you should stop personalizing the dispute and instead use Dispute resultion such as a Request for comment for example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it OK for you to call another editor "strange"? I have made it clear over and over again to GS that I don't want to talk to them but GS keeps following my edits, reverts my edits and posts on my talk page. It's online abuse and it should be clear by now that I am sick of it. Abuse is abuse - whether on wikipedia or in real life and it is damaging to mental health. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rupert1904, I most certainly did not call you strange. I called your dinner and parental permission and dating remark strange, because it was. Correcting another editor's work is not online abuse, unless you can provide actual evidence that GiantSnowman intends to bother you, as opposed to being motivated by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. Where's your evidence? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I appreciate your attempts at help - but as you can see from Rupert's responses to you (and me), they just don't get it. They continue to make serious, unfounded accusations against me without a shred of evidence, and continue to twist things you and I have said. GiantSnowman 19:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, GiantSnowman, that is increasingly clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

My evidence is that you blatantly lie and misquote me to further your arguments, call me names and disparage me, and continuously follow my edits and revert me. These are all things I have noted to and linked to above. This is a process that has been going on for years. I have called GS a creep on the same basis as you called me strange- GS has followed me for years despite repeated attempts by me to ask GS to stop bothering me. I tried being polite but after a decade of abuse to me by GS, it’s clear It won’t change. It’s harassment. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

To repeat, I did not call you strange. I called your comment strange because it was strange. You seem to think that it is OK to call another editor a "creep" and object to that editor reverting you from time to time. Reverting is commonplace when editors disagree and then we discuss it. So far, I see no evidence presented here that GiantSnowman is harassing you, and actual evidence is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

So Rupert has - edit warred; insulted me; made strange comments towards me; twisted what I have said; twisted what Cullen has said; made repeated accusations about me without a shred of evidence; and doubled down on their conduct when challenged by Cullen. Can somebody please intervene to prevent this ongoing conduct/behaviour? GiantSnowman 09:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, another editor of footballer articles here. GiantSnowman and Rupert1904 both do a lot of great work on WP:FOOTY articles. It's a pity the content dispute (which, as GS noted, is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football) escalated into a personal conflict. Some thoughts:

• GS and Rupert have a history. GS has frequently criticised Rupert's editing, here are examples from the past year: [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124]. In my view, in most cases GS' concerns are legitimate. At the same time, I can empathise that an editor who edits in good faith and is clearly WP:HERE might become frustrated when most of the interactions with other editors they experience are criticism. I understand GS' frustration over Rupert's repeated additions of unsourced content, I assume that would be the reason why GS used message templates which many established editors don't like receiving. I don't see outright WP:HOUNDING on GS' part and Rupert's "creep" and dating comments are out of line.
• Oh, I've just seen that @Robby.is.on: has previously referred you to the MOS at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players - so you obviously are aware of it, you're just choosing to ignore it? Why?, GS' second message to Rupert's Talk page about the content issue, is needlessly provocative and displays a lack of good faith. There a couple of reasons Rupert might have edited the way he did, "choosing to ignore it" is just one possible explanation. Also, as evidenced by the discussion happening at WP:FOOTY right now, the issue is a contentious one among editors of football articles. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Rusf10

Rusf10 (talk · contribs) nominated Aschach (Rott) for deletion, I've argued against in the discussion. It was then relisted to gain a clearer consensus. I've voted a second time for keep. Rusf10 overwrote twice my contribution with self-invented non-Wikipedia rules (here and here). In my eyes, this is also a violation of WP:BRD. I've already argued that in another deletion discussion User:Kusma (who is administrator and should know the rules) also voted twice and even Rusf10 by nominating that article for deletion and then after the relisting with "oppose merge", but that didn't convince Rusf10. How to proceed? --Cyfal (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The best way to proceed is to stop trying to !vote twice. If you have something new to add to a deletion discussion, phrase it as a comment instead of a second vote. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

In the second debate, Kusma did not !vote twice. They made a comment later in agreement with another editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• My response to this is simple, you are NOT allowed to vote twice! If you can't understand that then you shouldn't vote at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rusf10: also see, WP:NOTVOTE. ——Serial 18:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:I am aware of NOTVOTE, which itself is neither a policy or a guideline. Regardless, no one should be posting things that have the appearance of a deliberate attempt to mislead the closer of the discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a informatory supplement to two policies which has enjoyed widespread recognition and consensus for 14 years. Also see WP:ECHO for why your ping to me just now... did not work. Cheers! ——Serial 19:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• • In regards to the other discussion, my initial vote was for deletion (the nomination itself) and I then clarified it by explicitly stating I oppose a merge, that's not two votes.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• While you can contribute to a discussion as much as you wish (within reason), you should not make it appear that you vote twice. So don't use bolded "keep" or similar bolded word in more than one of your comments. I don't think it was necessary to revert your second vote, though -- annotating it would have been enough to make it clear to the closer that you appear to have voted more than once. And of course, AFD is a discussion and not decided by vote count alone. —Kusma (t·c) 18:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• I think the underlying issue here is that Cyfal misunderstands what a relisting is. Cyfal, when an AFD is relisted that just means it didn't attract comments from enough people yet, so more people weighing in are needed; it does not mean that you are required to repeat your previous comment. Your first comment will be taken into consideration when it is eventually closed, and if you have anything to add you can add it to that. (You can also reply to other people, indented - the other "comment" you noticed was that - but this is generally considered something to do a bit sparingly and shouldn't be accompanied by a big bolded summary of what you want the way your initial comment is, since the purpose of those is to make it easier for people to get the temperature of the room at a glance and to ensure the closer doesn't misjudge the overall thrust of your argument.) It feels like you mistakenly believe that a relisting is akin to starting the RFC over and that everyone who wants their opinion counted needs to state it again, which is not the case. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you all for your clarifications and the hint to WP:NOTVOTE. The idea behind my second "vote" was mainly to explain that I still stood to my decision. I've learned now that bolding the "keep" was not a good idea. I've stroke my texts now where not yet done. --Cyfal (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation/fake Barnstars

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

---

The user User:Casprings has multiple Barnstars on his page, supposedly awarded by a former Wikipedia Foundation staff, another quite active user, and two indefinitely blocked sock puppeteers. The Barnstars are a template (User:Casprings/Appreciation) that has only been edited by the user itself. Therefore, from what I know, that is impersonation and probably sockpuppetry. Don't know the exact rules (sorry about that) but wanted to report it. Andibrema (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not sock-puppetry. Oftentimes these are placed on a talk page and moved to a permanent location by the recipient, but I have better things to do than care enough to investigate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's quite clear from the talk archives that, barring some odd game with fake archives (can't be ruled out for manual archiving, but fails Occam's razor), these are authentic. Vaticidalprophet 18:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No reason to worry about talk page archives, just check the contribution history. The barnstars are authentic [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130]. As per 力, I think most barnstars are given on talk pages since unless an editor has specifically said it's okay, it's presumptious to add a barnstar to an editor's user page, as in most cases only the editor themselves should edit them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

In case it reinforces the suspicion, or makes you want to investigate the case, he also blanked/replaced the entire Wikipedia:Requested moves page at some point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1002444656 Andibrema (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by two users

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

---

• 123FactCheck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daiaespera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amar Singh (activist)

I want to report two users who are constantly vandalising the article by deleting its content and refs. 123FactCheck, who only edited Amar Singh's article, is bent on deleting or altering text related to the Harvard University [131][132][133] and replaced a whole paragraph with his own, adding biased and unbalanced material that violate our neutral policy on BLP[4][7]

A few days later another user named Daiaespera showed up, first edited a few random articles instead of directly editing Amar Singh's. Like the previous editor, this one too has a concern around the Harvard University stuff although i never stated he graduated from the Harvard University.[5] Daiaespera made their first edit on this article the same day they signed up (7 april) and have continued to edit to date as per their wishes. All this while, Daiaespera made lots of disruptive edits and deleted many sourced material.but gave them the benefit of doubt and stuck to AGF. Later i had to intervene because the kind of edits they were making were evidentaly a vandalism, for example deletion of sourced content without a discussion or consensus, addition of defamatory material without a reliable reference,

Edits by Daiaespera

1. Removed the subject's official website link from the "external links section" stating "this is a business website not an official website".[6]
2. Here they added "Amar attended the Harvard University although left without taking a degree" which 123FactCheck also wanted to add. , they also removed two references
3. here they deleted a whole paragraph from career heading with an edit summary "Ancestor could mean anything, clarity and reliable sources required" despite the fact that there were 3 references provided for anyone to verify that. the Gay Times and VanityFair clearly speaks about his ancestors "Singh finds inspiration from his family, which is steeped in a history of fighting for equality. His grandmother Veena Singh, who died in 2017, championed women’s rights during the British rule in India and was an ally of the county’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Singh’s ancestor, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, set up India’s first women’s education fund, was India’s first health minister and campaigned for equality alongside Mahatma Gandhi."
4. here they changed from "Founder of Amar Singh Gallery" to "Art gallerist" with an edit summary "more neutral tone" i don't see how this makes the article promotional that they toned it down. I guess they did not want Amar Singh Gallery to reflect anywhere on the top. this is a deceptive edit summary.
5. here they deleted two lines from career and personal life without adequately explaining why. "family" is their edit summary.
6. here they deleted a line from personal life heading and several references "Singh is a direct descendant of Sikh ruler Raja Nihal Singh, who was opposed to colonialism and helped the Lahore forces against the British in the First Anglo-Sikh War" which was reinstated by an extended user. But they did not listen to him/her and again removed it. while Its clearly stated in the VanityFair article "Singh is a direct descendent of India’s Sikh ruler Maharajah Nihal Singh of Kapurthala, who opposed colonialism and helped the Lahore forces against the British in the First Anglo-Sikh War."
7. here they cut pasted a line from personal life heading and inserted in the introductory paragraph and deleted several sources, non constructive edits .
8. here they deleted the line "Singh’s uncle Vishvjit Singh was an Indian politician with the Indian National Congress Party" from personal life heading with an edit summary "not an uncle" while its right there in the losangelesblade article "Singh’s father’s brother, Kanwar Vishvjit Prithvijit Singh, “a chief minister and a great politician in India who was also dedicate to ameliorating the country,"
9. here they finally took down the personal life heading and stated "Source was an interview with Mr Singh in the Gay Times, not a reliable third party reference" in the edit summary - DOesn't the Wikipedia guideline say that Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used with appropriate care to verify some of the article's content? the gay times is not a primary source first of all and his ancestry details are not directly provided by him, an unreasonable excuse to delete a cited material.
10. here they set a citation needed notice at the top of the article, despite the fact that the article was entirely referenced, see the diff.
11. here they deleted the "Art gallerist" from the box on the right side as well as the lead section, and also removed the line "He is the founder of Amar Gallery" from the first paragraph with an edit summary "the gallery seems to have closed down" Look at the point #4, they did not want Amar Singh Gallery anywhere at the top, so it could not reflect in the Google knowledge graph, that's what i concluded. I reinstated that and left two warnings in the hope that they would cease, but they did not and deleted those texts again - if one of his London galleries is closed up, does it mean that he isn't the founder and give them the right to edit it out of the article? clearly a disruptive conduct
12. here they added The Penton Street gallery closed in April 2019 citing a pdf doc, that can only be produced by someone knows the subject very well and trying to discredit him. an editor like us will never be able to find such links online.
13. here they added an unreliable reference. They deleted many of my references claiming they were not reliable, and they can add whatever they want to.
14. here After taking down the whole personal life heading content, they created subject's family tree citing poor/unreliable source. It reeks of someone trying to push their agenda and even discredit.
15. here they deleted a line, providing no proof for their claim
16. here they brought it out to afd at once as i reverted their edits
17. they have made many such unnecessary, non constructive edits and vandalism edits.

I warned Daiaespera twice and urged to bring it out to talk page to seek community consensus if they had concerns but to no avail. they rather brought it to afd. I do not see a policy based argument, no editor chimed in on deletion yet, reading their afd remarks sound as if a desperate attempt to change the content the way they wish to. A glance at their edit history and the amount of edits made on Amar's page by Daiaespera evidently uncovers their real purposes and can confidently say that they are not around to contribute to this encyclopedia but to push their personal agenda. There is a sock investigation opened against me at [134].I deny having a connection with Editorworldwide14 & 123FactCheck in which its stated "123FactCheck has came to the defense of me".they havenot sprung to my defense but to raise concerns over my edits on the Harvard Univerity. In fact, previously we two had had an edit war. They dont belong to me. As for Editorworldwide14, I was aware of the afd discussion from day 1 but didn't want to get involved into it and chose to leave it to community to take a call. Why would i create an additional account when i can use my own for making comments?

123FactCheck and Daiaespera, they both look very suspicious to meSk1728 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think any of my edits constitute disruption or vandalism. Sk1728 created the original article Amar Singh (activist), which was a highly biased piece containing many inaccuracies and family photographs suggestive of the fact that Sk1728 may have a close undisclosed relationship to the subject. Since then I have repeatedly tried to clean up the article, to make it neutral and to weed out the numerous false statements, some of which were added back by Sk1728. So as to avoid an edit war I just AFD'd the article instead. Now Sk1728 is accusing me of disruptive edits and vandalism, and another user Editorworldwide14 is claiming my edits constitute a "cyber attack". It is worth noting that Sk1728 has is currently under Sockpuppet investigation (which I have tried to assist with) and in this past has had copyvio images of Amar Singh removed from Wikimedia Commons. I have tried to improve the article Amar Singh (activist), have flagged issues on its talk page, and raised the question as to whether the article in its current state should be deleted or not, but have come under fire for this by Sk1728 and Editorworldwide14. My issues with the article in question are laid out in the AFD. I have no connection to 123FactCheck who also raised issues with the article. Daiaespera (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Striking out text from WP:RSN

Dear Editors,

I'm not sure if I posted it in the right place, but I wanted other administrators to comment on actions on Shrike, on a specific matter.

A discussion has appeared on the WP:RSN about whether a report suppressed by UN's Secretary General is reliable enough to be used in the context of this to establish that some scholars claim that Israel is engaged in the named process (or so reads the intent of the OP of the thread).

As a rather frequent editor of WP:RSN (see contribs), I have left my first comment under the post. I have since posted two replies, which I edited up until 9:45 May 23 GMT (pre-strike state can be seen here).

At 9:41, Shrike posted a warning about this topic being subject to said arbitration (on my talkpage). He also added that he'd strike out my comments as I have not made 500 edits yet. At 9:49, the comments were struck out, and only after that have I noticed the warning. While striking out my comments, the admin reverted my comments to the state which I considered imperfect. Strangely enough, an edit conflict notice was not triggered.

At 10:10, I asked Shrike on the talk page to return the comments to the state as of 9:45, and, a little later, also added my request to have my comments unstruck, which Shrike denied; no action, including edit to the last state of comments, was made.

According to rules of the arbitration p. 4a-b, areas subject to ARBPIA are entire set of articles whose topic relates to Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted and edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces. Point 7 also says that When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement [template] on the talk page and ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice [template] in the editnotice to do so.

I believe that Shrike has overreached while imposing such restrictions. The only way in which the topic relates to Palestinian and Israeli issues is the source discussed; however, neither the article in question is subject to arbitration, nor is WP:RSN. The noticeboard, moreover, was about discussing reliability of resources and scholars and did not delve into content itself.

Also, as the discussion seemed to be in the acceptable borders of civility (at least that is I how I saw it), I contest Shrike imposing general sanctions, because that implies I was being disruptive while the enforcement template says it doesn't, and the rules say that enforcement is only to be triggered when the discussion goes wild. Moreover, Shrike has not put an ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice template locally on the discussion, so users participating there are unaware they are subject to restrictions on editing content. I was personally aware of the arbitration in place on such topics.

I therefore ask the Editors to weigh my arguments and ask to:

a. Revert my comments to the state as of 9:45 May 23, 2021 UTC.

b. Make my comments unstruck, with my promise of voluntarily staying out of the discussion.

I also ask to determine if disruptive edits were made to the section of WP:RSN. If yes, please explain in which way I was being disruptive, and also ask to put the editnotice template on the discussion locally. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I would say striking your comments is the correct thing to do; as you have pointed out above, the rules apply to "discussions in all namespaces". An editor with a topic ban was recently blocked for a month for commenting on a discussion on this noticeboard regarding another editor's behaviour on articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

However, in the course of looking at this, I found your comment that "Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive to the critique of Israel, exactly dismissing it as "anti-Semitism" to be rather disturbing. Claiming that an entire ethnic group shares a certain opinion/feeling is not really a good take. Number 57 20:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What I wanted to say in this discussion, and which has probably been misunderstood by others, is that I do not believe that Jewish sources will be neutral as regarding Palestine, and that is based on my summary from 9:45, since similar reactions happen in Ukraine, Poland and Russia in contentious topics (and I saw the mess that happens in Russian and Ukrainian wikis in forced arbitration topics). Omission of context of edits (which is a difference between the version struck out and the 9:45 version) makes it look as if I discredited Jewish newspapers for being Jewish but what I meant is that I wanted uninvolved sources for a claim of anti-Semitism, just as I won't source to Polish sources to say Wołyń is a genocide and say that indeed, the whole world thinks so. National perceptions often make it hard to impartially edit Wikipedia, the best proof to which is the very existence of ARBPIA. That was my intention, and it is therefore that I didn't find the remarks "discriminatory", but they might have been inaccurately worded, for which I am sorry. That said, thanks for your consideration. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You said " because, you know, Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive on the critique of Israel". Instead of apologizing, you are repeating your discriminatory statements on "Jewish sources" above. This is not acceptable, period. And this coming from an account that joined this year, with 271 edits, 182 of them being long tirades on the Reliable sources noticeboard. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, whom do I discriminate against? I have the same attitude towards Polish sources on Wołyń, Ukrainian on Holodomor, Russian on 9 May and WWII-related topics, (going further: Argentine on the conflict of Falkland Islands, Turkish sources on Armenian genocide) etc., as I have stated already a few times, and that's my personal attitude. (I may accept scholarly resources, which do not have (that much of) public opinion pressure). If you want to call my attitude towards coverage of controversies by news media of countries involved in the controversy discrimination, so be it, but then I discriminate against almost every country in the world I could imagine, because most of the countries have skeletons in their cupboard. That remark, as it was written, was unfortunate, my apologies. I hope the explanation shows I did not have any malicious intent.

Also, the last sentence sounds as if it were an accusation of incompetence or something to that effect (I hope it's not). I remind you that no policy prohibits to constructively edit any part of Wikipedia, with the exception of justified local restrictions made on presumably inexperienced/not-trusted-enough members, and WP:RSN can be edited by anyone. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Discrimination against "Jewish sources", while not taking a similar position on "Muslim sources" or "Christian sources". You made a direct, discriminatory, statement on Jews (" because, you know, Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive on the critique of Israel"). As for your long tirades on RSN, yes, they were allowed up to now. I propose below that this overly excessive posting of long walls of text cease. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think this deserves clarification but this board may not be the right venue. Because the policy also refers to articles within the topic area and the article being discussed at RSN is not in the topic area. The particular material (Falk and Tilley) is relevant to the topic area but I would say only very indirectly in terms of where it was going to be cited. If the editor had nonetheless been editing disruptively I would just let it go, that was not the case, however.Selfstudier (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Szmenderowiecki: - if you read recent polling on American Jews, it is pretty clear that they have very different opinions (for example, only 33% say the Israeli government is making sincere effort towards peace). As such, you shouldn't be seemingly tarring all Jews with the same brush of being hypersensitive to criticism of Israel. Additionally we should not discriminate against Jewish sources merely because they are Jewish. starship.paint (exalt) 09:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

Szmenderowiecki has been editing since April, most of his edits (182 out of 271) being long TLDR posts to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. He has made discriminatory statements on Jews in those posts. I propose that Szmenderowiecki be topic banned from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and from any edits pertaining to Judaism. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support own proposal. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Dismiss-oppose. 11Fox11 is overreacting. Peaceful resolution of the problem, in my view, has not been exhausted, and no person has had any complaints about my posting on WP:RSN (until the post in question), or elsewhere. 11Fox11 is not a participant in WP:RSN, therefore analysis of my posts solely on bytesize is an inadequate measure of performance, nuisance, or both. A single mishap, to which I confessed and regret having committed, is not a sufficient reason to introduce any kind of preventative measures, nor is indicative of a pattern of disruption. I would first like to invite 11Fox11 to air grievances on my talk page, and only later on post angry complaints for administrators' evaluation, as per standard procedure. If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This seems a distraction from the original questions, namely whether material should have been struck at an RSN discussion and whether the editor whose material was struck was disruptive. If 11Fox11 believes that the editor was disruptive he merely needs to say so in a standard comment.Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. User doubled-down on their unacceptable comment with their corrections and then triple-downed with this ANI report. User claims that their comment was inaccurately worded, and then asks for civility and protocol... At RSN, user is sometimes ignorant of the relevant policy (which is understandable coming from an autoconfirmed user), but then refuses to accept the corrections from others. This week alone I had to insist twice that they should learn about WP:SPS [135][136]. A topic ban in order to get some experience outside of RSN/PIA looks like a very fair and lenient sanction considering the nature of the comment that is being discussed. JBchrch talk 10:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Striking support since user has undertaken to not make generalizations about race/religion/ethnicity. JBchrch talk 10:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal: and then triple-downed with this ANI report what I asked for, explicitly, is to evaluate whether I have been disruptive, not to assert I was not, contrary to what some commenters here imply. While I stated that I believed I was not, I decided to solicit editors' opinion, which IMHO is the sign to the contrary, that I am ready to listen to others' opinions if they indicate I am wrong. Asking for advice is not something editors should be ashamed of, especially in such a situation.

and then asks for civility and protocol The feeling that a user you encounter has not been following rules is a lousy justification for doing the same, particularly if the user subsequently acknowledges fault. JBChrch actually wrote once in my talk (an accidental revert to a version they didn't like for whatever reason), and they know I can discuss matters peacefully. Any user not happy with the post could have addressed it on my talk page first, instead of getting accusations straight to the administrative noticeboard, which should be a remedy only when peaceful resolution on the talk page fails or when the sides agree to refer the question here. To be sure, I did the same when I was not content with Shrike's decision to strike me out, and Shrike proposed me to refer the question to the noticeboard if I wasn't sure, and I wasn't. No hot exchanges, no bickering, name-calling etc., and somehow it's possible.

but then refuses to accept the corrections from others The arguments JBChrch provided indicate to the contrary. It is normal for users to be arguing about content, and which aspects of policy to apply, if conflict arises. In the first case, I admitted that some of the sources I found from Google Scholar were indeed faulty, contrary to the assertions made here. In the second case, we weren't able to reach consensus because of differing interpretations of the same policy, so I proposed twice to stop, which JBChrch ignored in both cases. I responded only after JBChrch suggested I was ignorant/dismissive of WP:SPS - a strange suggestion given that I referred to the policy several times (which, if anything, indicates that I don't contest it). I nevertheless thank you for what I thought of as productive discussions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: - I get your concerns about WP:SPS, just that the topic ban on Judaism you support... doesn't address that. starship.paint (exalt) 14:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I think I have expressed that I am concerned about Szmenderowiecki's comments and their subsequent doubling-down about "Jews". I believe that this, combined with their participation to RSN threads with little regards to the relevant policies, is problematic. However, I am not bent on 11Fox11's specific proposal and I trust that admins will have a better idea which measures to take (if any) in these kind of situations.

Szmenderowiecki, you have crossed the line with these comments, and the fact that you are still calling for protocol to be followed when multiple editors have explained to you how completely unacceptable they were is not giving me me much hope. You need to stop engaging in meta-discussions and explain whether you will continue to make broad generalizations about races or religions in the future. JBchrch talk 19:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the last sentence, I will not when it comes to race/religion/ethnicity generalisations.

As for meta-discussions, it is your opinion I shouldn't; I won't address participants' opinions, as I know it is hardly possible to change one's mind on an Internet discussion. I only remind once again that there exists no such thing as "noticeboard-to-article-edit ratio" limitation (or new posters limitation, as even IPs can edit the noticeboard), and everyone is helping Wikipedia in the domains they think they are able to help most and according to their best judgment, subject to limitations in policy and guidance (and essays, which further describe desirable behaviour). It also isn't true that Wikipedia is the only place where you can get skills to distinguish lousy media from reliable media resources, therefore I see the potential application of sanctions as arbitrary, and more of if-we-think-they-might-be-an-antisemite-then-why-not-ban-them-from-as-many-topics-as-we-can-get-away-with efforts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your undertaking. That's not what I meant when I said meta-discussions: I was talking about the fact that you were insisting on the protocol instead of engaging directly with the criticism about your comments. I really don't care about your "edit count", provided that you know how to apply the policies when writing on the noticeboards. I will now strike my "support" to reflect the fact that you took this undertaking. JBchrch talk 10:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I strenuously disagree with Szmenderowiecki's argument that any source can be dismissed (or even considered biased) based solely on race, religion, ethnicity, or the like; but while misguided, it is not such an uncommon argument that it's reasonable to try and ban someone from an entire sweeping topic area simply for making it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile

I am here to address User:FleurDeOdile. Ever since the user's last block in November of 2020 for personal attacking there seems to have been little improvement since then. For one thing, the user is still attacking people (off-wiki now on a WikiProject discord) and has also been assuming bad faith and acting uncivil towards users who were new and or inexperienced with the image standards we have enlisted in our WikiProject (at WP:WPTC/IMG) for images of tropical cyclones, as well as edit warring.

Here the user changed this infobox image with an inconstructive comment, which was later reverted for being a lower quality image.

The edit here looks to have been made to just attack another user instead of explaining why this image was changed. Soon enough, the edit was reverted and instead of seeking consensus, the user edit warred between the user who reverted, as seen in diff 1 and diff 2, where he also made yet another comment.

Also during around the time of the edit war, the user reverted a WP:CIR edit, but assumed that the edit was in bad faith without linking the guideline which states that the source he was using was not reliable (the user in question was new around this time).

More recently, the user also unexplainedly changed the infobox image on 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, the image which was personally created by the user who originally put it, which was also later reverted for being rather inconstructive.

More recently, the user had attacked me off-wiki on a Discord server (which, if is even contributive to this? I'm not sure) and told that he 'would get into beef' with me as I disagreed that his Commons image was a higher quality, albeit respectfully. He changed the infobox image, as revealed by this diff and after another user changed it back explaining that the image change was un-warranted, he proceeded to change the image again as proven by this diff but tried to disguise the edit by saying he had "Fixed a typo".

Possibly unrelated, but I'd also recommend looking at the user's talk page which gives a better look at warnings and notices other users have given him recently, a majority of which were based off edit-warring or giving rude comments which were calmly responded to... which were completely ignored. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of WP:BITE. This one also does not explain why FDO has changed it. "original is better" is not valid. This also reveals that FDO is engaging in personal attacks, most recently this. I believe because of the evidence provided by Hurricaneboy and myself, FDO needs some sort of sanction or block, as this is turning into WP:IDHT after numerous warnings, blocks, and discussions about this user's disruptive behavior. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding on, as for the blocks, all three of them were related in some way to WP:LISTEN, as the user refuses to heed warnings and blocks. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Fleur has continued to WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [137] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [138]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. Noah^Talk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

While Fleur's most recent instance of attacking other editors on-wiki was in March, he has continued to do so regularly on a Wikipedia Discord server, as recently as just a few days ago. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 12:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget that just last month, there was a discussion about this exact topic that basically went nowhere at all. Just thought I should let you guys know. This is also the 4th discussion on either 3RR or on ANI regarding Fleur. However, I have had a few encounters in which the editor was rude to me, such as [139], and [140], when I was still a relatively new editor at the time. However, aside from those edits, I haven't had many issues with them, and though they have reverted me in the past on different pages, they were for valid reasons. However, If there is not enough evidence to support a block from any of the above users and the evidence they have provided, the least we could do on my watch at least would be to have them enter some sort of Mentor-ship program, maybe similar to how Chicdat (talk · contribs) and MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) are doing it? Maybe that way one could have more control over their actions on-wiki, and maybe they'd learn how to stop attacking and warring with people, as well as learn how to better use edit summaries and discussion. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense. Maybe instead of just leaving warnings and then reporting FDO, someone can try mentoring him. I'm not experienced enough, but maybe other users could be open to it. I do believe, however, that if, even after or during the mentorship, Fleur continues this disruptive pattern of behavior, that is grounds for a block or topic ban. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

True. I am not experienced enough either, but I think it would still worth a shot for someone who has been around for a lot longer to try it out. I agree with CodingCyclone here though, if a mentorship weren't to work, and the editor were to go back to their old ways, then I think that it would be justified to enforce some more consequential actions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I honestly disagree. After being blocked three times prior and STILL not learning your lesson on civility/disruptive editing, there is obviously a chronic problem going on here which has no excuse. There is no good in letting an injured bear continue in the wild. Thus, there is no good in letting a disruptive editor continue their unacceptable behavior which personally has made me want to quit making Commons images altogether. Whos to say he would even want a mentorship? Most friendly notices have been completely ignored and is just WP:IDHT. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am just putting out alternative ideas to blocking the editor, so that there may be a wider range of choices when it comes to what the possible consequences are, and because they do occasionally make good edits. I am sorry to hear that you have considered quitting the Commons, I sincerely hope it does not come to that extreme. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

My idea is to propose a formal restriction from editing tropical cyclone images, broadly construed. However, I'm not going ahead if there's no further disruption from this editor. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

just mentor me already FleurDeOdile 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Is that request or a demand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Or a threat? — BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a request. But I'm not open for more adoption right now. They'll need another mentor for this. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Before you get mentored you need a self-ban on changing tropical cyclone images. Either that or you need a block. This is ridiculous behavior which requires consequences. Why should not get off the hook for this? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe a mentor would be appropriate for this situation. Given the statement above, it is quite clear Fleur doesn't really care. A mentor is for newer editors who are making mistakes without knowing they are, not for established editors who simply don't care. I would rather see Fleur be topic blocked from editing mages on WP than blocked from editing period since images seems to be the only issue here. He should be able to upload his own work to commons, which is quite useful in many instances, but the behavior on WP in regards to images and changing them is quite appalling. Noah^Talk 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm on board on the idea for a topic ban in editing tropical cyclone images. Though, there's no such thing as "topic block", instead it is a "topic ban". MarioJump83! 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Then let's ban them or block them. Either way, some kind of action is needed, and having now seen the comment they put, you're all right that they obviously don't care at this point, and they need to either be topic banned, or blocked. If they are also harassing users off-wiki on discord, then they need to be removed/banned from the server or servers in which they are involved at. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I doubt Fleur should get a mentorship in this situation. He clearly does not care at this point, and I doubt a mentorship will help anything. Most likely, after the mentorship, he's going to go straight back to his old ways. Plus, I doubt very many people will be willing to mentor him anyway. I think we should have a topic ban for him from editing related to tropical cyclone images, as that would solve most things. Off-wiki, we also suggested a self-ban from editing the "Image=" parameter on infoboxes. As for action off-wiki, I think Fleur should be removed from the WPTC Discord server. He is very uncivil, insulting, and rude with their comments on other people off-wiki. If you search for "garbage" or "trash" in his messages on Discord, he has sent over 50 texts in the past year insulting other users. He has been warned several times to be civil and kind to other members off-wiki, and never listens. His only response has been "Civility doesn't apply off-wiki.", which is clearly not valid. As some action, he could be removed from the Discord server. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

Given the evidence linked above, concerns from several people about civility (in relation to image edits), and Fleur's lack of care regarding his behavior, I propose a topic ban be instituted. The ban would cover all image-related parameters on articles and discussions related to images on the English Wikipedia. Noah^Talk 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with this. The user should still be able to upload to Commons, but may not be able to edit at all related to tropical cyclone images on enwiki. If disruption continues in other areas, or if the user violates the topic ban, the user should be indefinitely blocked. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 17:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per the reasons provided above. I would also support a wider range within the topic ban, including tropical cyclone articles in general, however the original proposal will suffice regardless. And, per HurricaneCovid, I would support completely blocking the user if the Topic Ban does not work. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the above. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Netural - While I feel like and know that some of Fleur's actions are out of order, I think the general lack of involvement from admins or editors outside the project is very telling.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Pc031985 casting aspersions

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

---

• Pc031985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kevin Paffrath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pc031985 is one of a handful of new* editors who turned up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination) after the article subject published a YouTube video about the Wikipedia article being nominated for deletion. After seeing that Paffrath was canvassing on Twitter, I tagged the page with {{notaballot}} and tagged some contributors who are single-purpose accounts or who have returned from inactivity solely for the discussion, as is standard practice. Pc031985, who has voted in the discussion, began removing the tags. I asked them to stop, and explained a bit more about the purpose of the tags at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination)#Canvassing tags. However, they have now begun to use the talk page as a venue for casting aspersions against me and other editors, and are convinced that I have some kind of vendetta against Paffrath (who I explained I'd never heard of until seeing the tweet; I also have not voted in the discussion, which you'd think I'd do if I was out to get him). I invited them to bring any concerns with my behavior to ANI, which they have refused to do, but they're continuing to cast aspersions there against me and other editors, which I'm growing pretty tired of.

* They have acknowledged that they are not a new editor, saying that "I've edited on WP for 10+ years but forgot my previous username after a long period of inactivity", but that they bring Doug Weller into this when he has not edited the page and they have never interacted (see below) makes me wonder if this isn't someone returning with an axe to grind.

Diffs, or just see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination)#Canvassing tags

[141] "It's blatantly obvious that you have an agenda to discredit any compelling arguments for keeping the article. It's also blatantly obvious that El Cid, the initial nominator, who was absurdly 'only able to find one article' when there are 37 already sourced, has an agenda to remove Paffrath from public view, perhaps for political reasons. I've seen this too many times with too many articles to not know what's going on." [142] "Looking over your last month of activity, it's clear that you are here for deeply ideological reasons, to inject your worldview and politics into articles at any opportunity, not to create an encyclopedia. The overwhelming majority of your edits lie in a narrow field. Perhaps Gavin Newsom somehow represents the furtherance or protection of your values, and this drives you to spend your time discrediting Paffrath." [143] "I do have evidence, I've looked over many of your edits; it's clear you are a zealous proponent of certain ideologies, and spend much of your time bashing those whom you feel are opponents or foils, inserting language and blanket labels that are intended to disparage and discredit, often without including a factual basis for such labels. I don't necessarily disagree with your positions, and I haven't said your injections are false. I just think it's problematic, it's a certain style of editing meant to win hearts and minds rather than provide objective facts, and odds are there is also an ideological motive to your many interventions here." [144] "Your buddy Drmies (and Doug Weller, and however many hundred others of the full-timers) will intercede on your behalf, project a false consensus, and drown me out." [145] "They're not aspersions, they're simply accurate descriptions of what you do.(spook)" (they immediately removed the "spook" insult after making it) [146] The evidence is right there on your user page. Pretty much all you do is run around and accuse certain people (and most specifically, just about any non-big-tech social-media platform, which you spend much of your time attacking; very strange) of being white supremacist, misogynist, racist, far-right etc etc. Seems to be markedly more about spreading propaganda (again whether good or bad) than contributing to an encyclopedia.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• • I am not in any way a new editor. I've been on this site for at least a decade and done thousands of edits. A small clique of editors 'shepherd' any articles of controversy, and gang-up on new editors who try to make productive and appropriate edits. Drmies and Doug Weller (and a dozen or so others I can't now recall; Malik Shabazz may be another?) are in fact among them, and it's shocking how predictable their arrival to the scene is; literally, multiple of them, same day, within hours, on disparate topics that have no commonality other than that they are controversial. You can call this aspersions, I call it a recounting of events. In any case, I'll stop interacting with you, so there will be no further issue. If you want to revert any talk-page content you disagree with, go ahead. I have also witnessed these editors involved in the delisting of figures that may be considered by some to be controversial or subversive, invariably on dubious 'non-notable' grounds. I am involved in the Paffrath article because it is one of more egregious attempts I've seen to selectively delist someone. I haven't brought anything to ANI because I've attempted to do so in the past and it's a totally unproductive waste of time. The same clique shows up, manufactures a false consensus, and you get stonewalled.Pc031985 (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    • You've been on this site for at least a decade and made thousands of edits, but you can't seem to recall your previous username? That seems unlikely. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I come to this site to make spontaneous, productive edits. It's not a full-time hobby and there was never an attempt to build a reputation or gain special privileges like with some editors. My pattern was typically to make IP edits for a couple of years, have a username for a while, forget to log in for the next couple years. I've had several usernames just due to forgetting past names and then easily creating a new name. None of this was for ill intent, it was simply the past of least resistance. In spite of this, all my edits were honest, productive, and I feel worthwhile. I don't appreciate the behavior I called out. Again, if it in fact violates some policy and will result in banning, I'll just voluntarily delete it.Pc031985 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
        • They can remember me, Doug Weller, Drmies and others, but can't remember their former username? Bbb23 has blocked them, I support the block. Acroterion (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Edit Warring by Amigao on China related topics

This really needs resolving, and previous attempts to do so has not resulted in sanctions or changes to the editor's behaviour.

- Amigao is aggressively policing and edit warring on topics related to China over a long term period. He has a very persistent tendency of firstly doctoring articles towards a negative point of view, and then policing and reverting anyone who attempts to alter these particular changes or balance them. He subsequently slaps warnings and accuses those who disagree with his edits of bad faith behaviour and reports accordingly, framing them as vandals in order to get the upper hand [147] [148]

See for example here, this is just one of many many reverts he has made against me on this specific article [149]- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Two additional reverts just now to bring into consideration, meaning he has now reverted me three times in 24 hours: [150] [151]- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Further Evidence

• [152]
• [153]
• [154]
• [155]
• [156]
• [157]
• [158]
• [159]
• [160]
• [161]
• [162]
• [163] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunderland Renaissance (talk • contribs) 02:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am wondering if I should even bother saying something, I gave up on warring with Amigao some time ago. His belligerent edit tactics just overwhelms my capacity as a casual editor to follow up. IMHO, he is clearly furthering a WP:POV, without bothering to calm down and discuss any controversial edits. For my own sake, my quarrel was with removing CGTN references without even bothering to look for alternative sources. Quashing propaganda sources is IMHO an important job, but the way he goes about it is not particularly constructive. BFG (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Amigao deserves a barnstar, or several, for quashing propaganda sources! Bravo Amigao!

86.174.161.238

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

See talk. They are edit warring on Hailee Steinfeld (tried to insert unsourced middle name 4 times), Taron Egerton and Nathan Fillion. Nobody warned them on their talk page about edit warring before I did so WP:3RRN doesn't apply (yet). They also keep adding unsourced info to BLPs after talk page warnings from Mattythewhite, Notfrompedro and Asartea. I don't think they read their talk page. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

They just made unsourced (and now: reverted) edits to Stan Marsh and Butters Stotch. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User FredBoron

FredBoron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WP:SPA repeatedly reinstates unacceptable sources in the CryptoNote article. Was notified about blockchain and cryptocurrency sanctions. An attempt to discuss on the talk page of that article did not go very far. Accuses me of vandalism. Please help. Retimuko (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Shashibharanger

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

---

Shashibharanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has repeatedly tried to turn the disambiguation page Shashi into an autobiography by overwriting the text [164] [165] [166] and moving the page to a new title logs despite being told both in move summaries and by me on the user talk page (User_talk:Shashibharanger#Shashi) to stop. IMO a block for disruptive editing is needed. Courtesy ping @Wire723:, whio has reversed the other part of the disruption. Wikipedia talk:Shashi Bharanger probbably also needs deletion or draftification as the article (attempt) isn't meaningfully placed there. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The only edit before 2021, from 2016, diff also was exact the same problem. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Incivility by FDMD04

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

---

Just after a 48-hour edit-warring block expired, User:FDMD04 has left very uncivil comments on a user TP (in addition to repeating the same edits that got them blocked). MB 14:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked them for one month. That's quite enough of that. --Jayron32 14:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

47.9.159.111

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

This recently arrived IP keeps making disruptive changes, mainly altering/removing information (such as statistics). Already reported him to WP:AIV but to no avail. Some examples; --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

[167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

47.9.159.111 (talk · contribs) has made about 40 edits today, sometimes removing sourced content while never commenting on talk or using edit summaries. They seem to have some agenda related to Islam, not sure what. They did not respond to a warning on their talk. Now blocked 48 hours by User:Mazca. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I apparently conflicted with you doing a block of exactly the same length, so I think we can take that as agreement! ~ mazca ^talk 17:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

98.179.157.211

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

IP has already been reported at AIV, but seemingly no action being taken as their disruptive editing continues on past multiple warnings on their talk page. Many edits are removal of content, sources, etc. - also view the filter log. Range block may be necessary, as they were previously at 98.179.157.218 with the same type of editing. Magitroopa (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Just rereported at AIV- [176] Now given three separate 'final' warnings, quite clearly WP:NOTHERE at this point and still going at it with their disruptive editing. Magitroopa (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've anon-only rangeblocked the /24 for a month as there's no other activity on it beyond this user. This doesn't seem to really be an ill-intentioned person, just one that is blindly editing without regard to style or consensus, or listening to any talkpage messages. ~ mazca ^talk 16:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Persistent creation of unsolicited articles by User:Ram Pradeep Kolasani

The page they are interested in creating is for the tv show Ye Maaya Chesave. The problem is that it isn't an original series but a Telugu language dubbed version of the hindi series Jaana Na Dil Se Door and is listed under the Adaptations header in that article. However to be clear the Telugu version isn't a remake but a voice-dubbed version of the hindi series. The user states the reason for creating a separate article is to list the voice-over actors but that entire section is unsourced and the rest of the article is just a copy-paste of the hindi series article, lest a few character name changes here and there. As such the dubbed series article has no reason to exist and clearly fails GNG. In just the past 24 hours itself, said user has persistently created three such articles with different alterations of the Telugu title even though each one has been redirected to the hindi series article and the reason for the redirect clearly stated. I'm listing each title (redirect) below:

• Ye Maaya Chesave (Television Show)
• Ye Maaya Chesave (Television Series)
• Ye Maya Chesave (Telugu-language serial)
• Ye Maaya Chesave (Telugu-language serial)
• Ye Maaya Chesave (Telugu TV Series)
• Ye Maaya Chesave (Telugu TV Serial)

These creations have been addressed profoundly on their talk page by multiple users including myself. I even explained the reason for the redirects in details and warned them against the future creation of this material but they still created a new article with the same material, which is the last one on the list. Many of these are very unlikely search terms and burdensome redirects.

I request the admins to deal with user Kolasani and perhaps delete these half-dozen unnecessary redirects or atleast page protect them to admin access only so that they can't be removed. Thank You. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: They have created two more articles in the same manner. Ye maaya chesave serial & ఏమాయ చేసావే (ధారావాహిక). Requesting immediate intervention. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I left a warning at their talk. Let me know if further problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

China exclusion policy of NASA

Can any admin apply indefinite semi-protection to China exclusion policy of NASA because of WP:LTA by Govercon through different IPs now. Already requested at WP:RfPP yesterday, but its pending there and every time a new IP is editing the same with different excuses. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Protected for a while. While I gave it a fair duration, this doesn't warrant indefinite yet. -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:DeNoel's sig

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

---

DeNoel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a sig which doesn't display their username or any recognisable variant thereof, contrary to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P: A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username.

I spotted it in this edit[177]:

<span class="nowrap">— [[User:DeNoel|Christopher, Sheridan, OR]] ([[User talk:DeNoel|talk]]) 16:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)</span>

which displays as: Christopher, Sheridan, OR

So I went to DeNoel's talk to raise it. See User talk:DeNoel#Your_sig,_again (permalink)

However, DeNoel is being stubborn, and is being supported by two enablers, @CambridgeBayWeather and @Timtrent (aka "Faddle"). CambridgeBayWeather seems adamant that being asked to use a sig which allows your colleagues to clearly and easily identify your username is "bureaucracy", and DeNoel thinks that being asked to follow the guideline in uncivil.

Please can someone do whatever is needed to sort this simple issue, and remove this easily-avoidable barrier to communication and collaboration? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do we have such childish things as custom signatures when this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a social media site or a playground? Can't we all just sign with our names? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That would indeed be the simplest solution, @Phil Bridger. But for now, the long-established guidance allows embellishments so long as the username is easily identifiable ... which DeNoel's is not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I will never understand why someone would have a signature that bears no resemblance to the username they chose for themselves. One wonders why they don't simply request a name change. Fun fact, I saw the edit they made on CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, but when I went there I couldn't figure out quickly which comment was theirs. As for "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username", CambridgeBayWeather, I'm sorry, but I disagree with you: I think it should be clear without hovering, and on mobile there isn't anything to hover with, of course. The same applies, of course, to Timtrent's user name, but I've grown accustomed to that, though it took me a while. I'm afraid, BrownHairedGirl, that the user won't be "sorted" and that this ANI thread will not end with a mandate that they change their signature. I will say that all this makes me feel very basic, with my own simple name and signature. I don't even have two things, like that hotshot Phil Bridger. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My user name and then signature combination came from a time, IIRC, that this was 100% allowed, thus I claim "Grandfather Rights" to my plain signature, recently changed to be as it is today. I have been asked, requested, even bullied into changing it over time. I accuse no editor, and nothing should be read into my statement that accuses any editor. I expect those who wish to trawl my talk archives will find instances. I may edit ot back at my sole discretion to its prior form. I may not.

I think we all have better things to do than enter into this discussion about rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, namely editing this encyclopaedia thing.

Starting with a place with very few rules we have created a huge bureaucracy where some editors sometimes decide to seek to wield power over others. We must love bureaucracies as human beings.

Over signatures, I tend to The Prisoner's outlook, were the protagonist is assigned Number Six, but he repeatedly refuses the pretence of his new identity. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 20:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, we often create such guidelines in reaction to past examples and don't usually apply them only to everyone in the future. Yes, as we've grown and tried to adapt to complex collaborative encyclopedia building, with many kinds of people using many kinds of devices, we've created some rules to aid user friendliness and/or ease of collaboration. Some may seem tedious, but that they've made it to a guideline indicates they have broad support behind them (or, at least, did at that time). Only applying rules to new users doesn't help the reputation we have of being, shall we say, normatively challenging to new users and struggling long-term with new user retention. I'm not going to go as far as to argue that this particular issue has a direct impact on new user retention as much as say that if we have a rule, we need to apply it evenly (sic Rover on them!). If there's no consensus for enforcing the rule evenly, we shouldn't have the rule. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites That is a well worded, considered view. We could seek to implement it with such a message for relevant user talk pages. Today I have all arrived here in defensive mode. Thank you for not attacking. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent, I'm not "attacking" you, and I'm quite used to yours by now (the grandfathering thing is reasonable, and it applied to rms125@hotmail or whatever his name was as well). Later, Drmies (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies I know you are not. The indent was simply where the message fell. My apologies for the misunderstanding Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: your pessimism is probably well-founded. But I live in hope that there may be enough editors who value easy communication and collaboration over bizarre game-playing.

As you rightly note, usernames can be changed. It is quite beyond my ken why an editor would choose a username, decline the opportunity to change it ... but then adamantly refuse to display their chosen username. Whatever all that is about, the wilful creation of such impediments is nothing to do with the collaborative writing of an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree that signatures which have no connection (other than a link) to one's username are confusing and pose a [pretty mild] inconvenience to others (more than mild for very new users or people on mobile). But as much as I'd prefer we actually stick to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P as written, we've typically declined to enforce parts of it for long-term editors, so we should be consistent (and possibly either run an RfC asking whether we should enforce it or just update the guideline to reflect consensus by removing the first bullet). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl "Enabler"????? Enough of that style of terminology, please. That is not the standard of behaviour I expect of you, nor the standard I am, used to seeing. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I stand by that term as an appropriate label for editors who encourage another editor to impede collaboration by ignoring a simple guideline. You are an enabler of the disruption, and if you dislike the label, then feel free to change your stance by desisting from enabling the disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl you want a guideline, not a policy, enforced but you refuse to comply with the mandatory notification on my talk page? Did you miss the "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." on this page? You didn't ask DeNoel to change you demanded he change it and then thought I was trolling. Drmies & Rhododendrites, I agree that it would be easier and look better if all signatures matched the user name. But you know what? There are articles to edit and I see that as better use of my time than chasing someone over their user name and signature. I indicated to BrownHairedGirl that she needed to get the guideline upgraded to a policy. The simple matter is that the guideline does not forbid what DeNoel is doing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather, after posting here, I promptly followed up with three notifications. See my contribs.

The required notification on your talk page was made by me at 20:25[178], which was one minute after I posted at ANI[179].

I urge you to strike that false assertion, and to explain why you attempted to smear me in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, my apologies I missed that due to the comment just after yours and another ping from elsewhere. Happy to strike it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that strike, @CambridgeBayWeather. But in future, please check your facts before alleging misconduct. This was a very issue to check, and there is no excusie for not making aan active effort to verify your assertion.

However, your substantive comment remains unstricken: simple matter is that the guideline does not forbid what DeNoel is doing. That is blatantly false: WP:CUSTOMSIG/P explicitly says A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. And DeNoel's sig does not display any variant of that username. Why do you persist in making such a readily falsifiable assertion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My emphasis here: The line says "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username". It does not say "A customised signature must make it easy to identify your username". Do you see the difference there? The use of the word should is what makes it allowable for DeNoel and others to have the signature they want. But you probably think I'm still trolling. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I really dunno what you are up to, @CambridgeBayWeather. But I am certain that your wikilawyering in support of disruption is in no way an assistance to our shared task of collaboratively building an encyclopedia. Your decision to make a false allegation against me without checking the facts doesn't suggest to me that collabaoration is your priority. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again I'm sorry about missing your notification on my talk page. I've been busy editing and responding and has nothing to do with collaborating, which I'm happy to do. Most of the disruption on here is of your own making. Your opinion is not supported by that page nor by many comments here. The truth is that the use of signatures that do not match the user name is awkward, mildly confusing but isn't forbidden and other people have told you that. But am I still trolling? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl I do not find your doubling down on your comment to be civil. I find it to be antagonistic and an ad hominem attack. This, too, is not the standard of behaviour I am used to from you, nor the standard I expect from any editor here. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I stand by that comment. Criticisng your conduct is not an ad hominem attack: see WP:NPA. Your decision to encourage an editor to ignore a conduct guideline is not the standard I expect from any editor here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl Your reply to me yet again doubling down (trebling down?) has been removed during various edit conflicts. I do not care to resurrect it, but it goes above this one if you choose to. I have left indent room for you

We disagree completely, obviously. I do not care enough to add this to the Civility issue below, but it is a close call. I view your choice of terminology as distinctly uncivil. I deprecate your behaviour in that regard. This is a pointless exchange you have dragged me into. I have decided to discontinue it. There is an encyclopaedia to improve. This is not the way to achieve that. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: if you were "dragged into this", it was not by me. You chose to involve yourself, by posting[180] on DeNoel's talk page in support of their disruption. I deprecate your behaviour in that regard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who originally raised a concern about this signature, as I was confused in some Talk page discussion. It is common to want to ping someone or refer to some comment they made and to use their username to do so. I also sometimes search the Talk page for a user's account name to see what they have said. When editing some particular Talk page I noticed that this user's account name was entirely different from their signature. This would make it difficult to produce a recognizable ping. If someone says "I completely agree with DeNoel", I want to know which comments they are agreeing with, and needing to do a mouse-over or view the source didn't seem like it adequately addresses that need. So I think the guideline is a good idea. However, CambridgeBayWeather is an admin, so when they disagreed with my interpretation and said it was not an isolated case, and when I learned that DeNoel's account had been that way for more than a decade, I deferred to their interpretation. — BarrelProof (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

To that I will add that I might click on a link to go visit a user's talk page or userpage and then get confused about why I seem to now have landed on a page about some different user. Multitasking and using tabbed browsing could further aggravate the confusion, although it is possible that I am just more easily confused than I should be. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to know where is the outcry over JzG (talk · contribs) or JayBeeEll (talk · contribs), who do exactly the same thing in their signatures? 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What did I do to deserve being dragged into this? (Although I submit that I am not a good example because my signature is a recognizable variant of my username.) --JBL (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding User:El cid, el campeador to the list of current, active users to whom BHG might object. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, BarrelProof. I respect your opinion, though we may differ, and I'm glad that you have joined this discussion. I will take what you have said here into consideration if I decide to change my signature. Your contribution is valued. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Also with Yellow Evan (talk · contribs), whose username is just "YE". It is the same thing with CambridgeBayWeather, who on DeNoel's talkpage, stated that they once had their signature as "CBW". I do not see why there has to be an entire ANI discussion over a signature. Just because it makes it "harder" for someone to see what the user's name actually is is not a valid excuse for them changing it so we need to stop being lazy. Unless it somehow violates the username policy, I don't see a problem with having a different signature than the username, as long as it is within the policies and guidlines of WP. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 21:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Personally I think the whole "grandfather rights" thing be abolished and that people shoudl be made to conform with todays signature standards because as others have said it's a complete pain in the arse trying to follow discussion when peoples sigs are different from their usernames. That all being said Chistophers sig has been like it since 2009[181] so it it's unfair to make them change theirs whilst allowing other older editors to continue using theirs. It cannot be one rule for one and one rule for another. –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Incivility

User:BrownHairedGirl has expressed concern over my user signature in an overbearing, and in my opinion, rude manner. As my signature had been previously discussed, I pinged all those back (User:CambridgeBayWeather, User:Timtrent, and User:BarrelProof) to join the current discussion, with a personal invitation to BarrelProof on his Talk page who was the previous objector to my signature.

I feel that BrownHairedGirl's overbearing responses are uncivil. In particular, I feel that:

• DeNoel, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Please be collegiate and direct your efforts to displaying your username as a first priority, before you pursue other tweaks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

in the tone used in the discussion's entirety, is a form of slam against me. Proving her with opportunity for a more civil tone, I asked in reply:

Could you please rephrase and clarify that comment? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

with her reply being no less rude than her conduct in the rest of the discussion.

I therefore request that an outside administrator evaluate the discussion, and the behavior of those involved. Perhaps my matter is closed reply at the beginning may have come across as shutting-out, but I did ask others to reevaluate an established stance within the same reply. Further, I have stated very clearly that, if there is a broad concern over user signatures, I would be willing to change mine once Wikipedia:Signature has been broadly addressed first. Many other users currently have signature styles that would annoy BrownHairedGirl. Even if her assessment has merit, I must ask that she tone it down when expressing her concerns.

Very much appreciated. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wowzer. Editors are being asked to believe that asking an editor to be collegiate and comply with a simple guideline is uncivil. Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• At a quick glance, there may be an issue, but not one of "incivility". Users are sometimes allowed to use a real name in their signature instead of a username. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • To clarify: there is a possible concern that BrownHairedGirl is too persistent in response to what is perceived as violation of site policy. I don't see that as a civility issue. As it's not immediately obvious to me whether the signature is permitted or not, bringing it to ANI should resolve the policy dispute. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• DeNoel, you are not being oppressed. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I seriously question the suitability of such a sensitive soul being an editor here, and would also suggest that they avoid teh internetz entirely as being far to incivil. -Roxy . wooF 20:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see any issue with BrownHairedGirl's response. I actually think it was very respectful. -- Dane ^talk 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• BHG's remark was perfectly polite. There was no problem of tone or attitude about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps my complaint has not come across as I intended. While I disagree with BrownHairedGirl's viewpoint on my signature, it's her tone—attitude—that I'm objecting to. WP:CIVIL should be observed. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My "attitude" throughout has simply been to remind DeNoel of a simple guideline which assists communication and collaboration. The fact that DeNoel makes an ANI complaint about being asked to be collaborative makes me question the wisdom of my assumption that DeNoel is here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have dealt with BHG many times in my years here and have yet to read an uncivil word. I wonder if you're reading something which isn't there, something which can happen with written text vs. the spoken word? I'm an old queen, having been on here for over a decade, and my signature reflects the very very very basic mark-up I could understand at the time. It reflects my name and makes people aware of who I am. It's one of the most basic things an editor should do for the good of the project, allowing communication to be quickly identified and connected to the author, and I would recommend that we all follow this rule in practice. doktorb _words^deeds 21:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

But BHG bloody well is observing WP:CIVIL. Your complaint is groundless, and wasting good editors time. Go away. -Roxy . wooF 21:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Roxy, BrownHairedGirl was civil but overly aggressive. Saying that people should be "collegiate" and then suggesting I'm a troll isn't collegiate at all. In fact it's insulting. Your remark, "Go away.", is completely unnecessary and should be withdrawn. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Simply put, DeNoel, to any extent to which this is a civility issue, the bar for civility complaints is significantly higher. This subsection should probably be closed (if not this whole section, with a suggestion to clarify/modify the guideline if desired, since there's not going to be consensus that DeNoel has to do anything different here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've lost track of who this reply was directed to, due to an edit conflict (a lot of replies at once).

In spite of the fact that I said I was taking a break from Wikipedia (joke's on me, I guess), I would like to ask if the discussion at User talk:DeNoel#Your sig, again was read entirely, or if only the example given in the above summary was read? This is not meant as an slight to anyone who has come to sort this out, I just mean that I don't feel the information available has been taken into consideration.

We are free to disagree, that's what discussions are for, but she should respect each other while doing so, and I don't feel respected (again, citing the content of WP:CIVIL). Certainly, the section title, "Your sig, again" and the opening comment, feels condescending when expressing a concern about my signature. Is it too much to expect some respect? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you really saying "Your sig, again" is condescending? That's bizarre.

And I find it even more bizarre that you persist in complaining about my wording despite a flurry of editors telling you its fine, when the core issue is that you are wilfully impeding collaboration. If you really believe in some heightened standard of respect for other editors, then why don't you demonstrate some respect for other editors by removing the barrier to collaboration which you have created? Do unto others as you would have them do unto, and all that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no incivility from BHG, and the matter could be resolved promptly by DeNoel adding "DeNoel" to their signature, or by DeNoel changing their username to User: Christopher, Sheridan, OR which seems to be available. This is a collaborative project and confusing signatures are a slight but real impediment to that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) Sigs not including something recognisable as the username are mildly annoying, especially as they tend to create distracting and unproductive discussions such as this one. DeNoel, please change your signature. BHG, please don't bring trivialities like this to ANI. —Kusma (t·c) 23:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Inadvertent overlap

To the third party who replies to these complaints, it appears that we (User:BrownHairedGirl and I) have overlapped our complaints. If this is considered a form of duplication, it was not intentional, and I apologize for that (delayed due to edit conflicts).

We were both probably in the process of typing, and so did not notice the others' message. It's been a long day already, and to avoid further duplication, I'm going to logoff for a while and check for updates later. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about the duplication, it happens at least once a month. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

How about: DeNoel, please fix your signature. The guideline policy is there because doing what you are doing confuses people. BHG, you were too nasty and pointy, choosing high-handed unfriendly wording plus you had an accusation of being non-collaborative included as a premise in your comment. Please be nicer. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I will take your suggestion into consideration, but I also want to thank you for expressing your observation in a respectable manner. It's this professionalism that compels me to continue editing. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DeNoel, if your regard for "professionalism" extended to removing the wilfully disruptive obfuscation of your username when the issue was first raised with you in March, then I wouldn't have posted on your user talk page, and we wouldn't be at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I'm afraid your argumentative, disrupting, self-serving attitude has extended well beyond the acceptable point. You could have asked to reopen the discussion on my talk page instead of being rude about it; that is why we're here—not because of the signature issue, it's your attitude. I must therefore request that you from henceforth, refrain from commenting to me on this matter. I will gladly listen to others with viewpoints that differ from my own. I do not welcome any further contact from you. May you have a sunny day tomorrow. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

DeNoel, if you wish to have a signature that is so far removed from your username, please don't post on highly frequented message boards. It is confusing other people. Please be kind and try not to annoy others that you are collaborating with. BrownHaired Girl is combative here again (calling your signature choice "wilfully disruptive obfuscation" isn't helpful) and not very good at de-escalation in general. I personally find her attitude more disruptive than your signature, but that is a bit besides the point. Your insistence on not changing your signature after people have repeatedly told you it annoys them is uncooperative and not very kind. Would something like Christopher, Sheridan, OR^DeNoel really be so bad? —Kusma (t·c) 08:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It is very problematic that DeNoel be blindsided by this hue and cry over a very questionable interpretation of policy. A discussion has been opened at the policy page in hopes of clarifying that policy. If people here are so widely misinterpreting it so as to be saying diametrically opposite things about it, then it can definitely use some clarification. It is my objective reading that DeNoel is violating nothing with his current signature, and this is borne out by the evidence of at least 4-5 other editors that I can name off the top of my head, are doing similar things. I do not think it is appropriate for us to demand that DeNoel change anything until the policy is adequately clarified, and at that point, I would demand that all editors be brought into similar compliance, not just DeNoel. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:DAPE

In agreement with others who have expressed this viewpoint, I strongly object to the manner in which this ANI discussion has come about. If it's time for WP:SIGNATURE to be reevaluated and discussed, that sounds quite productive. If it is sparked because of a personality conflict, that is counter-productive, and drives good editors away from the project. Nobody makes us be friendly with each other, but I think a certain degree of professionalism is expected. If we have a concern, or even strong feelings about something, please be respectful of others.

I'm going to take a break now (third time's the charm, I hope) from Wikipedia for an unspecified time, just because I have off-line things to do. When I come back, I will carefully read over the entirety of this discussion, and take the suggestions of respectful editors into consideration, even if I disagree with their opinions. When I say "into consideration" I mean that sincerely, not simply an excuse to disregard good suggestions.

Thank you. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the current status of this discussion is your username remains different to your signature, and you've chosen to leave rather than address this. I hope that we won't be going around this again on your return. I think we need to take a step back - all of us - and go through problem-resolution-solution steps, maybe at a better time than half 11 at night here in the UK - and take it from there. doktorb _words^deeds 22:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DeNoel, This conversation will be long archived by the time you return so I doubt that will be of use. What would be of use is just, you know, fixing your signature. People have justifiable issues with it. It's confusing. It makes life difficult for other people. Just be kind about it.--Jorm (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

To Jorm and others that are pushing for DeNoel to change their signature, should it be implied that the same goes for e.g. Timtrent (and everyone else whose signature doesn't match their username)? I'm very uneasy with singling out someone while giving everyone else a free pass. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, Yes, it should, it absolutely should. This is not hard. This is Usability and Accessibility 101, which I know is boring and all to talk about, but it's a real problem. Jorm (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DeNoel, this is very simple. If you genuinely believe your assertion that a certain degree of professionalism is expected, then please demonstrate that professionalism by the very simple step of making your signature display your actual username. There is a huge contrast here between the high standards you demand of others, and the low standard which you stubbornly uphold.

Your insistence on creating this barrier to collaboration is not only thoroughly unprofessional. You are knowingly making it hard for other editors to interact with you and follow your work, which demonstrates a persistent lack of the respect which you repeatedly demand from others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• What's interesting about WP:DAPE is that directly below that is a link to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point followed by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Funny the way Wikipedia works huh? — Ched (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thread opened at WT:SIG

I've opened this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#Signatures_and_usernames and invite continued discussion about username/signature correspondence there. The ambiguity of that guideline and/or how/whether it should be enforced is the crux of the issue here, and not civility. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:ADVOCACY and edit warring

User:Raygamman is using an article on an extremely minor Alberta political party, Pro-Life Alberta Political Association, as a free advertisemtn to promote that party in violation of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NPOV. His repeated edits trumpet the minor party as "unique" and ""Alberta's most effective political pro-life organization" [182] [183] [184] [185] (Who calls it that? The party itself; he rejects the need to find a neutral WP:SECONDARYSOURCE). Despite warning, [186], he's also repeatedly left personal attacks on me on my talk, referring to my edits as "mindless". [187] [188] [189] I think we need a topic ban here, possibly for WP:COI reasons. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Raygamman here: my "repeated edits" comprise reverting a section after User:Ribbet35's deleted it. I am a relatively new participant on Wikipedia but it seems to me that simply deleting a large section of text instead of providing refined verbiage to correct the perceived violation would work better, no?; Isn't that the point of Wikipedia to refine articles? User:Ribbet32 would just delete it, every time, I would then revert to the previous iteration, he would delete it, I would revert etc.: [190] [191] [192] [193]

Respectfully, User:Ribbet32 talk history suggests that he has a habit of simply deleting sections rather than working at refining them or editing them [194] Seems to me this is what was going on here. I did then remove the "offending" sentence and edited the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raygamman (talk • contribs)

As the article has been AfD'd, this may be moot. Raygamman, when someone reverts your edits, the best thing to do is open a section at the article talk, start discussing, and be willing to learn. Ribbet32, which you're experienced enough to know, and you're also experienced enough to know that newbies make mistakes and can find our ways mysterious and frustrating. Hauling one to ANI instead of opening a talk section at the article to help them understand what policies they need to learn is really not all that helpful. —valereee (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Harassment

The account AsomtavruliEnjoyer has been created a few hours ago in what looks like an attempt to harass me. The editor created a user page where they posted a quote featuring extremely POV language, allegedly from June 2004, which they are attributing to me. The "explanatory" note below the quote says "i am here to fight against revisionism of turanist wikipedians". In reality, the quote has nothing to do with me; the edit was made by a different user in 2005, and my signature from an older post somehow got displaced (I also did not start editing Wikipedia until July 2004). In addition, the note suggests battleground attitude, which confirms my suspicion. Parishan (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the quote and left them a message informing them that it was misattributed. I admit I have concerns that this might be a single-purpose account as you describe, but lets give it the benefit of the doubt for now, with a predisposition to take further action if this sort of behaviour continues. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Triggerhippie4, user:Gidonb, user:SoaringLL

These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel. Additionally, User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.

The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement. However, user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."

User:Gidonb continues to make frivolous requests to fish my ip address.Catchpoke (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I raised a concern that I have on the appropriate page, then detailed it a bit following multiple public requests by multiple fellow WP volunteers (not the folks that happen to be with me in this section header). I did nothing different from the previous times that I reported something that concerned me at WP. I expressed my opinion at the discussion that the complainer initiated, disregarding all concerns, even when pressured at this point, and called names by the person who complains here against me. How awkward! In my opinion, the complainer's uncivil behavior[195][196][197] is not acceptable and, of course, one is always free to take a look at my actions. Policies apply to all. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As for the TfD itself: beyond incivility, there is too much back and forth. I think that everyone should have their say and opinions should be given some space. It's not a good idea to react to everyone's opinions. gidonb (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

At the SPI you started, you were asked for diffs 3,5 days ago [198]. You have not provided one even today [199]. Also, I cannot follow your logic in here: did you go to SPI because of incivility? -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I went to the SPI because of a concern of sockpuppetry that I continue to have (previously I would report a suspected sockpuppet on an admin's page who referred me to that page). I think it is a valid concern. At the very least there are very valid causes for concern. The user decided to attack me on multiple pages, including here, by my interpretation as a sort of defense. That's a strategy I do not approve of but just maybe within the complainer's rights. I hope not. I'm no expert on how these things develop or on all procedures and abbreviations. I'm not going to argue with all that is being said here or with every way my actions are misinterpreted. I do not do that in other discussions either. I mostly edit. All this is extremely time consuming and draining. Even simple discussions where you just want to provide your two cents have become that way. gidonb (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• What an incredibly horrific and unpleasant TfD discussion we have there. Multiple participants deserve WP:TROUT, if not actual warnings. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Adding to the report wrt User:Triggerhippie4:

Triggerhippie4 canvassing casting bad faith: [200]. They did not respond but did engage in side-issues [201] 'That's why I notified these users.' (i.e., nothing about the canvassing post).

Triggerhippie4 entring personal attacks in TfD discussion: [202] 'False. You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even ...', [203] 'Nominator is a newbie', [204] 'You are as competent as the nominator', invoking WP:CIR, 'mindful editors please'.

Triggerhippie4 was warned about this behaviour by multiple editors: [205] 'chilling effect of attitudes and comments', [206] 'unhelpful', [207] 'for a second time enters PAs'.

-DePiep (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Adding to the report wrt User:Gidonb:

Gidonb expressing PA [208] 'unnecessary procedure, ... You'll just keep precious wasting community time' (sic), a warning was added [209] 'I don't think your judgements on this procedure and on an editor's GF are sound or helpful', which was ignored [210] pretending not understanding.

Gidonb initiated SOCK claims [211] on 20 May 2021 against two editors he was involved with at the TfD. On 19:25 21st, extra info (diffs supporting their claim) was asked per CU process. Up until this moment, 3,5 days later, Gidonb has not provided a single diff. Still they continued to post otherwise [212] and elsewhere [213][214][215] in the discussion. Finally (so far) after 3,5 days, they withdrew one accusation [216] as a 'weaker case', and adding verbose meandering thoughts again without a single diff [217].

• All in all, I think Catchpoke has good reason claiming harrassment: here is a list of PAs (in various specific forms) and the spurious still unsourced SOCK accusation. While SPI ideally should be considered independently from other claims, ie by itself, such claims are not free and do have a chilling effect on a discussion. Gidonb must be aware of this, especially since they withdrew one name late (despite being explicitly asked to look at it), and another name is hung in the open still without proof. (I'd expect an earlier throw-out by CU clerck btw). This is gaming the system.

I have not experienced problematic behaviour with SoaringLL. MEATPUPPETtry could be checked for. I think a block for Triggerhippie4 and Gidonb would be useful, both to stop extending unbased SPI accusations and to keep the TfD discussion healthy & fruitful. -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

In their posts and responses here, both Gidonb and Triggerhippie4 do not show awareness of their problematic behaviour. This implies they are not up for changing their behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

>These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel.
The allegations are baseless, as I don't know those users. I notified Gidonb, because he's major contributor to one of the templates you started the discussion about. And I have nothing to do with SoaringLL.
>User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.
I don't consider this ([218]) WP:CANVASS, it was accurate description of your nomination.
>The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement.
The intent of your nomination was to delete {{Largest cities of Israel}}, and the overwhelming majority voted to keep.
>user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."
I said it in response to your astounding claim "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}", because it was obviously false. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Behaviour of user:Possibly

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

---

This user is a trouble creator. First he said that i have a coi of Annwesha Hazra, and so I have created a page. I disclosed that I have been paid by her to make a page for her. When he saw that everything was becoming normal again, he suddenly sent Annwesha Hazra for deletation, stating it is an advertisement. To the wiki admins I would like to say that there is not a single word in that page that says that it is an advertisement. But he is constantly saying that it is an avertisemnt Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a repeat complaint of an SPA paid editor, also posted at WP:AN, 3rr and AIV. I replied over at AN. Basically, they're NOTHERE.--- Possibly (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Targetted Harrasment by a user with a personal vendetta on Vokkaliga page

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

---

This new account User:SundarAradhya was created just to Vandalize the Vokkaliga page and defame the community. He threatened to do so on quora a few hours ago using an anonymous account that constitutes WP:HA & WP:BULLY.[219] It seems to be making only unconstructive edits targetted to vandalise the Vokkaliga page such as trying to portray them as landless farmers [220], and a backward caste [221].Here he is IP vandalising Vokkaliga community page.[222] He also seems to be politically motivated[223]. As he is a politically active member of the Lingayat community there is a conflict of interest in allowing him to edit the Vokkaliga page due to the long standing political feud between the Lingayats and Vokkaligas.[224][225]

The user seems to be well versed in the editing process and seems to be using this new account which is a few hours than only to denigrate the Vokkaliga community. He hasn’t made constructive edits to any page. Please ban him from Vokkaliga page, he has a vendetta to defame the Vokkaligas and will only make unconstructive edits.

He also seems to be a sock as he is well versed with Wikipedia editing and has created a new account just to target Vokkaliga page. Dantidurgagowda (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC). I have complained here [226]

You seriously think you can defend your position saying that all vokkaliga are landowners? We can always meet in the middle and potray many identities in a positive way. Hope you consider my request. We can forego certain edits, but you have to include Vokkaligas in a syncretic way, including those from other regions including the Lingayat Vokkaligas, and not just of few districts of hassan, mandya, Bangalore. It would unite multiple communities. Let me know what you think. SundarAradhya (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@SundarAradhya: Don’t act ignorant, you very well know that there will always be exceptions to any group. But those exceptions don’t define the group. If I say ‘so and so’ are a community of fishermen, does that mean that everyone of them is fisherman? I have provided govt citations and evidence as discussed on the talk page.

What you’re doing, trying to vilify a community, constitutes casteism. You have made your personal vendetta clear and it appears you are a Lingayat based on your edits[227] and Quora activity.[228] You claim you want to meet in the middle, but you have a vested interest and will vandalise the page with your puppet account. Let people without a vendetta contribute to the page, constructively. We cannot deal with your edit wars all day, and based on your quora threat,[229] it is clear, you’re trying to brigade vokkaliga page by calling other users with vested interests.Dantidurgagowda (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Boomerang. Three points, Dantidurgagowda:

• Sources from the Raj era, which you mainly use, are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. See [230].
• Whenever a user complains about somebody else "defaming a community", as you do, I'm afraid I assume they're here to promote that community. I'm far from alone in this.
• Whenever a user persistently reverts an opponent, randomly calling them a "sock" and unjustly calling their edits "vandalism", as you do, as well as attack them on the talkpage, I consider them a disruptive editor.

I have therefore blocked Dantidurgagowda from editing Vokkaliga for three months. Bishonen | tålk 11:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC).

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

Persistent WP:DE in 'Arabian Sea' article despite being protected recently

• Arabian Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• HistoricalNameisPersianSea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Basp1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There seems to be a recent coordinated nationalistic POV pushing at the Arabian Sea article. Newly created account @HistoricalNameisPersianSea have extensively engaged in edit warring to use the 'Persian Sea' as an alternative name and in some revisions changed the article title to redirect to Persian Sea. @Basp1 was caught in the loop during the WP:WAR adding contents and sources under the Alternative Names section with citation overkill to some WP:QS. @HistoricalNameisPersianSea was subsequently banned and the article got reverted and protected. @Basp1 then continued to reinstate the POV edits (diff) despite being warned and advised (by me) not to do so in my talk page (link to discussion), yet they seem adamant on ignoring that and continuing with the WP:DE. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 10:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaving a ping for @Girth Summit: who issued the block of User:HistoricalNameisPersianSea and also for User:Kuru and User:Acroterion, admins who have edited the article since 1 May. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, responding to ping, I haven't looked at the article or its history any depth. If I remember correctly, I blocked HNiPS for egregious personal attacks, threats to sock if blocked, and the obviously SPA username, altogether leading me to believe they weren't HERE. Probably worth looking at the other accounts through an SPI lens, given some of HNiPS previous comments, don't have time to investigate right now myself. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding to Girth Summit's observation, I found this comment by the blocked editor, responding to User:Tol's complaint about him at WP:AIV:

..personal attacks which is deserved for being biased. i have other autoconfirmed accounts and we are a group of Iranian editors on discord who combat western imperialist propaganda and saudis in Persian Sea and elsewhere HistoricalNameisPersianSea (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

–EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The expected plague of socks and meats (advocating for the Persian side) has yet to appear. The best way to close this might be with some advice to User:Basp1, to carefully follow our sourcing rules before making further changes at Arabian Sea. Basp1 was notified of this thread but hasn't responded yet. Some issues with their edits were pointed out by User:Tamzin previously at User talk:Basp1#Reliable sources and POV-pushing. If Basp1 does not take the advice and continues to revert then this would become a conventional edit-warring case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Basp1 strikes me as someone who's working in good faith and is at least trying to comply with NPOV, but whose main issue is with being able to make edits that conform to Wikipedia style. This doesn't strike me as your run-of-the-mill case of "No, call this body of water my preferred name"; see I had never said it should be called persian sea.no body have the right to change an international recognized name, which is something you don't normally hear in a case like this. I would strongly encourage her to keep her edits to the article's talk page. If there's consensus to add content about "Persian Sea" and other historical alternate names, someone else can make those additions.

P.S. The sentence fragment "POV-pushing by User:Tamzin" was quite startling to see on my initial skim of your post. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that an advice might be the best way to close here. The user have been notified previously but I think they didn't grasp the concept of Wiki style and couldn't understand what's wrong with their edits and formatting, perhaps it's a case of a language barrier. But I also find nationalistically motivated editing to be concerning. I'm going with @Tamzin here assuming good faith and will open a new section in the talk page to outline why the cited sources are unreliable hopefully they cooperate there. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 21:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting IP range block

IP user 77.28.6.167 is the latest IP of its range making disruptive nationalistic edits on Balkan articles. They remove content and modify content in ways that counter with the given sources. The goal is to make places in southern Albania look "Greek". An IP range block was imposed by @EdJohnston: on 77.28.13.128/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for doing exactly the same edits in the same articles on February 21 [231], but that block has long expired. @Ymblanter: blocked 77.28.15.66 on May 22 and 77.28.11.254 on May 23. They have also suggested a request for IP range block to be made here [232].

Some examples of disruption made today:

• [233] deletes the information that one of the villages does not have a Greek population.
• [234] removes the Albanian translation of the village's name to leave only the Greek one
• [235] same thing
• [236] same thing
• [237] same thing

• @Bes-ART: asked me earlier today to make this request. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I would support this request, just not feeling confident enough to choose the correct range.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, would semi-protecting the articles of all settlements in southern Albania be a better option? A large part of Yugoslavia articles were semi-protected for a year after an AE case where you participated as an admin. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The range encompassing all IPs listed here is 77.28.0.0/20, which is a reasonably large one. It appears to belong to a North Macedonian ISP. firefly ( t · c ) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

We need indeed to balance collateral damage from range block and efforts require to have all pages in the editing area protected--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Last February this was reported at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 50#IP range block. This guy started up on 6 February, 2021. He is ranging widely but the third octet of his IP never goes above 15. So a block of Special:Contributions/77.28.0.0/20 might work. There have not been any good-faith edits from the /20 since February, though there were a few such edits last year. Blocking the /20 for a month should be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

77.28.0.0/20 does appear to be a good fit. If there are articles that the editor return to time and time again, these can be semi-protected. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I have blocked the 0/20 range for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. It is a good solution to the problem. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

14.166.25.80

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

---

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

This IP, which I reported to ARV, which I have reverted multiple times already just popped back online continuing to be highly disruptive regardless of numerous warnings. But now it's just back after a break and started up again to be disruptive. Govvy (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, the 'runners-up" editor from Vietnam. I wondered where they had got to. Drop me a line if you see them again, I’m collating a list of IPs they use. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

k, I've seen this happen before, didn't know about the Vietnam bit, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Nationalistic POV

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

Both users seem to not respect the Wikipedia guidelines, have most probably several accounts on Wikipedia to fullfill their agenda (Assyrian nationalism), remove sourced content without providing any sources and are Personal Attacking other Wikipedia users. Please, see this case, with a lot of information of accounts carrying out their POV since at least 2009 already: [238] Reldex (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Reldex asserts I am a sockpuppet because I reject his restoration of a version of Arameans article that was originally added by a sockpuppet (Special:Diff/971044631), and, after being removed for discussion on the talk page, was restored by another sockpuppet without discussion (Special:Diff/974874117). It is poorly written, mostly unsourced, and poorly sourced and formatted when it does have references. There needs to be consensus for it to be added, not to remain. The article is currently being brigaded, as one can see from the high number of IPs restoring this poor edit, and I have requested page protection. Mugsalot (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: Reldex has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. (Non-administrator comment) dudhhr_Contribs 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User:King G.A

I was going to bring this to the 3RR noticeboard, due to User:King G.A reverting 4 times, but since the user is completely unresponsive (saying "do not contact me") and provides absolutely no edit summary as to why my housekeeping edit is being reverted at Money Heist, I brought it here for attention. I'll leave it up to you whether a block is warranted or if the page should be protected. Thank you, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions of King G.A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I see a lot of reverts and no willingness to communicate. In addition to the "do not contact me" mentioned above, when they do communicate they do so by way of revert summaries in the vein of "You probably do not understand!!!!!!!!", all exclamation points in the original. However, this being a collaborative project, effective and collegial communication is required by all editors. Because King G.A appears to lack these skills, I am indefinitely blocking their account. Sandstein 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Fullomayo

User:Fullomayo has repeatedly deleted the Controversies section from the page Isa Ali Pantami without reason or by citing "libel;" however, they do not point out what is potentially libelous, edit the section, or communicate your issues with the section; instead just deleting it while refusing to respond to inquiries on their rationale on either their talk page or the page's talk page. Isa Ali Pantami appears to be the only page the account has ever edited, and only in a positive light, adding a laundry list of achievements and deleting well-sourced content that could be viewed negatively. Due to the reasonless edits, unresponsiveness, and potential conflict of interest or undisclosed financial stake, I ask that you decide if Fullomayo be suspended from editing the Isa Ali Pantami page and/or the page be protected (as a brand new account just added a bit of positive news - to be clear, I'm not saying that the account is Fullomayo's). Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fullomayo. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)