Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ToBeFree (talk | contribs) at 01:14, 14 February 2021 (→‎Comments by Robert McClenon: replying). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries

    User is leaving hostile and uncivil edit summaries and comments. Diffs: [1], edit summaries at [2], [3], [4], [5], and generally at [6] See recent edit summaries re:John Park Lambert

    This type of conduct is one reason good and experienced editors leave Wikipedia.

    Second issue is with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz signature. It violates WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and is cumbersome for editors using screen readers and magnification software, so there is an accessibility issue.

     // Timothy :: talk  13:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I will be the first to admit that in a few of these cases I was too hasty in moving people from Category:Living people to Category:Possibly living people. On of the incidents may come from my strong aversion to using the unreliable IMBd at all. I have resolved to try and show more restraint in this matter. For example in the case of Bernard Cecil Cohen I am not sure I found any clear indication of his still being alive. However I figure someone in his position would have their death reported, and my initial search did not show up anything along those lines, so I left him in Category:Living people. The approach used by the editor in question here to this matter has been singularly unhelpful. The edit summary langauge clearly constitutes attacks on me. The fact that he then doubled-down and claimed "You've already been responsible for one of Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments". The tenor and tone of these comments is just not called for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a moment, I had not even realized the edit summary that is #78 above existed. So I moved someone into the possibly living person category, and it turns out they actually are dead. And for doing this I get insulted for it. That does not seem right at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An admin also needs look at the userbox at the top of their userpage.  // Timothy :: talk  15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      My goodness, you don't say. Their talk page is also ten times the recommended length and is in serious need of archival. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no policy requiring archiving of user talk pages due to length. Beyond My Ken (talk)
      For God's sake no one click here. 71.184.139.127 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      There is much about 2014 that was good. That episode was not one of them. Nobody emerged happy with the outcome. If you would like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page archived it would be better if you asked him politely, rather than as a shopping list of complaints at ANI. Cabayi (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Cabayi, unfortunately I was not editing Wikipedia back in 2014, so was unaware of that hoo-ha then. I had no intention of having a shopping list of complaints; that was just one of the first things by which I was struck when I visited their talk page. I am well aware of what BMK has pointed out; I had replied to it but that reply was caught up in a RevDel. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To note: HW is under a community-imposed sanction "...Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block." See here. It dates from 2016, but has never been revoked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me make a few points clear at the outset:
      • I believe John Pack Lambert lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia.
      • I believe John Pack Lambert's editing practices are unacceptably lazy.
      • I believe John Pack Lambert does not behave honestly in disputes
    • And there is strong evidence supporting my beliefs. There is no point in euphemizing. Civility policy does not prohibit making statements like these unless they cannot be supported by evidence. And the evidence here is clear and substantial.
    About eight years ago, John Pack Lambert was responsible for what is probably Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments, covered in The New York Times and The New York Review of Books, resulting in criticism from prominent American writers like Joyce Carol Oates and Amy Tan, ending up with sustained public criticism of Wikipedia sexism. James Gleick, "an American author and historian of science whose work has chronicled the cultural impact of modern technology . . . [and] has been called 'one of the great science writers of all time'", wrote a piece entitled "Wikipedia’s Women Problem", where he concluded that "[A] single editor brought on the crisis: a thirty-two-year-old named John Pack Lambert living in the Detroit suburbs. He’s a seven-year veteran of Wikipedia and something of an obsessive when it comes to categories".
    When I referred to these events yesterday, Lambert accused me of telling "outright lies" and "attacking lies", claiming or insinuating I'd made statements which I plainly hadn't. He also falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. It's rather petty, but Lambert has a pattern of using spelling errors to indicate. He waged a lengthy vendetta against novelist Amanda Filipacchi (who had criticized sexism on Wikipedia in a New York Times op ed), incorrectly spelling her name over and over. See, for example, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly. Lambert refuses to discuss any of the substantive issues related to the deficiencies of his editing [7]. That's a greater breach of civility than I'm accused of, as well as a substantive violation of editing policy. It's far more destructive than occasional sharp language, at least to people who care about the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, as opposed to those who see themselves as hall monitors in a gigantic RPG.
    Let's talk about the substantive issues. This dispute centers on BLP editing and categorization. BLP policy states that "Editors must take particular care" while editing BLPs. Lambert doesn't take "particular" care. He barely takes any care at all. He's on a jihad to reduce the number of BLPS on Wikipedia [8]. There's no policy reason for doing this, and Lambert's pattern, once again, is rapid fait accompli editing, behavior that Arbcom has recognized as disruptive. See also the last paragraph here [9].
    Rather than taking particular care, Lambert was blazing through BLPs (selected by birth year), spending only seconds on each. He wanted to find excuses to remove the "Living people" category, without regard to whether there was any real reason to alter the tag. The standard is that the tag should not be changed unless there is some "documentation" that the person was alive in the last decade. Lambert, however, has invented his own, narrower standard, that the article itself include a sourced statement that the subject had done something notable in the past decade. This is utterly groundless, and functions to make Wikipedia less accurate. As I responded to Lambert yesterday, "Any documentation that indicates the subject has been alive within the last decade prevents application. It doesn't have to be in the article, or even be related to something notable enough to be in the article. A photo of them at their 75th high school reunion in their local paper would be good enough. It would be time- and effort-wasting to require that editors prove that elderly article subjects have done something noteworthy at an advanced age to prevent them from being classified as only possibly alive". Lambert has refused to discuss the issue.
    Let's take a look at just some of the articles involved:
    • Ann Turner Cook - Evidence that Lambert is taking no care at all. The first page of a simple Google search turns up five press reports of the subject's birthday celebration in November 2020. Another editor beat me to reverting this.
    • Christian Azzi - Google search turns up an obituary on page 1.
    • Gene Barge - IMDB listing, already in article, shows multiple credits in recent years. Google search shows 2018 newspaper interview as well as several recent video interviews.
    • Robert Basmann - Simple Google search turns up active university faculty listing as well as a 2017 birthday festschrift.
    • Giotto Bizzarrini - Qualifying source already in article.
    • Albert Brenner - Simple Google search turns up 2018 Variety profile on page 1.
    • Peter Whittle - Source in article includes a 2017 video interview.
    Looking at articles with primarily English-language sources, my sampling indicates that John Pack Lambert has an error rate of about 50% in reviewing these articles. That's unacceptable in any context, but especially in editing BLPs. It's obvious from the minuscule time he spends on each BLP and the ease with which the appropriate documentation can be found that he's making no effort whatever to reach an accurate result. That's disruptive behavior and should be sanctioned.
    So that's my position. Lambert is deliberately trying to reduce the accuracy of biographical articles because of his peculiar belief that most biographies don't belong in an encyclopedia. And the diabolical Mr Wolfowitz says that this is evidence that he really isn't competent to edit here. But, you know, WOLFOWITZ BAD is one of the Secret Pillars of Wikipedia.
    I'd also note that this dispute was escalated immediately to ANI without ant attempt to discuss with me, after Johnpacklambert had expressly refused to participate in my attempts to discuss the substantive issues. Under standing principles, that would bring him under direct scrutiny. But, hey, we're going to bring up the same complaints about The Big Bad Wolfowitz that have been rejected over and over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal (re:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

    Based on:

    • The diffs in the original post
    • Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's respose above which doubles down on insulting/uncivil attacks against another editor while attempting to justify their behavior and showing no understanding of the problem.
    • Additional reports of problematic behavior since community imposed sanctions were applied (examples provided above by BMK).
    Comment: This is an outright falsehood. BMK identified no such "examples". BMK simply posted a search for my username over the drama boards, regardless of date, regardless of substance, regardless of outcome. It literally picks up every comment I have ever made to these boards, every 3RR report I filed, every time I was pinged to add a comment. A similar search for BMK's username produces more than twice as many results. Now tell me why I should afford good faith to this falsehood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I propose that the indefinitely imposed community sanctions warning (recorded here) be applied, "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block."

    I also propose that their signature be changed per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and WP:POLEMIC and that an admin remove the threatening userbox at the top of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's userpage.

     // Timothy :: talk  07:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. HW may be right about JPL (I've had my own concerns in the past), but that doesn't excuse his behavior here, or his steadily increasingly Not compatible with a collaborative project behavior overall, laced with assumptions of bad faith and casting of aspersions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we need our editors to act like it is one. And the below...thank you for neatly proving my point. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, of course. You don't deny, and you can't deny, that Johnpacklambert's BLP editing is so far below policy standards as to be incompetent. However, you insist that it is uncivil to call an incompetent editor incompetent. It is, however, acceptable for Johnpacklambert to falsely accuse me of lying, because false accusations of dishonesty are civil. You disgrace yourself. You disgrace this project. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support warning — I'm tired of mean editors, and our community's long-term tolerance for them. A formal warning is better than nothing. Levivich harass/hound 17:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: Sorry, reading this again, I see I may have misread the proposal. I thought "that the ... warning ... be applied" meant that we log such a warning, not that the editor be blocked. I don't support a block. Given that this logged warning was years ago, I support another logged warning. Levivich harass/hound 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Per proposal, without reservation. The restriction previously imposed was unambiguous. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC) edited 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - HW has been a disruptive influence for quite a while. Personally I would classify him as a net negative to the project. My support for this proposal has nothing to do with his userbox (per El_C), and my !vote does not include approval of the suggestion to remove it. His response to my providing raw data for other editors to consider, and his lashing out at me, are, I'm afraid, entirely typical of this uncivil, non-collaborative person, who (as far as I can tell), never admits to being wrong. I have not looked into HW's wall-of-text complaint about JPL, but even if it's entirely true, it doesn't in any way justify HW's behavior. His sig is a violation of the spirit of WP:POLEMIC and is -- I believe deliberately -- disruptive.
      I suggest that these cumulative factors justify a block of a significant duration, i.e. days, and not hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose "He may be right". No he is right as a cursory look at JPL's editing over even a small period shows. If you look at it over a longer period it just gets worse. JPL is either incompetent and/or lazy in an area where we are required to take extra care. There is plenty of evidence for that. The alternative is that they are not incompetent or lazy and are deliberately flouting various policies and guidelines despite knowing full well what they are. Feel free to pick, because the AGF option here is that they lack the required competence or effort. Levivich it is not mean to tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess. After repeated messes, you waste less time mouthing pointless niceties. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know what you're reading but tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess is not what happened here. There is much more up above. For example, in this thread, HW wrote that JPL falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. Accusing someone of intentionally inserting misspellings into quotations in order to make you look bad, is seriously paranoid. Levivich harass/hound 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      JPL routinely deliberately mis-spells for their own purposes. The alternative is that they are writing out a quotation by hand rather than using copy-paste as normal people do, and inserting their own mis-spellings that they seemingly have no problem spelling at other times. I think the more common explanation is that when people take these petty actions they do it because they are a common troll who likes to be a dick to people. But unlike HW, I am not the target of said petty niggling, so I have a less personal opinion on it. The idea that JPL is accidentally mispelling is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Gotta agree with Levivich -- people do all sorts of weird things (personal favorite example), and retyping quotations by hand seems totally plausible. Like, does JPL not make typos in their own writing, only when quoting other people? I think it would be better to stick to criticisms grounded in actual evidence. --JBL (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally Oppose - Frustration over sloppy editing and calling this out does not justify a block. Not a fan of an indefinite sanction warning over civility from ~5 years ago given the amount of tolerance for other users on this noticeboard. Support shortening link to user page given accessibility concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This does not appear to be a situation where one of them is in the right, and the other is in the wrong. We are faced here with two editors, each problematic in their own way, being problematic against each other. BD2412 T 02:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A fate worse than death...
    • Oppose The problem here is that the category:Living people is fundamentally unverifiable because people may die at any moment and sources about their living status will always be dated. It is logically equivalent to the category:Possibly living people whose name better reflects the inevitable uncertainty about this. Either the two categories should be merged or both deleted. The bickering and busywork will then be reduced and we can focus better on definite facts instead. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support- Even if HW is right about JPL's editing (and I think he's exaggerating for dramatic effect) that doesn't excuse the name-calling. But since it's an inclusionist doing the name calling it is impossible that anything will be done about it. Reyk YO! 10:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions. Leaving an uncivil edit summary when another editor decides that a living person is only "possibly living" with no evidence is, if not justifiable, at least understandable. If calling someone's life into question isn't likely offensive to that person, what is? --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think the opposition here is basically trying to give HW a pass on [10] because they do not like JPL's edits. It is possible to disagree strongly with someone's edits without being uncivil; its normal to be civil with people you agree with, civility becomes an issue when you disagree and the stronger the disagreement the more need to pay attention to civility. Hopefully this [11] is not ignored.  // Timothy :: talk  08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The sanction that is indefinite should only be the interaction ban. The warning is a warning and should not mean that HW has been indefinite probation for nearly 5 years. I understand there should be a shorter leash. However, if I gave a final warning template to someone ~5 years ago, I do not expect an admin to block afterwards after I report them for a similar incident today. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If HW has been behaving below CIVIL towards multiple editors recently, that would be justification and those still needs diffs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That, and he didn't just make a random personal attack. He made the uncivil comment while undoing JPLs edit, which makes for mitigating circumstances. I personally see there is some difference between someone saying bad words in general, and Joe Bloggs, firefighter, saying bad things about the person who set the fire that they are currently putting out at this very moment. --GRuban (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fireman's job is to put out the fire. If there are things to be said about the supposed perpetrator of the fire, they should be said in a different context, and in the proper manner. Someone just called me a "bozo" in an edit summary. The fact is that I made a minor error, and I has happy to see the error fixed, but not very happy to be called a "bozo" while it was being fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • JPL's edits are problematic and may warrant all kinds of sanctions or whatever, but it doesn't mean they get to be a target for incivility. Wolfowitz is problematic in their own ways; they modified their signature a little bit, but I've always thought that claim incredibly whiny and just totally off-putting. I cannot judge if their incivility was bad enough to be blocked, but I do believe that their signature is disruptive and they should change it. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a renewed warning or short incivility block is all that is called for here. An indefinite block on the basis of a five year old warning seems too harsh. signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that HW has been up on this board for incivility a number of times since that sanction was imposed, but no one seems to have been aware of the sanction. He slipped by on those occasions, which is something he should not be rewarded for. It's not like his sanction is slowly disintegrating over time, it should be as usable now as when it was imposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed with BMK. The fact of the matter is that the editing restriction imposed was indefinite and has not been revoked. Just because it's a few years old does not mean it should not be enforced. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support based upon editing history and the fact that there's a clear, logged editing restriction. If editors object to enforcing it, then we should have a discussion about lifting it, but nothing leads to recidivist behavior and chronic problems like setting clear restrictions for problematic behaviors and then just shrugging when the restricted editors ignore said restrictions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose messing with HW's signature; support lifting the absurd editing restriction misguidedly levied upon HW for calling out glaring CIR issues when he saw them. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticizing a series of problematic edits involving BLP articles. That is not uncivil. Johnpacklambert by his own admission was disregarding available online sources, and making arbitrary decisions on who is alive or not. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade: "It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately". Dimadick (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a huge fan of expecting civility. And HW's comments aren't at that bar. I'm not certain anything less then this will get them to pay attention. But while it could be said much better, is anything said by HW inaccurate? We appear to have an editor who has a very high error rate. Calling them out on that seems like the right thing to do. HW hurts their (important) message here. A calmer approach might have resolved the problems by now. I'm not sure what the right next step is--this proposal seems like it's likely to be used as a hammer. But I don't see evidence that anything less will get HW to pay attention. (I'm neutral on this for now, mostly just musing and seeing where I get to as I type this.) Hobit (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions if the main or only complaint is reminding John Pack Lambert via edit summaries that his playing around with people's alive status is utterly incompetent. Further, I would WP:BOOMERANG this and ban JPL from changing such categories, given his longstanding display of incompetence in doing so. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Insurrectionists' gallows

    Let me preface this by saying that, at the time of writing this, I have only glanced at this complaint. That I am not familiar with the main participants or their respective histories (I mean: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and John Pack Lambert — I, of course, know and am fond of TimothyBlue). I have less than a passing familiarity with this dispute (seemingly over categories, one of the things I know least about on the project), and I am not committing to reviewing it further by virtue of this comment. So, with that out of the way, here we go. Above, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticized that the top of their user page features Image:Tombstone courthouse gallows.jpg, with the caption: This user believes that Donald Trump gives aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. I'd like to strongly disagree with anyone (TimothyBlue?) who wishes to censor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz from displaying this custom userbox, for whatever reason. Don't want to be associated with a gallows? Don't have your most ardent supporters build an actual gallows in the midst of an insurrection which you are accused of inciting (Mr. Trump). I don't feel that this is an unreasonable position to adopt. It is not incitement, on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz part, nor is it a BLP violation against Trump himself — who, btw, I'd love to see sue Wikipedia over something like this, even though the likelihood of that happening pretty much approaches zero. Anyway, the point is that I believe this is still within the bounds of acceptable userpage political expression (for the times). I realize the very notion of userpage political expression itself is something many find distasteful, even anathema —my own userpage (last meaningful change circa 2008) included— but I would ventrue to remind participants that it is still very much an allowed practice. Jeez, sorry for the length of this. I imagined this much shorter in my head. El_C 15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoa, on closer look, it looks like AHullaballoo Wolfowitz actually added that userbox in 2018 (diff)! Which makes them some sort of a prophet...? El_C 15:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh maybe Wolfo only has 25 Minutes to Go...! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered why that was being brought up myself; concur with El_C on this. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, I confess to being quite perturbed by that argument. It is one thing to put "this user supports the Democratic/Republican Party" or "this user believes that Reagan/FDR was our lord and saviour" etc, but it is another thing entirely to have a set of gallows next to an accusation of treachery directed to a politician. It seems very much to be a veiled death threat and perhaps analogous to a userbox calling Bush Jr. or Obama a war criminal with a noose next to their photo. Carte blanche should not be given for such inflammatory content on userpages. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to include material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdrqaz, well, I, for one, argue that it is more likely to bring the project into disrepute if we were to censor it. At this moment in time, I find it an arguably relevant political statement rather than a veiled death threat — though, oddly, I would not have thought this to be so in 2018. Talk about unintended consequences! Anyway, the reason for that, again, is because of the actual Capitol gallows, whose significance should not be understated. It makes the usage of a gallows fair game when it comes to Trump "giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States." Because that could be understood in the sense of him having incited insurrectionists to overthrow a branch of the US government. Insurrectionists who also built a gallows on-site. Hope that makes sense. El_C 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, I am aware of the new context behind the photo. But given that (as you pointed out) the userbox was added some years ago, that doesn't make it retroactively okay. As far as I'm aware (of course feel free to correct me) there is no grandfather clause for such material on userpages. The soapbox requirement applies to user pages too. Political statements, however relevant, should be confined to Twitter and Facebook than here on Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdrqaz, I think you got it backward. Unless I fix my broken time machine, we can't go back to the past to remove it then. But it's fine now. As for political statements, in general, that is a wider policy matter. It may be frowned upon by many, but it is still generally allowed. Where the line is drawn there is, of course, subject to debate, as it always has been. El_C 22:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Our interpretations of the guidelines and that userbox obviously differ. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdrqaz, it's all good. Thank you for sharing your perspective. El_C 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for closure

    Given that this discussion is close to being automatically archived, I request that an uninvolved administrator determines what consensus (if any) has emerged from the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    An additional comment came in not too many hours ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of bad faith and POV derailing

    BunnyyHop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    BunnyyHop has a long history of POV pushing sections. On the previous ANI he was warned if he keeps adding POV sections, action would be taken against him. He has not stopped. He has tried add a random paragraph quote in Wikipedia's voice, I reverted these edits as they were disruptive. At which point he accused me of being on a "anti-communist crusade" completely unrelated to the article, assuming bad faith, and attempting to derail the conversation and making useful discussion impossible. BunnyyHop also has prior disruption on the article Slavery, removing sections he doesn't like and tagging them as minor to avoid it being reviewed. BunnyyHop does so here and here. This is not BunnyyHop's first time of trying to derail conversations with accusations of bad faith, as shown by his talk page. Des Vallee (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a side note - I really suggest you to take a look at WP:FALLIBLE. Anyways, even the diffs used here date back to last year, so it's not even what me and the other editor were discussing. There's a long history between me and this user, leading even to the filling of a big WP:ANI report. Related to this report, provocative replies such as «[y]our complete waffle of sources and POV sections aren't allowed» (while these were not even my sources!) and «[y]ou have tried three times to add POV pushing sections into articles and all have failed, every time» made me reply sourly, which I apologised shortly after and opened a report on dispute resolution (as suggested in the ANI report). PS: Apparently the paragraph being disputed here was not even given a diff to. Diff. An ANI is really not warranted here if one is looking to sort this out. I opened a section on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the afterwards opening of this ANI report closed it --BunnyyHop (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the first time you have done this, you did it here, and warned here. You did it when you were reported for edit warring calling, and were warned for it here, you constantly did it at Marxism-Leninism. You also generally are un-cooperative and keep adding POV pushing sections, and editing only off your to push your POV. Des Vallee (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tired of this stalking, following me and reverting what I do for no valid reason. You yourself stated here that you would continue to follow my edits, as well as that I'm «an extreme waste of time [...] as it is clear his only goal is to push his POV, and a toxic one at that [...]». I'm pretty sure you didn't assume good faith. I reached an agreement with the other user until you came and disrupted everything with aggressive provocations trying to get a reaction, and I was too dumb and fell for that. --BunnyyHop (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple other editors have found you to be disruptive, ever since you started removing chunks of articles and tagging them as minor, or adding POV language. You have edit warred with so many users, added POV text to articles and wanted to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes and the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems" to articles. It was only after I pointed out what you are doing that you retracted your comments. As shown previously you have a long, long history of these actions and I don't think you will change, because well it's been over 4 months and you haven't. Des Vallee (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, Des Vallee's and BunnyyHop's behavior is essentially equivalent from opposite POVs. The diffs you provide are BH removing unsourced info from Slavery article about Soviet Camps. Without sources describing Gulag as a form of slavery, the content violates WP:V and WP:OR. Even Nazi concentration camps as a form of slavery is complicated, see Forced labor in Nazi concentration camps#Slavery analogy and I would NOT support adding them to the Slavery article without qualification. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    buidhe, right, if there are no reliable sources linking to slavery it can't be included, despite any opinion editors might have (which holds no water whatsoever). I made concessions with the other editor to include it on the basis of the opinion of one scholar - but is it enough to not be considered WP:FRINGE? And still - even if we have the Gulag sorted out, there are another 2 countries there. This thread closed the one on dispute resolution, what steps should we take now? --BunnyyHop (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unrelated to this article in specific, there was a clear avoidance (diff) to discuss the changes added here, purposely missing the point(I underlined that the conservative turn in the paper was referred to Maoism and this was interpreted as "completely ignoring" the citation). Remember that WP:CIR, and this is not the first time Des Vallee shows trouble in basic reading comprehension. Anyways - related to the first diff, it was reverted for "lacking consensus" yet there was no response by anyone to the section I opened in the talk page Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies, not even this editor who reverted the edit for "no consensus". Note what content is disputed here - Cultural conservatism in the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party. --BunnyyHop (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many different pages are these two feuding on? I’m familiar with them going back and forth at Chinese Communist Party. Normally I’d recommend a voluntary interaction ban in lieu of blocks or other bans, but it seems that BunnyyHop also has an ongoing and partially overlapping feud with at least one other editor so that might not even be an option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to My very best wishes, I don't consider it a feud, I don't have anything to complain about him, even though it's clear we as editors have very different personal POVs. --BunnyyHop (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is no hard feelings on my part. However, your editing is a matter of concern. For example, here you followed me on a page you never edited before, only to revert my edit in a matter of minutes. And again [24]. And what was your reason for revert, exactly? According to your edit summary, "I should mention that I'm entirely neutral on this and this revert is purely mediation." What? Now, speaking on the content, you restored text sourced to writings that you did not even bother to check (you can't because these references are in Russian, have no pages and not available on line). Why? Because, as you said in your edit summary, these authors have PhDs? You do not know that. And even if they did, their "candidates of science" diploma would not be accepted as PhD by typical US institutions. Do you even know that students of history departments in places like MGU had a second "secret" degree in "military disinformation"? But most important, you did not check what these authors actually claimed, while just blindly reverting my edit two times because ... you are "neutral". My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing I can do but swear that I did not follow you, I follow a lot of pages about Lenin. I had been following that discussion for a while, and I even commented here. There was a lot of accusations and no actual linking to WP:REliable sources, so I didn't give much attention to it. This was reverted because there was no consensus on the talk page to remove it, and content shouldn't be removed just because one can't verify it, hence why I added the (request) quotation template. My opinion was neutral because I wasn't taking any side, just in case it was interpreted as such.
    I have accessed the file, and I'll be posting it on the respective talk page. --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: BunnyyHop is 7 months old, with ~1,100 edits and in this short period they have been able to create a great amount of disruption:
    I think this individuals contributions,[25] show they are here to push a personal and postive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about Marxist Leninism. Examples on article and talk pages: Marxist-Leninism, Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, Slavery, User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union Portuguese Communist Party, Anarcho-communism. (See editor history for more).
    They have created Walls of text in their attempts to soften or remove negative content about communism related articles. Talk:Marxism–Leninism is a BunnyyHop wall of text; this is an extreme example of DE TE. Other examples can be found by looking at their contributions, eg: Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union continued in Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour and this ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy.
    They have engaged in edit waring to this end (See block log and edit history) and create timesinks using sematics and word games in discussions in order to push a postive pro-Marxist viewpoinit (See talk pags for Slavery, Soviet democracy, and Marxist-Leninism for examples).
    This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to push a positive representation of communism/Marxism. They should be topic banned from anything having to do with Marxism, communism, socialism, broadly construed.  // Timothy :: talk  21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has already come to an end and the conclusion is very clear: No consensus. Don't try to rebuild it here. Thus, I'm not replying to anything within the scope of slavery. Just a side note: I can't help but notice that those who choose to insist I'm a menace to Wikipedia are those who have an extremely opposed view of communism as an ideology (you yourself stated that bolshevism is the moral equivalent of nazism).
    I don't think asking for sources that link said camp to slavery to justify its inclusion in slavery is an outrageous claim? In fact, it's necessary to not violate WP:OR. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I have never edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests neither Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and its talk page multiple times with POV edits. You are right about Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I intended Portuguese Communist Party. Corrected above.  // Timothy :: talk  23:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, just manually checked my contributions (only about the editing part, hah.), I wonder why it's not showing up here? --BunnyyHop (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "No consensus" means, definitionally, that a conclusion was not "very clear". There is no policy against discussing things which previously failed to reach consensus (talk about self-fulfilling prophecies!)
    A majority of editors supported a topic ban then, so why would it not be permissible for them to support one now (especially since much more WP:TE has taken place since then?) jp×g 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Quote from the previous ANI closure: A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI. I don't know why the closer chose to ignore the majority and side with the minority. Typically, we go with a majority in binary decisions unless there are reasons not to.
      The editor is very obviously only here to push their political POV. They also apparently have a serious problem with plagiarism; see the log for Marxism-Leninism: [26] We know this is them from the timing of this and because the main copyvio (all the sciencedirect links) was from the International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, a source they favor on their user page [27] and are constantly pushing at Talk:Marxism-Leninism [28] (use your browser's Find tool to see all the times). This paper which was plagiarized was also their idea: [29] Editing Wikipedia is not a right and competence (including in NPOV) is required. This user is a complete timesink and needs to be separated from the topic area. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think BunnyyHop is taking the wrong lessons from the former ANI post. Instead of viewing it as a close call with a block and changing their ways, they seem to have interpreted it as license to double down on their POV editing.  // Timothy :: talk  07:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go — the same group who was rallying to get me banned is doing the same thing once again, the same arguments are being used once again. And note — I only asked for sources that link labour camps to slavery to avoid WP:NOR, but this is interpreted as pushing a POV. I wonder what would happen if we did the reverse? I publicly state on my talk page my political views to avoid any confusion and to show that I have no problem with it — I'm simply here to improve Wikipedia — but this has caused users that have extreme opisition to it to interpret every edit I do as having some secret motive behind, every edit I do is to "soften" my political POV.
    I am tired of being followed, harassed, provoked and not being assumed WP:GF. When my edits are reverted there's always a personal remark — the ones that led me to reply sourly are really blatant. It's not hard to see my edits were being followed, so that when I reached consensus and edited the page they would be promptly reverted.
    This has a clear goal, however. Those who defended me in the previous ANI will get tired and those who follow me will get what they want, because I too am getting tired of this. Edits being reverted and not being discussed, lack of WP:CIR when they are discussed. See how many times POV push was used in Marxism-Leninism and by whom. Also, the "text wall" (you act like I was the only one engaged in that discussion and that I was alone in defending my arguments) led to a RfC and probably major article restructuring.
    Diffs on how my "POV pushing continued" are non existent however. And yes, paragraphs were added into the article that violated copyright, and although I was not the sole editor involved in them I assume full responsibility for it.
    I would really appreciate some feedback by an unbiased reviewer willing to go through the talk pages of this thread (minus Marxism-Leninism due to its sheer size and uselessness — it's a dispute based on what's the scope of the article) and edit summaries. Realising that this witch-hunt will continue until I get banned probably just killed of any joy I had editing this wiki. Harassment wins, I guess. Won't reply soon, unless obliged to. TimothyBlue, I don't even know which content dispute you're referring to, but whatever. BunnyyHop (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies BunnyyHop (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, talking would be fine, but you continue edit warring on the same page [36] during the standing ANI request about you. This is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Newest example of what I said above: diff. Completely provocative edit summary:

    Just because you feel you know Wikipedia's guidelines doesn't mean you do, trying to override consensus by saying "I am right and this a break in policy therefor I can ignore consensus" without understanding guidelines or consensus one bit isn't going to work

    bold and italic added by me
    Well, what did I do this time? A simple [[ ]] edit, with a little note to the previous edit diff, where I affirmed:

    + [[]]; furthermore, local consensus shouldn't overwrite Wikipedia's guidelines, local consensus shouldn't violate WP:NOR nor WP:V

    Most likely didn't even check first what I edited! Why else would I be accused of "trying to override consensus"? It should be noted that the edit was reverted by the same editor a minute later. diff.
    --BunnyyHop (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by BunnyyHop: I decided to make a proper comment after taking a break from this. This ANI report came only five days after the closure of the previous one. The three diffs provided by Des Vallee when opening this report include one Talk page comment I made on 2 February, and two edits I made on 26 October and 26 December of last year, before the previous ANI report was even started. Then Des Vallee posted an additional three diffs: Two edits I made on 24 December of last year and one warning I received on 1 December. In other words, the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an "anti-communist crusade." I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to "continued POV pushing".

    After that, other editors have essentially repeated the exact same accusations made in the previous ANI report, based largely on my previous edit history from before the last report. I wish to emphasize again that it has been less than a week since the closure of that report. In that time, I have only made 24 article mainspace edits, and 12 of them have been small edits of 50 characters or less. It is true that I am involved in several long-running content disputes, and I have continued to engage with those disputes since the last ANI report. Note that I've had 47 Talk space edits as compared to the 24 in mainspace since the ANI report. I am mostly just trying to resolve the disputes that I was already involved in.

    These other editors continuously accuse me of "POV pushing" for what I consider to be simple engagement in content disputes. All I want is to resolve the several content disputes that I have already been involved in for some time, and then move on. But it seems that my very act of engaging in those disputes is considered "POV pushing".

    I have discussed every edit (in fact, one of the accusations against me is that I discuss too much). I would like to ask my accusers what, in their opinion, it would be necessary for me to do in order to engage in our content disputes without it being POV pushing. It seems to me that their only request is that I simply stop disputing the content they prefer, with nothing else being considered good enough. I think that is self-evidently unreasonable.

    I would also ask everyone reading this to consider the dates on the diffs used to accuse me. I can't go back into the past and undo edits I made in October or December. But for the future, as I said, I wish only to resolve the content disputes I am already involved in and then move on. --BunnyyHop (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    BunnyyHop Stop posting walls of text. This isn't only a month ago you tried to add "The independence of Soviet comrades from clandestine monetary systems", you edit warred on Chinese Communist Party a week ago with three separate editors, you have also doubled down on your POV pushing. You edite based off your POV, you add "accuse" to proven facts, add "quote needed" to text you dislike when there is an inline citation, whitewash text like trying to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes, and the rise of the proletariat". Stop trying to redefine the definition of consensus to "I am going to wear out this conversation with walls of text until you don't respond", stop bringing up peoples positions in conversations, stop trying to poison the wells of discussion, don't tag edits as minor that remove entire paragraphs, stop using POV words like "imperialist" "exploiter" "comrade". Stop soapboxing positions by using quotes to state fringe theories on Stalin. You have constantly been a huge disruption to Wikipedia it's clear your just here to try to spread your agenda. Des Vallee (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BunnyyHop This was the edit but it was already reverted. Des Vallee (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have been trying my best to work with Bunnyyhop, today at [37]. They are still changing text to fit their POV [38] without consensus and contrary to what sources state. This is going on in almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic Ban for articles related to Communism/Marxism/Socialism, in both theory and practice, broadly construed.
    I waited to !vote, I hoped BH would stop, but their POV pushing, source twisting, word games, walls of text, etc, are only getting worse and its getting worse on almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute, not POV pushing. If we aren't discussing this in WP:GF no amount of discussion will solve this. I could do the same thing and ask why are you so reluctant to change it from slave camps to forced labour camps, holding to an interpretation of the text which is different from the one seen in Gulag and in every other academic source. I'll explain it (link):
    On the start of her text, she states «The Gulag was the vast network of labor camps which was once scattered across the length and breadth of the Soviet Union, from the islands of the White Sea to the shores of the Black Sea, from the Arctic circle to the plains of Central Asia, from Murmansk to Vorkuta to Kazakhstan, from central Moscow to the Leningrad suburbs»
    In the same paragraph, she states «But over time, the word has also come to signify the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps»
    In the same paragraph, but later, she says «Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself»
    The text under dispute is «Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet Union created a system of forced slave labor camps called the Gulag»
    Applebaum uses «Gulag» with three meanings: to refer to the camps themselves; to refer to the system of repression; to refer to what she calls "the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties". Between 1930 and 1960, they created a system of forced labor camps, like we can see in Gulag's lead. And this is something so minor - these three meaning's Anne Applebaum gave to the word Gulag are fully quoted just below, as well as Golfo Alexopoulos' - an author which I recommended to add. Even Alexopoulos refers to it as a system of forced labour camps. TimothyBlue, maybe if you didn't have such an intransigent attitude towards me I could've gotten your point sooner. As I come to grasp your side of the argument - she doesn't refer to it with three different meanings, but rather one unified bloc. As a matter of fact, I kind of agree with you now.--BunnyyHop (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban at this point. All the new examples cited in this report are just examples of standard content dispute. TimothyBlue cites them changing "slave" to "forced" labor in Gulag, but the changed wording is probably more WP:IMPARTIAL in my opinion. I do admit it would be preferable if BH was more brief in making their points. (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, per the WP:NOTHERE behavior detailed in the last AN/I thread, which seems to have continued as well as expanded in scope considerably. This editor should find another area to contribute positively in. jp×g 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to question, but how so? I hardly edited an article's mainspace in the last few days. I can't see how it has expanded in scope considerably, especially because I'm only concluding the disputes I previously had. As buidhe wrote, «forced slave labour» is probably more imparcial wording, and I don't consider Anne Applebaum using it is enough to label it as such in Wikivoice, especially since most scholars simply refer to it as forced labour camps. After looking at scholarly analysis on this to justify the inclusion of the Gulag in Slavery, I suggested the addition of Alexopoulos' comparison between labor in gulag and "other forms of slave labor", which was added by TimothyBlue. All I'm seeking to do is to improve the neutrality in a contentious topic. I concur with buidhe's suggestion. My arguments should also become clearer if I present them in a concise way. diff for my lastest comment related to this - I presented things briefly --BunnyyHop
    • Comment Sorry to jump into an an unrelated discussion, but it happens to be right above the discussion about me. Timothy is making unsourced edits, original research, plagiarizing, and edit warring in [[39]]. To me it's pretty obvious when you look at his edits. To copy/paste what I wrote below:

    Thank you t. In regards to [[40]], the two sources that Timothy cite don't say that 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide"'. As for the first edit, [[41]], the source literally states 'The U.S. government has not recognized the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide,"'. I feel bad for the admin having to deal with this. So much of your edits have huge POV issues or source issues. The two edits above (that you reverted) are examples of this. Also you kept reverting this even though it was obvious plagarism [[42]]. Or this [[43]] when no source said that "The United Nations has passed multiple resolutions commemerating the Holodomor as a man made famine".

    It seems that Timothy's thing is getting onto pages about early 20th century communism, push original research, report those who call him on his sources. Stix1776 (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a topic ban. I'm reading the justifications, and honestly Vallee and Timothy are POV pushing just as much if not more. The justifications for a topic ban seem way out of proportion.Stix1776 (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above is simply a trolling comment/vote, from an editor with ~100 edits, clearly retaliation for the ANI I filed below, and from an editor pushing the same POV as BH. Please see [44] for their response to an admin leaving a ds/notice for them in this area.  // Timothy :: talk  11:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Stix1776 See WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, this isn't looking good for trying to get retaliation. Des Vallee (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, no, the conversation has moved on from the Applebaum interpretation. I'm stating that those academics that criticized her/their approach should be included, something I'm afraid to do myself because it might be interpreted as "pushing a POV". I have to be careful about including anything that goes against your POV, since you have not made a single compromise, other than when I suggested the inclusion of Alexopoulos, a scholar that made a comparison between "labour in the gulag" and "other forms of slave labour". My reply explicited those who criticized their approach as well as how this affects the usage of "forced slave labour camps" in wikivoice, which returns a total of 1 result in Google Scholar, but these points were not addressed by your comment, which contains the word "You" 10 times. --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: BunnyyHop continues to fight at least four editors, across multiple talk page discussions at Slavery to get their POV perferred wording. WP:IDHT, WP:LISTEN, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Latest Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, pervious discussion Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union (see OP for others). The WP:BLUDGEON BH has displayed in this thread is a minor example of what they do in articles.  // Timothy :: talk  01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should either have proper attribution or not be there at all. You claim that slave camp and forced labour camp can be used interchangeably because they're not mutually exclusive, so it's a simple matter of "POV perferred wording", when it's not. Aside from the clear usage of labor colonies, corrective labor colonies, etc., but mostly forced labor camps by most scholars (simply compare Google Academics search: "slave camps" "gulag" - 127 results [some of which referent to the US and other western countries], "forced labour camps" "gulag" - 643 results, "forced labor camps" "gulag", 1320 results). This relies on most importantly on Applebaum's book, a right-leaning journalist/historian (personal bias is important in WP:DUE), whose introduction (this is taken from there) has been criticized by a scholar. When I brought this up you started avoiding content and overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, as you just did, and replying based on "You", "Your", "You're", as well as using this report to intimidate me, instead of discussing content. --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban for BunnyyHop. IMHO, a topic ban for Des Vallee and Timothy would be more fitting. After reviewing the talk pages, I see that BunnyyHop is making constructive talk page contributions along the lines of policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP, as I think he also demonstrates here. I see no serious issue with an editor who's doing that, regardless of what the editor's content opponents might impute as the editor's "POV." In this light, I see DesVallee's and Timothy's contributions as less constructive, since their behavior looks like a textbook case of several editors WP:STONEWALLING against one. Here we go again: same editors aggressively blockshopping, less than a week after the previous report was closed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has tried to put in text stating "Following Russia's independence by the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems", tags edits as minor that removes whole sections, warned numerous times on wiki-layering, and blocked for edit warring, constantly brings up personal info. This user's actions are un-defandable. Des Vallee (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't that edit prior to your first report to ANI against BunnyyHop, over a week ago? You already put that into your last report. I thought that was not a good edit, which was why I abstained from supporting BunnyyHop at that ANI report. You know that Bunnyyhop is fairly new. He already admitted that he had made some poor edits and would act more constructively moving forward as far as wording, reverting, and tagging edits as minor. And he is doing that now: he is NOT tagging major edits as minor, adding text about the "success of Bolshevik comrades," or bringing up any "personal info," contrary to your claim. Saying that you were on an anti-communist crusade after the last ANI incident was not helpful (generally, it is more helpful to assume good faith of another editor, even if NOT warranted), but I see nothing substantive since the last report that would genuinely add up to a topic ban now. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Couple things, indeed however it's that inexcusable, BunnyyHop was warned about this POV sections, however even so he keeped it up. This is a place to state completely bad faith editing something BunnyyHop is. Nowhere did I state I was on an "Anti-communist crusade" that is simply made up, I am leftist. This isn't new, this text is from less then a month ago, when he had over 1,400 edits and felt confident enough to constantly espouse Wikipedia policies. He was warned for this at which point he dug his heels in and defended his actions, consistently stating it was a NPOV. Also there is no defense for tagging edits as minor that removes entire sections, let's take the route and say BunnyyHop was acting in good faith and removed a whole paragraphs because he thought it was minor, what is BunnyyHop's rationale? How can someone think such an edit is minor, moreover how can someone not understanding removing an entire paragraph is not minor. Moreover how could they not understand the concept of a "minor edit" when they read previously the information on WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE as seen here, and beforehand here and here. The thought BunnyyHop read up on NPOV and other policies but not "what is a minor edit" has no rationale defense. Des Vallee (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Des Vallee, I clearly did not accuse of you of being on an anti-communist crusade. That's something you brought up in your preface to this second ANI report against Bunnyyhop. His response acknowledges that remark: "the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an 'anti-communist crusade.' I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to 'continued POV pushing'. I agree that it was an unhelpful comment on his part; but it's far from an infraction that should merit a topic ban when he has otherwise been totally constructive since the last ANI report. Your other examples may be from "less than a month ago" or more than a month ago; either way, they are from prior to the previous ANI report closed less than two weeks ago, so they were are already looked at. You are relitigating the same set of issues, without demonstrating a case of continuing disruption. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Zloyvolsheb, I can vouch for Bunnyyhop having been disruptive since the last ANI thread was closed. You are right in that Des Vallee does appear to have a feud with Bunnyyhop but that doesn’t excuse Bunnyyhop’s continued tendentious editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, BH continued edit warring even during this ANI discussion [45],[46] on the same page where they did it before: [47], [48],[49],[50],[51]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you characterize this as "edit warring"? The diffs you provide are different reverts made by the same editor to the same article, but they are different reverts of different edits, made on different dates. (Your diffs show two reverts from February, and then some from the month prior.) Looks like there's a content dispute, with about 7-8 editors roughly evenly split among two sides at the talk page. I'm also puzzled that you would choose this among the diffs above - actually looks like a great edit. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That “great edit” is a cut and dried example of edit warring instead of working towards consensus... Perhaps you copied the wrong diff? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How come only BunnyyHop attempted discussion? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry, how does that answer the question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, I'd say. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate? Either I’m missing something here or you’re talking in riddles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. You asked if this was the right diff, since BunnyyHop was allegedly not working toward consensus. In fact, he made two reverts of this addition on January 30 (note edit summary), and was the only one attempting a discussion at the talk page, as shown. Did I choose "the right diff?" Think so. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The revert was made at 19:00, 30 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened 01:22, 31 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened after the edit warring not before, so how can it justify it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion began in BunnyyHop's edit summaries (note that this content was first included without any edit summary) and was taken by him to the talk page a few hours later (at 01:22 January 31). If these two reverts were disruptive or edit warring, the other side looks far worse in this (note date February 1, ignoring talk page). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Evidence of a feud between the editors filing and pushing the first and second ANI against BH may be seen in this MFD. I have to say that I am thankful to all the editors who participated in that discussion and helped the essay gain better perspective but it has to be noted that the opposing editors used their feud with BH to position their arguments, as I have not stated my position on any of the topics they have used. This is a simple piece of data to show an ongoing feud among certain editors on this thread, for whatever reason, which needs to be resolved. Vikram Vincent 07:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any sanction the majority support, and sorry to see again this mess, did not even read it through, but unlike last time what made me to take clearly sides is this edit today ([52]), ([53]), just noticed...I think this the point when it's enough (and please, noone should explain me that blue is in fact red, or yellow is dark purple, I won't engage in this thread anymore, shall anything happen).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    • If you look at what actually happened in that diff, BunnyyHop removed a statement citing "Aubrey" and "Moghadam" with the explanation that the added text was "unsourced." BUT there are no works authored by "Aubrey" or "Moghadam" actually in the references section, so he was correct. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy fix. We don't delete sourced content because of an easily fixed problem.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: KIENGIR's example above is illustrative. I was easily able to fix the problem. BH removed a Summary style section of content with links to sourced articles related to topic with two references as "unsourced" even though it was easy to fix the oversight (sources are in the target articles, no reason to leave them out it was an oversight). They didn't want to see the information improved, they wanted the informaton deleted.
    Almost everywhere this editor goes, they display this same pattern of POV pushing by removing negative information related to communism or softening language to change meaning. Everyone has moments, but this is a consistent pattern of disruption. They do not want to improve the encyclopedia, or fix problems, they want to delete information they which does not fit their POV.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They just removed the sourced cotnent again ignoring the fix with a new objection. POV pushing. First Excuse to remove content, Second excuse to remove content.  // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Timothy, to be frank here, I don't think that's a "fix" and I don't think you have even read the sources you found. (Or you may have misread them.) Here you identified "Aubrey 44-45" as the book The New Dimensions of International Terrorism and used this source to reinclude a comment about mass killings by communists, but pages 44-45 of the source you found has nothing to do with it. It actually talks about "state-sponsored terrorism" as a "foreign policy instrument" and mentions a few left-wing Western groups [54], whcih is quite different from describing actual mass killings by communist regimes. You also reinserted "Moghadam" without even providing the name of the work. This is why I think YOU are editing tendentiously. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed content with explanation "sources not listed". Sources were added, but thats not a fix... Now the excuse for removing the content changed - the goal is to remove the content to fit a POV, the excuse will keep changing until editors tire and drop out. This is another pattern in BH editing - exhaust those that disagree.  // Timothy :: talk  20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Statement by Bunnyyhop: This is an excellent example of how content disputes are suddenly re-interpreted as POV-pushing when I am involved, even when all I do is support the same actions that other editors have taken in the past. Let's look at the history of the article where I am accused of POV-pushing now (far-left politics). What did I do? Did I remove long-standing, consensus wording on a flimsy excuse? No. I reverted an edit made only hours earlier, which had re-inserted text into the article that had been tendentiously added for the first time back in November and repeatedly removed by other editors for months.
    The exact same text was added and removed from that article before, long before I got involved. It was originally added without any sourcing by @Suppcuzz: on 28 November of last year, then removed by @Davide King: on 6 December 2020. Then it was added back and removed on 13 January by two other editors. Then it was re-added by Suppcuzz on 15 January and removed by @The Four Deuces: just 14 minutes later. Then it was added a fourth time and removed a fourth time by Davide King on 27 January. Finally, it was added a fifth time and removed the fifth time by myself. Since then it has also been added and removed by four other editors who were not involved before ([55] [56] [57] [58]).
    There was also a Talk page section about this exact text that got opened on 13 January, without any involvement by me.
    So, once again, we have a content dispute that is presented as POV-pushing simply because I am involved in it. This is the real repeated pattern that TimothyBlue is talking about. In this case, it's a slow-burn content dispute that began without me back in November 2020 (!), and that I only joined yesterday. I count a total of 10 editors who have been involved in this dispute over time so far, on both sides (for and against including the disputed content). There were no accusations of "POV-pushing" until I joined, in spite of other editors holding the exact same position that I hold, and reverting the exact same text that I reverted.
    So, I believe that TimothyBlue is indeed correct that this example is illustrative, but in the opposite direction from the one he suggests. I joined a content dispute and was accused of POV-pushing for simply supporting one of the existing sides in that dispute. That is exactly what keeps happening.
    --BunnyyHop (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the pinging of Davide King and The Four Deuces/TFD in this comment; basically [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose tban. Rando here who sometimes finds this page interesting: Looking at the diffs provided it doesn't seem BunnyyHop is acting in complete bad faith, and so I don't think a topic ban would be warranted. The edits seem to be relatively minor changes, at least not to the level of bringing them here, especially looking some of the examples provided that seem to just be changing wording to be more impartial. These content disputes are definitely getting overly heated but don't see anything worthy of a full ban. I find BunnyyHop's defense convincing enough.  Nixinova   T   C   08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is a content dispute. Des Vallee has just reposted the same accusations that wasted the time of multiple editors just weeks ago. You would have thought that they would have learned to at least write the complaint properly so as not to waste more time. Moreover, this type of complaint is better suited to AE. TFD (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint can be handled here just fine. And the tendentious editing has not stopped but has continued unabated. POV pushing is a conduct issue. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you appear to have been canvassed here by Bunnyyhop by their ping above. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be kept in mind that this user is also behind User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism along with Bunnyyhop, so weigh this accordingly. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL sure. And as an admin pointed out on the last ANI you can discuss it here. Actually, dont bother. I got it deleted myself since the title was not my interest but rather the concept of biased generalisation of claims for why a few of you are providing adequate examples. BTW thanks to Crossroads, Des Vallee and Timothy for the feedback cause I've improved the essay for abstraction at User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims. Feel free to come and help further. Thanks :-) Vikram Vincent 05:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You chose to reply here before even replying in the talk page, this is another illustration of how content disputes are presented as tendentious simply because I am involved in it. This could also be considered an attempt to WP:CANVASS. Since then, I replied demonstrating how one of the sources used as a WP:RE, whilst introducing another WP:RE to further back it up. Contrarily to what Crossroads stated, these sources were not assessed for their reliability. --BunnyyHop (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reply was more of the same cherry-picking and WP:TENDENTIOUS argumentation you always do, to promote a pro-Marxist-Leninist POV and engage in apologetics for brutal dictators like Mao Zedong. And you misrepresent here. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply was finding academic sources that supported Gao's. I struggle to see how my edits are being "tendentious" for simply finding sources that you erroneously stated "were checked for their reliablity". Your reply to an article reviewing the book on the peer-reviewed academic journal The China Quarterly was, vis a vis, «"Without exploiting the masses"? LOL. That one is a WP:FRINGE source on its face». You don't believe this disregard of WP:RE sources just because of your personal POV (which you expanded and delinated here for everyone to see) is WP:TE? --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized Bunnyyhop's sleight of hand: [59] They tried passing off where a book review of a revisionist-history book from a "radical left-wing" publisher described the book's POV as a claim by the peer-reviewed journal itself that published the book review. This is a perfect example from this very day of how this user is continuing the same propagandizing and learned nothing from the previous ANI. Crossroads -talk- 04:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BunnyyHop should respond, but I saw no sleight of hand. BunnyyHop provided a review of the book in which the author summarizes Gao's point of view. (It's a book review.) BunnyyHop quoted that summary from the journal, noting the high academic reputation of the journal. You mistakenly thought that the summary was necessarily the POV of the author of the journal article and therefore believe that BunyyHop perpetrated "a sleight of hand." However, it means only that you made an incorrect assumption about the nature of the quote before reviewing the source, which BunnyyHop also provided in full. This is not a sleight of hand but a failure to assume good faith. Of course, I don't know for certain what point BunnyyHop was trying to make. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Zloyvolsheb, I even inserted that «[a]ll these achievements were possible without exploiting colonies and without exploiting the toiling masses in China» to not mislead about the nature of the quote. However, I'm convinced Gao is a WP:FRINGE source. I'll try to find WP:RE sources to back what he says and reply on the talk page. --BunnyyHop (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you didn't, Zloyvolsheb. And don't WP:GASLIGHT us. It was obvious even right above how Bunnyyhop presented it as the journal supporting Gao or endorsing his claim. Crossroads -talk- 19:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not gaslighting anybody; please strike your hostile comment. As I said right above, I cannot know anyone's intent with 100% certainty, but what I saw was something different from what you did. BunnyyHop, who seems to not have Gao's book, initially asked PailSimon for quotations [60], didn't get them, but found a review summarizing the content of the book in a well-respected journal. He provided the quotation to you. He also provided the full review for you to look at, but you made up your mind about the reviewer without reading the review. Instead of acknowledging your own error of interpretation, you accuse BunnyyHop of "sleights of hand" and myself of "gaslighting." This, too, is illustrative. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for admin evaluation and close

    • I request an admin evaluate this and the previous ANI for DS sanctions on eastern europe and topic bans replated to Eastern Europe, and Communism/Socialism/Marxism.
    Closing statement from previous ANI: "A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI". I believe this alone Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour merits a ban, especially considering examples from other articles/talks.
    Arbcom has requested that his open ANI be resolved before considering a case.  // Timothy :: talk  16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This statement by Barkeep49 on application of discretionary sanctions seems relevant. Vikram Vincent 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The close of the past ANI and the continuing problem shows there is enough to merit action based on WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDHT, failure to WP:LISTEN, being DE/TE. (if admins wish me to explain why I believe DS applies I will).  // Timothy :: talk  20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And this statement by Timothy claiming, complete lack of experience in this area, which means that their opinion would carry no merit. Vikram Vincent 06:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Devlet Geray

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

    This user is making a range of WP:TENDENTIOUS by attempting to Turkify several articles. At Template:Turkic topics he has added loads of non-Turkic entities, most notably First Bulgarian Empire, Old Great Bulgaria, which he claims to be "Turkic" (were not they Turkic? think twice). He has refused to take his concerns to the talk page and instead has resorted to edit warring.

    He has already been reported here before [61], and by the looks of it, this conduct of his already got him banned in the Russian Wikipedia.

    More WP:TENDENTIOUS here;

    [62]

    [63]

    Not to mention he isn't shy of casting WP:ASPERSIONS/making personal attacks;

    Hello. Please refrain from ethnic vandalism and historical revisionism on English Wikipedia.

    tendentious pro-Iran nationalist vandalism

    simple vandalism

    Your revisionism is amazing

    (f***, are you so sick that you still keep track of my contributions? i know that this page is not in your watchlist

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • The topic-starter tries to violate neutrality based, as I understand it, on his pro-Iranian position. For instance, here [64] he removed a huge text with sources only because he didn't like it. Here a removal of a large text [65] based on his attempts of historical revisionism. He claims that First Bulgarian Empire, Old Great Bulgaria weren't Turkic (apparently Iranian). Let's see. Here is the information from the First Bulgarian Empire article The First Bulgarian Empire (Old Bulgarian: ц︢рьство бл︢гарское, ts'rstvo bl'garskoe[12]) was a medieval Bulgar-Slavic and later Bulgarian state that existed in Southeastern Europe. Let's see the article Bulgars: The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic–Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. Now let's see Old Great Bulgaria article: Old Great Bulgaria or Great Bulgaria (Medieval Greek: Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία, Palaiá Megálē Voulgaría), also often known by the Latin names Magna Bulgaria[3] and Patria Onoguria ("Onogur land"),[4] was a 7th-century Nomadic empire formed by the Onogur Bulgars on the western Pontic–Caspian steppe and It is generally believed to derive from the Turkic verb bulğha (to "stir", "mix", "disturb", "confuse"),[9] possibly suggesting that other Turkic peoples regarded the Bulgars as a "mixed" people[10] or as "rebellious". Devlet Geray (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When did I claim that they were Iranian? Please show revisions for this. I am not "pro-Iranian" either. And no, I did not remove anything "because I didn't like it" or because of "historical revionism" - I literally stated why. More WP:ASPERSIONS/personal attacks and whatnot. I guess you forgot to add the part from the article where it literally says that the Bulgars were eventually Slavicized? Claiming that the two Bulgarian dynasties were Turkic would be like claiming modern-day Bulgarians are as well, this is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Pinging admin @Ymblanter: (I assume this isn't canvassing?) as he seems to be more knowledgeable of your past actions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I repeat it again: think twice. 1. I didn't add/mention/write about modern Slavic Bulgarians, I wrote about historical Turkic Bulgars. 2. I didn't write that you claimed that they were Iranian, I wrote "apparently Iranian". Devlet Geray (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is useless, I'll let the admins deal with you, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning First Bulgarian empire, it could have been moved to Turco-Slavic (or Slavo-Turkic) states section (it could have been created, as already done with Turco-Mongol states or Turko-Persian states. It's clear that I'm not against it. The previous section doesn't mention that the state was completely Tukic either, it's just the state that is related to Turkic history, that's all), but this does not seem to be the appropriate reason for reverting everything. As for your pro-Iranian position, you mentioned it on your page "this user is proud to be Iranian" and I especially say "as I understand it", but I may have been mistaken (you on the contrary say that I attempt to "Turkify several articles", which is not true at all) Devlet Geray (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just taking a random example above [66], the user does not see a difference between his personal position and encyclopedic material. I propose a topic ban from everything related to Eastern Europe and Turkey, broadly construed. For EE, it could be arbitration enforcement. I remember I had to take the user to this noticeboard in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking into account Ymblanter's cross-wikipedia persecution and attacking me [67], this "I remember I had to take the user to this noticeboard in the past" sounds at least inappropriate Devlet Geray (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For those who can not read Russian, the above "persecution and attacking" was in fact removal of copyrighted material (a text of a poem). When Devlet Geray restored it claiming it is fair use, I removed it again and said that the fair use policy must be adopted forst on that wiki.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this was the previous instance Devlet Geray was featured here, though I could have missed something.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • the fact that you was looking through my contributions to Crimean Tatar wiki shows that it was a clear persecution. Your taking part in the previous discussion on the noticeboard and your mentioning about my contributions to RuWiki, which is unrelated to this Wiki, proves it Devlet Geray (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I joined the Crimean-Tatar wiki when it was still in Incubator (I was in fact one of the people who helped to get it out of the Incubator) and have been editing it every day ever since. I check all edits on that project, but, indeed, before your edit I have never detected any copyright violations, not mentioning that I had to edit-war to remove copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just saw that topic-starter was involved in the conflict on the same topic (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tarik289) just two days before, which seems to me like he creates conflict situations, preventing the editing of articles in a direction - towards a neutral presentation - that does not coincide with his views. As for Ymblanter and Каракорум who previously mentioned me on this noticeboard, they are both from Russian Wikipedia and both harrass me cross-wiki Devlet Geray (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not from the Russian Wikipedia. The last user who had pleasure to call me a "Russian admin" and would not stop against my objections, was recently site-banned by the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And, well, to claim I am not an active English Wikipedia user is ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was right to remove the link to Encyclopedia Iranica in the article. Encyclopedia Iranica is an encyclopedia with a focus on Iran (and may be a RS for Iranian history), but it's coverage of topics outside it's purview is subpar, to put it mildly. The specific article linked to in question was absolute monstrosity of misinformation, steryotypes, misconseptions, distortions, and generalizations, - all contradictory to the text of the Wikipedia article itself - and ergo should not have been linked to. Removing it was the appropriate action.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Encyclopedia Iranica is known for forgeries and inaccurate presentation of information. It's not me who says it Devlet Geray (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know you didn't even bother to read the article that PDF was referencing, so here it is [69]. At no point does it state any accusations of forgeries or inaccurate presentation of info. All it states is that Yarshater being Baha'i and its description of pre-Islamic Iran means it's opposed by elements of the Iranian government. Your false presentation of news is yet another example of disruptive editing. --Qahramani44 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Iranian/Turkic world for Devlet Geray. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is way too mild. It should be an indefinite topic ban or even a long-term block. The issues have been ongoing for several years.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was willing to hand out a final straw of WP:GF, but, looking at his final response in relation to my comment above, I believe this won't change anytime soon. User:Devlet Geray is indeed not here to build this encyclopedia, and thus, I will support a block as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree with this. LouisAragon was involved in conflict with me (knowing that Iranica was accused of being propaganda, I deleted it - but when it was returned I didn't revert it again), Ymblanter keeps track of my contributions cross-wiki and is clearly prejudiced against me, Каракорум (the user who created the first notice on this page) harrasses me cross-wiki, these are Ukrainian Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata. I've never broken the rules of English Wikipedia and always acted with sources (see my reverted edit). Devlet Geray (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The statements "I've never broken the rules of English Wikipedia" and "Ymblanter keeps track of my contributions cross-wiki" are demonstratably false.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the indefinite blocking on the Russian Wikipedia, it was Devlet Geray who began to harass me in Commons and on the English Wikipedia, canceling my edits without explanation, like this [72]. He began corny to take revenge on me for the fact that I dared to resist his pushing on the Russian Wikipedia. Therefore, Devlet Geray is lying again. Каракорум (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I see that Devlet Geray is obviously not interested in addressing his own behavior and tries to excuse his year-long disruptive editing that other users "keep track" of his contributions. Could an admin please just block him, preferrably indef. Last ANI thread was closed because the general sentiment was that someone is importing conflicts here from other wiki; in this thread it is clear that Devlet Geray is disruptive on the English Wikipedia, and in addition he tries to import real or imaginary conflicts from elsewhere. Thos thread should not go forever, there is enough proof given here that he is not capable of editing Wikipedia in an appropriate manner.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What "my own behavior"? Adding information with many authoritative sources and then just got it reverted with one click? Yes, I reacted slightly emotionally on this mass-deletion of what I added, I shouldn't have done it and I'm sorry for that. All other conflicts were solved long ago. I edit conflicting topics, it is obvious that it may cause far more conflicts than if I were editing articles about nature, this should also be taken into account Devlet Geray (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support a block: Looking over this users contributions it's clear they're not interested in reliable sources. They're not interested in amicable discussions. They're not interested in a neutral representation or the widely accepted interpretations. They are just pushing their view, and anyone who disagrees with them is clearly wrong. They are simply not compatible with a collaborative project. Canterbury Tail talk 17:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This whole section is proof your actions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support indef (topic) ban: Per WP:NOT HERE, WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:NPA, lack of WP:COMPETENCE.. I could go on. The fact Devlet accuses me (among other things) that I like to "create conflict situations" because I reported a editor for whose disruptive actions he got banned [73] really says it all. It's almost as if he can't see anything wrong with the banned users actions, which would explain his own conduct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • You are a topic-starter, it's clear that you are for my block. As for your claim, it's a simple falsifications/forgery of my words (not for the first time). I said, quote: "seems to me [I even stressed it] like [=as if] he creates conflict situations", I didn't say that you "like to create conflict situations". I leave now. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I started this topic indeed; because you were unable to behave accordingly. Okay, I accidentally added "like", my bad. But you do realize there's ultimately no difference between the two? Both are equally inappropriate. The fact that you can't see that says it all. It's a even bigger wonder you haven't been blocked yet after all the accusations and attacks you've made towards me in this noticeboard alone. I hope someone is taking notice of this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No topic ban, but a brief block for incivility could be appropriate. The block should be brief because this is a long-term contributor without prior blocks. But he definitely needs a wikibreak. Sorry man, I know how you feel. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    But some his edits (like that) do look highly opinionated. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary block. The user is problematic and mean as proven by the diffs provided, however, they made overall helpful edits to the project in the past. So, I feel like a temporary block can help the editor take some time to cool off. If they continue their behaviour again after the temporary block, then a permanent block or topic ban would be appropriate. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's unrelated to this, but probably you voted for my block because I added Turkic origin to Safavids (then probably i'm "pro-Turkic", if I'm "pro-Turkic" I can start adding anti-Armenian information/propaganda to wikipedia - so just to be on the safe side you supported my indef block - it's your option). But, fyi, I renamed article about Armenian Genocide from "Fake Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian Genocide" and removed all propaganda from it, which wasn't done by Ymblanter who claims that he "checks all the edits" there (another proof of what I said above). So, don't be that prejudiced about people, if everything I wrote is true. If not, I'm sorry Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      For those who think that Devlet Geray can edit "unproblematically" may I please note that this is the second time in this thread he implies that I am lying. Without having any credible reasons for that. I am sure if he escapes with a topic ban he is going to be back here soon because of his unacceptable behavior (casting aspersions and personal attacks).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, English is not my native language, and it may cause some problems, something may sound like doubling down. For instance, here, which was "a random example above" of my violations mentioned by Ymblanter. So, i didn't mean that these "republics" are fiction or something like this I meant that these are puppet states (марионеточные государства) (Crimea unrecognized not only by Ukraine but by the whole world. And de-facto it's a part of Russia - we cannot say that Crimea is of the same status as this republics, as they were not annexed by Russia - we should differ them, don't we?) and the word fictitious (фиктивный) was the first to come to my mind (To understand more what I meant there is such collocation as фиктивный брак which means legal registration of marriage without the intention of starting a family, but for other purposes, for example, obtaining citizenship, benefits from state or municipal services. This is close to what I meant). I agree that this is my fault that I didn't find a better word, but I just want to show that I didn't assume bad-faith Devlet Geray (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DNR and LNR belong to Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states. Crimea is currently [annexed territory].My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban. (after edit-conflict). Devlet Geray's editorial behaviour is uncivil if you ask me. He reverts edits without looking if some of them are helpful or not and his edit summaries are too hostile. This suppresses useful activities of other editors and creates unnecessary conflict situations. Even here in the discussion, his comments reflect his attitude towards other editors.--Renat (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef ban. On the Russian Wikipedia, where he was blocked indefinitely, here on the English Wikipedia, at Wikimedia Commons, Devlet Geray is behaving aggressively, pushing the Crimean Tatar POV. You can be sure that in case of blocking, he will create sockpuppets, as it regularly does in Russian Wikipedia. So you need to monitor it to avoid damage. Каракорум (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't see any proof of the endless stream of accusations (such as "he's not interested in reliable sources" or "pushing Crimean Tatar POV" — attempts of removing soviet anti-Tatar propaganda/adding another well-sourced point of view to maintain a balanced presentation may seem "Crimean Tatar pov-pushing" on Russian Wikipedia, but I have a patroller status on Ukrainian Wikipedia). Second, it was RenatUK who deleted sourced information adding his information and after revert, instead of going to the talk-page and discuss, he decided to start an edit-war (though it was not a conflict situation at all before he started to bring the RuWiki, which was completely and for sure unrelated to the discussed topic). I agree with the fact that I shouldn't have accussed the topic-starter of vandalism/revisonism because of a mass-text deletion and had to go to the talk-page and discuss everything (as I see now he is not a vandal (as I mistakenly thought then) and has more than 50 thousand edits) Devlet Geray (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a piece of advice. Continually replying to everyone and posting isn't going to help you, in fact it's much more likely to hinder your cause and is considered bludgeoning. Also ultimately what happens on other Wikipedias is not relevant here, we're only interested in behaviour on the English language Wikipedia. If there's evidence of issues on other languages it may be taken into consideration, but it's about edits here that people are concerned about. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "there the opinion of one Vozgrin, a member of the Mejlis. This is a partisan source, at best". To make it clear, Valery Vozgrin is a Russian professor, Doctor of Historical Sciences who worked at Saint Petersburg State University, the Russian-leading university, until his death. Saying that phrase at the beginning of a peaceful dicusion doesn't seem to be an intent of a constructive dicussion. Moreover, there is a whole article (Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe), fully dedicated to this topic, there is no need to repeat all these again and again in the aricle about a modern people Devlet Geray (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vozgrin is a specialist in the Scandinavic countries. His works on the Crimean Tatars are tendentious and were criticized by specialized specialists. For example, the Russian Wikipedia carried out an analysis, and after that they refused to use Vozgrin's works on the history of Crimea. Каракорум (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Outcome

    Looks like there is a consensus on this issue. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the result? Каракорум (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't go to the archive without a solution. Каракорум (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, can some uninvolved administrator look at the above fairly supporting info and make a call on this one please. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty embarrassing if this doesn't get a outcome. Can a admin please step up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ??? Каракорум (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnpacklambert AfD nominations

    User:Johnpacklambert (JPL) has been the subject of at least one prior ANI discussion about his AfD nominations. That discussion resulted in their being "indefinitely banned from nominating any articles at WP:AFD to a maximum of ONE article in any given calendar day." See here. Yet, JPL's recent track record in making AfD nominations continues to be concerning. Their most recent 17 nominations are:

    1. David Garst: Closed as “Keep”
    2. Jack Wasserman: Closed as "Keep"
    3. Gordon Salkilld: Closed as "Keep"
    4. Shaquille Walker: Closed as "Keep"
    5. Miriam Marx: Closed as "Keep"
    6. Hinarere Taputu: Closed as "Keep"
    7. Barbara Radecki: Closed as "Keep"
    8. Bekhan Tungaev: Closed as "Keep"
    9. Outer Drive: Closed as "Keep"
    10. M. Brendan Fleming: Closed as "Keep"
    11. Marie Yanaka: Closed as "No Consensus"
    12. Dick Martin: Closed as "No Consensus"
    13. Leon Lissek: Closed as "No Consensus"
    14. Berwick Grammar School: pending, currently 4-0 to "Keep" (prior AfD also closed as “Keep”)
    15. Jack Schlossberg: pending, currently 5-2 in favor of "Keep" (JPL's prior nom of same article (here) also resulted in a consensus to "Keep")
    16. Silas Bartsch: pending, leaning "Keep" or "No Consensus"
    17. Brenda Liz Lopez: Closed as "Delete"

    While > 80% of AfDs are sustained, JPL's recent nominations (based on closing decisions and current trends) appear headed toward a rate as low as 5.8% (1 out of 17). To help with this disconnect, I and others have suggested that JPL redouble their WP:BEFORE efforts. See here and here. Moreover, I recently offered to provide advance feedback if they would like it prior to nominating additional articles. See here. In each case, JPL has not responded to these suggestions or offers. In the most recent case, he simply deleted my offer from his talk page. See here. I believe that JPL is acting in good faith and has good intentions. However, a recent AfD endorsement rate of < 10% indicates that further guidance is needed. My suggestion is that someone (probably not me, as he may now view me as antagonistic) be appointed to work with JPL in mentoring them on the WP:BEFORE efforts that they should undertake. Or perhaps others can come up with another remedy to help address this. Cbl62 (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've been accused of being a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth deletionist monster a few times, and I have to agree that at a glance this is a terrible record. However, I just pulled up a random sampling and what I'm seeing is well-explained, reasonable nominations being refuted with "Appears to meet GNG" or Keep per WP:HEY, as well as other users making comments in agreement with the nomination, and some "weak keep" comments. There is also the ongoing issue of waning particpation at many AFD discussions, I just looked at one that went three weeks before it drew a single comment of any kind. This is a systemic flaw and cannot be blamed on the nominator. While a few of the noms aren't great, I don't think there is an overall indication that further sanctions are merited. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't look at all of them, but the first few were actually quite improved. I do get the sense that people are working particularly hard to source things JPL nominates. That said, JPL is under an editing restriction in an attempt to get better nominations. They don't appear to be putting in enough effort to get these right. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me this is utterly unfair. The Garst article had sat for over a decade sourced only to the website of the company he founded. I did a legitimate attempt to find additional sources and found none. I have been attempting to identify possible sources. This is an unfair narrow look at my nominations that treats having a failed nomination as a mark against me. I am trying to improve Wikipedia with my contributions. I have tried to do background sources and not rush into things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also found it curious that the list stops at the 17 most recent. Kind of an odd place to stop. Why not stop at 20? So I looked, and that changes the math, with two more deletions and a redirect result. Bump that up to the last 25, and it adds in three more deletions, a redirect, and a merge. Going up to thirty adds one more keep result, two more deletes, and another redirect. Sample size seems to have been used to cherry pick here. Note that the restriction is from 2017 and the last 17 noms go back only a few weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a proposal. From now on with each nomination I will explicitly explain what searches I have done and what results have come up in those searchs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the 500 most recent nominations for deletion at AfD by JPL, in 61% (306/500) the results were "Delete", [74] as determined the AfD Statistics Tool. When Speedy Deletes and Redirects are counted, the number rises to 70.4% (349/500). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen failed AfD nominations of BLPs in the Academic section that have disturbed me but I am not in a position now to give chapter and verse. I suggest that JPL rein in his enthusiasms and act with more temperance. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • In all, it is my honest opinion that @Johnpacklambert is a net positive. The timing of this report imo is done in bad faith seeing that currently he was name dropped in an ongoing discussion that portrays him in a bad light so this report is definitely not AGF, it just feels like adding more ammunition/gasoline to fire. JPL made a proposal above that forthwith he would explain in detail why he has nominated an article for deletion which is a very good approach moving forward. Whilst In NPP academy, @Barkeep49 always emphasized the need to include in your nomination rationale that you have done a WP:BEFORE search, present your findings & explain how they do not do meet any notability criteria, so like I said that is a positive move on the part of JPL. In summary i oppose any sanctions whatsoever on JPL. It’s really horrible how we treat honest veteran editors who have dedicated their time to serve this collaborative project. Furthermore @Ritchie333 what you just said above is rude, unnecessary, & uncalled for. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Celestina007, No, it's just honest straight talking. Actually, I checked a bunch of AfDs I closed last week and saw JPL's comments are getting more substantive, so as he says, there might be improvement. I didn't make any comment on sanctions (because I haven't thought about whether they're necessary or not). PS: Is this comment of yours polite? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Celestina007 Not really - I will take any AfD comment with less weight if it says "Delete - non-notable" in the same way I would do the same for "Keep - definitely notable" or "Keep - has sources" etc. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite, I understand crystal clear what you are saying & I’m not justifying that sort of !vote. In-fact, policy makes it clear those sort of !votes aren’t to be considered. My point was & still is the manner in which @Ritchie333 casually made the condescending remark. You just said the same thing but in a mature manner an admin should do. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was not intended to offend and I apologise if it did - I was just stating my opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just the nominations, but it's the way JPL casts his votes in AfD discussions. I don't think he has any interest in association football which I am around that area a lot of wikipedia when I have the time. Yet a lot of the time I've seen him vote for the sake of voting and nothing more. As Ritchie said he just ignores JPL's comments, do all the other admins disregard him also? I am surprised his hasn't had a perm topic ban from the AfD environment. Govvy (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      We're going to need to make a loooooooong list if we are going to start topic banning people who make the cookie cutter votes at AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The list would be shorter for the serial offenders. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • I agree with Govvy here. I've noticed that JPL seems to cast 'delete' votes repeatedly AfD after AfD. Looking at this editing history, he seems to go in alphabetical order casting delete vote after delete vote, sometimes not even a minute between votes. I doubt he can claim that he does a proper WP:BEFORE check to notability prior to every time he casts a vote in an AfD thread. --Soman (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • On that basis, as Beeblebrox says, we should probably start with the significant number of people who vote "Keep" every time with similarly flimsy rationales ("I found it mentioned on Google") and whose AfD stats scores are somewhat worse than JPL's. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’d like to draw this noticeboard’s attention to JPL’s participation in series of CFDs as well. He has voted these two categories for deletion based on some kind of intuitive sense that they shouldn’t exist, which is perfectly fine but after being presented with evidence that these classifications are abundantly present in academic literature, he doesn’t change his vote or even reply to my contribution. It’s possible that he hasn’t had time to even reply because he’s been to busy participating in other deletion discussion, but this by itself is cause for concern. Links: 1, 2, 3. (For disclosure I didn’t participate in the first CFD, and I don’t think there was any problematic conduct, other than his possibly not checking sources WP:BEFORE nomination) -—Prisencolin (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Somewhat related to this was an earlier discussion on the noticeboard about reaction to his category edits.[81] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s quite eye opening, I had heard of this controversy long before I became an editor on this project myself. It gives me even more confidence that the nomination of this category was not made in entirely good faith, however I discontinue commenting on this particular ANI thread if JPL further explains his reasoning behind his deletion arguments in that CFD.—-Prisencolin (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am trying to make Wikipedia better. I will strive to do more in depth reviews of articles before nominating them for deletion. That is all I can do at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That’s great that you wish to improve. I will ask that you at some point reply to my comment on the CFD listed above. If you don’t want to wade through the paragraphs I wrote here’s all you need to know: my category meets the criteria for inclusion because “reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having,” and these sources are listed in discussion. I can list them out here or in your talk page if needed, thanks for your cooperation..—Prisencolin (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Complaints about the lack of WP:BEFORE were made for AfDs in 2017[82] and PRODS in 2020[83]. Has the striving gotten better since then? Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user has a habit of rapidly !voting in AfD discussions one-after-another, sometimes performing three and even four delete !votes in one minute of time. This suggests that WP:BEFORE source searches are not necessarily being performed, and that the user is !voting per their personal preference for BLP articles be reduced on English Wikipedia. The user's contributions in Wikipedia namespace on 19 January 2021 provide one example, which consist of mostly rapid-fire deletion !votes for BLP articles. The same pattern can be seen by changing the dates in the Search for contributions search box.
    Regarding the user's subjective desire for BLP articles to be reduced, see this post, where the user states, "Currently there are 973,163 articles in Category:Living people. The category will have to have a net growth of 266 per day to reach the dreaded 1 million by the end of the year". I suspect the user may be posting mass, rapid-fire delete !votes per this bias they have demonstrated, in hopes of reducing the number of "dreaded" BLP articles present.
    Additionally, the user seems to ignore WP:NEXIST, in favor of basing notability upon the state of sourcing in articles, rather than basing notability assessments upon the availability of sources. See this AfD discussion for one likely example. This may be further demonstrated via the rapid delete !votes alone, whereby it is unlikely that WP:BEFORE searches are being performed in the first place. North America1000 14:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Northamerica1000, Wikipedia is a collaborative project with each editor and their own idiosyncratic nature, bringing to the table their own quota. If JPL has chosen to path of weeding out non notable articles (which is quite daunting I must say) I don’t see the problem in that, imo, the real problem here is people do not like the fact that JPL would most likely !vote a delete than a keep but In this very collaborative project we have serial keep !voters but no one seems to tackle them in the manner this collaborative project has vilified and incapacitated JPL. It is as though every year the community finds new ways to try and incapacitate JPL & at this rate we may lose a great editor over relatively trifling errors. Celestina007 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Every year? Seems more like the Inclusionist Pile-On of JPL is a quarterly event. JPL gets singled out because he is active, that's all. The quality of his AFD participation is better than most. Any analysis of a representative sample of his contribs shows that. Levivich harass/hound 16:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't post much at AFD either as nominator or !voter - because it's hard work. I estimate that it takes me a minimum of 10-15 minutes to propose or support deletion, even in the most rodentodouriferous cases. !Voting keep can sometimes be a lot quicker - "this person passes WP:NBIO because of such-and-such a citation, already in the article".
    As !voter, you must WP:AGF for both creator and nominator, do your own research, and only once you have done that post a (reasoned) opinion. Otherwise, what you say is merely WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Narky Blert (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I don't have an issue with his nominations however his occasional Delete !votes puzzle me, I get the impression at times he !votes Delete purely for the sake of it (There's been 2-3 clear cut Keeps yet he's !voted delete), That being said I don't see nothing sanctionable here and I'm happy that he'll put more effort into his !votes. –Davey2010Talk 16:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think JPL's commitment to affirmatively disclose his WP:BEFORE efforts is a good step and shows a willingness to improve. In opening this discussion, I acknowledged JPL's good faith desire to improve the project. JPL has also been, historically, a dedicated content creator, e.g., Public relations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Peter M. Johnson, Gary P. Gillum, and Michael Otterson. I understand they may have been deterred by deletion of some of their articles, but I encourage JPL to redirect more of their very significant energy back to building the encyclopedia. JPL - if you want to collaborate on creating or expanding an article, I'd be willing to help in any way I can. Cbl62 (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose [with mixed feelings] sanctions on the basis just of the most recent 17 nominations. Anyone as active in one area as he is can have a bad stretch. JPL's last 500 nominations are out of line with consensus 24.8% of the time. That's not ideal but also not so bad. And his !votes overall are out of line with consensus only 9.6% of the time, which is very low (I consider the "red cells" most telling in the afdstats page). So as for nominations, I say we take JPL's offer to increase due diligence regarding WP:BEFORE. JPL can be frustrating at AfD for the rapid !votes that seem to defer to the judgment and due diligence of the nominator rather than doing a thorough search for sources, but that's not what this section is about, and when those !votes are so frequently in line with consensus, there would need to be a lot of evidence of a problem. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad at least one admin ignores Lambert's comments when it comes to closing an AfD. I have no problem with anyone putting through a well thought out rationale for delete on any topic, but Lambert just works through the AfD log and tags dozens and dozens of articles within a VERY short space of time with the same delete !vote. This does not show that any WP:BEFORE work has been done at all, suggesting either WP:DE or WP:CIR issues. From his past record with WP:PROD, he's just moving that issue to AfD instead. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick look at contributions on 5th Feb shows at least 30 delete !votes between 14:02 to 14:57. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still not sure how JPL has actually harmed the encyclopedia? It's possible I guess that somebody who put a lot of work into writing an article, only to see him say "Delete - a non notable blah" might get upset, but either a) The AfD won't close as "delete" or b) Other people will have put more substantive arguments to delete in the AfD anyway. Then there's the point that his weak !voting rationales can annoy the closing administrator, but I find it much easier to deal with that than, say, an AfD with two people going "It's notable! No it's not! Yes it is! No it isn't!" for two pages. And plus "he's annoying" is pretty much the worst possible reason ever to sanction somebody. So I'm not sure what we should do, other than take him at his word that he's going to improve? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be highly concerned about JPL's AFD record, if it weren't for the fact there are serial "keep" !voters with similar or worse records. They can be weighed appropriately at AfD; I don't see what else needs to be done here unless we want to make voting against consensus a sanctionable offense and start at the top of the heap and work our way to him. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Fuchs, your comment above is very much apt & summarizes everything! Celestina007 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the third response I've started to this, partly because I keep finding myself being drawn into discussing of what I see are fundamental structural issues with AfD as it stands, but when it comes down to it, unsubstantiated "delete" votes are routinely dismissed, and I personally find myself in agreement with JPL more often than not. Considering the crap I have had to deal with in the geostubs cleanup, this is extremely small potatoes. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: JPL has caused no harm, therefore a ban will is not prevenative.
    AFD needs systematic reform (along with the almost useless PROD process). Whatever "standard" is supposedly being applied here is being applied selectively to a single editor, ignoring others with worse problems, as well as the overall problems at AFD, such as:
    • voting based on personal opinions, essays, and likes and not policys and guidelines,
    • using completely unfounded claims that "sources exist",
    • "me too" voting,
    • voting with a complete disregard for what guidelines state about what is an independent reliable source
    • votes based on a complete disregard for what significant coverage means,
    • abuse use of the word "presumed" in guidelines to mean "guaranteed",
    • Keep mobs that form to derail noms for their favorite topics/areas,
    • closing based on vote counting or keep mobs as opposed to arguments based in guidelines and policy,
    and other issues.
    Numerous editors that frequent AfD and at least two admins that routinely "Vote" keep have far worse AfD records than JPL. If the above mentioned well known problems had been addressed instead of ignored (they all favor the Keep voters), JPL would have a better record, and many of the editors voting against him would have a worse record. Everyone can improve, but selectively holding nominators to some vague interpretation of a standard, without holding voters, keep mobs, etc accountable to the clearly definted existing guidelines, will only drive nominators away, which along with allowing a defacto lower notability standard for inclusionists, is what I think this is about.
    I support reforming AfD and clarifying notability guidelines, which will be far more productive than the continuing attacks on single editors. If someone wants to make AfD better this is the proper place to start. It will also make AfD stats useful; if guidelines are ignored, stats become useless because nominators have nothing to base their noms on and even the best nom can be derailed by a keep mob.
    JPL has caused no harm, therefore a ban will is not prevenative.  // Timothy :: talk  19:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TimothyBlue, I'd like to see some case studies and diffs of your evidence, particularly of your accusation of two administrators who do not follow the deletion policy correctly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, I did not name names for two reasons: those individuals are uninvolved here so this is not directly about them and fear of retaliation (not from you). I will strike admins if you believe I am being dishonest (or name the admins). I know some editors like to bash admins, I am not one of them, and did not state what I did to bash admins. I believe my points are on topic, but I do not think this is the proper place for an extended discussion about general problems at AfD, but if you feel I would be justified in supporting my points with diffs and case studies here, I will do so.
    I would really like dicsussion that could focus on issues at AfD and the issues I raised above.  // Timothy :: talk  21:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I would also strongly oppose any sanctions. JPL starts discussions at AfD. Starting an AfD does not mean that the article will be deleted, it means that its notability is being questioned and an editor wishes to start a discussion about it. I am also worried about this obsession with 'conversion rate'. It puts people in an unnecessarily bad light who try to start honest discussions on the notability of topics that some other editors might feel strongly about. This obsession with having a good conversion rate will only lead to people putting articles up for AfD that should be speedied to improve their rate or people only using AfD for stuff that is so uncontroversial that it should be PROD. AfD is an important process and shouldn't be censored nor should we be discouraging people from taking part just because you find them annoying or you don't like the fact that they vote 'delete' more often than not. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He's already been sanctioned over this type of behavior in 2017.[84] Given your stated rationale, would you have objected to this sanction back then? He apparently violated that sanction very recently within those 17 listed AfDs.[85][86] He has not violated this since 2019.[87][88] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment –Ultimately, administrators need to consider the strength of the arguments presented in deletion discussions relative to various policies and guidelines. !Votes that provide absolutely no valid rationales (e.g. the word "keep" or delete" with nothing else) should be given no weight, and those that provide very weak rationales should be given very little weight. Problems can occur when folks show up at AfD and cast a bunch of "per nom" !votes, in either direction, to retain or delete, wherein it is at least possible from time-to-time that absolutely no research has occurred to qualify their validity.
    A problem is that when users cast !votes sans any research, it has the potential for articles that actually do not meet various notability guidelines to be retained, and vice versa, ending up in the deletion of articles that actually pass. Regarding the user being discussed here, see this AfD discussion for another example, whereby at the time another user (Nfitz) questioned the validity of the user's !vote there, stating:
    Hang on User:Johnpacklambert, in the two minutes you had after your delete vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Snellenburg (2nd nomination), how did you have time to look at the 21 foreign language references here, and determine that they were all "too newsy" to meet GNG? That's not possible, and I once again have to question your competence to edit in the AFD area. Can you please explain your justification in detail, as I really think your topic ban on AFD participation needs to be expanded. Nfitz (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    Upon receiving some input from Scope creep regarding the matter, Nfitz later stated:
    AGF has limitations - I've pointed out these 20-second judgements time and time again, but nothing changes. At some point, it becomes a question of competence. See also the discussion at their topic ban - since then, they seem to have replaced the creation of far too many AFDs with voting delete at discussions with no discrimination and clearly not enough time for judgement. Enough is enough - this one is particularly blatant given the number of Spanish articles they'd have had to have looked at, in no time. I'd like a better understanding. Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    The point here is that, regarding input in AfD discussions, the user has demonstrated an ongoing tendency to !vote rapidly, and likely at times, per this rapid rate, without performing any source review that involves actually reading the sources, as well as not performing source searching, essentially 1) !voting for deletion for the sake of deletion, and/or 2) only basing notability upon the state of sourcing in articles, which is against WP:NEXIST, a key point of the main Notability guideline page. Unfortunately, these types of actions serve to deteriorate the integrity of the deletion process on English Wikipedia, whereby inaccuracies are presented that can lead to results that are actually incorrect.
    Furthermore, it states at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, section WP:AFDFORMAT regarding AfD discussions that:
    But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD.
    So, if this sentiment is never going to actually be enforced, then should it therefore be removed from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page? North America1000 09:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, if the issue is enforcing users not appropriately evaluating articles before commenting on AfDs, there are far more demonstrably disruptive and contrary-to-consensus editors out there. Why is JPL a unique problem? If we're going to deal with bad !votes you need to deal with all of them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not unique, but he is by far the worst offender in this area. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Per Ritchie333, David Fuchs, Spiderone and Beeblebrox whom have collectively articulated my thoughts far better than I could myself... --Jack Frost (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per rationale of User:TimothyBlue. Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unless we're going to look at the entire problem of cookie-cutter AfD "voting" or until evidence is produced that doesn't require cherry-picking a prime number sample size. Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanctions whatsoever. It’s my opinion that good faith editors who have the projects interest at heart be allowed the privilege of editing without feeling subliminally restrained or “shadow marked”. If a change has to be implemented it would have to be a total AFD process overhaul/reformation. Celestina007 (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AFD ban The point of JPL's existing sanction logged at WP:RESTRICT was because he was nominating articles that would never be deleted at a high rate. The sanction was specifically to limit him so he would take more time over his nominations instead of wasting multiple editors time having to deal with him. There has been no improvement in the quality of his nominations and he is still wasting other volunteers time having to deal with him. Its entirely a self-centered approach and this is the point to say 'thanks but no thanks'. By allowing him to continue, it is actively supporting disruptive behaviour. There will be no downside to banning him from AFD, and the upside is that every other volunteer who has had to deal with him gets more time to be productive. Far too many of the !votes above completely ignore other volunteers or suffer from whataboutism. This is a problem that is easily solved, allowing it to continue does nothing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I see a lot of editors claiming that JPL's AFD participation is out of sync with consensus, but the data shows that's just not true. His numbers are within acceptable parameters (and better than some of the people who are calling for a sanction here). Levivich harass/hound 18:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It would be one thing if JPL was doubling down and becoming argumentative when consensus doesn't go his way, but unless I'm overlooking something his occasional replies to Keep !votes are always polite and policy-based.
    I also disagree with the idea that these deletion discussions are a waste of time. Of course AfD is not cleanup, but sources found during AfD are often used to improve and expand articles that would have otherwise been overlooked.
    It's silly to put too much weight on AfD statistics, and the cherry-picked set of 17 nominations deserves a trout. –dlthewave ☎ 23:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Absolute agreement with dlthewave comment about AfD discussion and statistics. Stats can be easily manipulated, they provide a black and white picture of something that is nuanced, they discourage discussion and openness to consider others point of view at AfD, they bolster the feeling that a editor must "win" as opposed to finding the best answer. The point "AfD is not for cleanup" is too often abused as a way to squelch discussion about alternatives or a hammer against good faith editors. AfD shouldn't be cleanup, but good faith nonimations that result in an article being improved is a positive. The adversarial attitudes that permeate much of AfD needs to be replaced by attitudes that encourage discussion, consensus building, and collegiality. Nominators should be enouraged to find consensus, not seek "victory".  // Timothy :: talk  10:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Οppose any kind of measures to be taken against Johnpacklambert, even "mentoring" as suggested. Many comments above are irrelevant to whether Johnpacklambert contributes positively in AfD discussions. To give just one example, JPL is admonished for not doing their searches before voting, but WP:BEFORE only demands that task from the editor who submits the AfD nomination! To wit, the text itself starts with the crystal clear address Prior to nominating articles for deletion, please be sure to...[etc]. (Check out WP:DISCUSSAFD, inter alia.) Even the essay WP:BCDD that elaborates on the AfD process does not place any such obligation on contributors.
    As to JPL giving succinct suggestions, this is never a violation of policy, nor a breach of etiquette. The contributor's only 'sin' seems to be that, more often than not, they agree with suggestions to delete. In other words, JPL to some seems like an enemy of inclusionism, while to others, such as myself, a rather strict aficionado of quality in Wikipedia articles. The collection offered by the nominator confirms the latter. After all is said and done, this reads like an airing of grievances without substance. -The Gnome (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the last 500 AfDs that he participated in,[89] he had 4 yes votes, three of them after the first posting of this ANI complaint. So definitely "More often than not". These nomination or delete rationale were also concerning: "American is not a monarchy. We have no heirs presumptive, and as Massachusetts showed last year people have stopped bowing to the Kennedy family and their false presumptions they are better than the rest of us" [90] and "This is a massive example of POV-pushing" on a list of first openly LBGT politicians. The POV pushing mentioned by Indy beetle shows up there making him no "strict aficionado of quality". Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Greetings, Morbidthoughts. Allow me to list qualifications that are not required for Wikipedia editors to participate in AfD or other discussions, since many contributors here seem to think the opposite. The participant need not:
    •Have a net-positive record in their nominations (see nomination). [Nope. Nowhere is this a formal requirement, nor should it ever made to be.]
    •Be likeable! ("It's the way JPL casts his votes in AfD discussions"!) [No further comment needed on this.]
    •Submit suggestions for the sake of something more noble and high minded than "just" offering their opinion. ("I've seen him vote for the sake of voting and nothing more.") [Wikipedia work is work noble enough on its own; no need for fantasies of grandeur.]
    •Devote a lot of time to each & every AfD ("tags dozens and dozens of articles within a VERY short space of time") [Wikipedia is full of articles that evidently should not be here. New articles are created every day at high speed. Accordingly, we often have to deply the scythe in an effective & expedient manner. Why? Because of the obvious worthlessness!]
    •Have done research on their own before making suggestions. [Nope. It's a highly recommended practice but not firmly required by WP:BEFORE, which is about the nominator.]
    All in all, JPL has done nothing more than be imperfect, e.g. using strong language against the Kennedy family. (Full disclosure: Despite pretensions to the contrary, I am imperfect too. ) Otherwise, as even supporters of sanctions admit, JPL's a net positive presence here. I suggest we move on. -The Gnome (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for not being able to respond to your framework of how you view these grievances, but addressing them line item without breaking the framework would be too confusing. However, the original complaint is whether JPL's nominations have been disruptive and considering the net outcome of his contributions is not really relevant. I believe his prolific, indiscriminate, and pov-pushing nominations demonstrate that he does not do WP:BEFORE which is a requirement of the WP:AFD process. He is currently sanctioned with a day limit in the hopes that he would observe this requirement. His indiscriminate voting often parroting the nomination is also disruptive in that it can be the difference between a no-consensus and a delete outcome in an AfD with low participation. These two issues do not make the deletion process effective or expedient as intended in consideration of other people's time and effort. I do not expect editors to be perfect, but the analysis should be whether these disruptions are chronic and intractable,[91][92][93] not whether we could put up with these disruptions because he might be a net-positive editor. I believe this should be his Waterloo. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose formal sanctions. I don't always agree with JPL, and he does tend to favor deletion, but that's not a crime. On the whole I still think he is a benefit to the project in this area, though some of his AfD noms could use more forethought, such as this anti-aristocratic rant: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (2nd nomination). My main concern is that POV sometimes leaches into his AfD participation, with the previous example and in this other case from 2018 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple (2nd nomination)) where he uncharacteristically bent over backwards to save this article on a nascent Latter Day Saints Temple in the Democratic Republic of Congo even going so far as to claim bias against Africa and proclaim that sources probably existed even if we couldn't easily find them (something I've never seen him do elsewhere). I strongly suspect this had to with the fact that he is a member of the LDS Church, and I hope he will be mindful of this in the future. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also WP:Articles for deletion/Juan A. Uceda and earlier ones, lost in the mists. Thincat (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I largely oppose sanctions at this time as the problems aren't serious enough, IMO, to require a ban from AfD. It would be nice if folks who think he's a net positive would take him under their wing and help him to reduce the cookie-cutter !votes. He's shown he can learn and improve, perhaps he just needs help to do so. I should probably do the same with some of the cookie-cutter keep !voters at AfD... Hobit (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Userid1438

    User:Userid1438 has been repeatedly removing the sourced mention of 'Urdu' from longstanding version of articles, which is has been granted 'additional official language' status throughout the state of Uttar Pradesh (49 of this source), from the articles they come across [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]. They have also replaced Urdu with Sanskrit which is not an official language, alongwith unsourced additions here. Removed mention of another language which is regionally spoken here and typically also adds unsourced content, for example here. In the Noida article especially, they are edit warring with typical WP:OWN like comments 'I live in Noida, I know more' [100], [101], [102]. The user fails to understand Wikipedia policy despite multiple warninngs and explanations in the edit summaries. Looks like they have WP:CIR issues and/or is politically motivated, considering their removal of 'Urdu' from the articles they come across. Pinging @Fuzheado and Arjayay:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    More POV removal of Urdu and addition of unsourced content here, [103]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring continues [104] and in Noida article, they are on the verge of breaking 3RR [105]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruption continues also in Uttar Pradesh [106]. — kashmīrī TALK 17:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again removed the sourced mention of 'Urdu' here. Seems like they wouldn't stop. Pinging @Oshwah:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay i might refrain myself from removing 'Urdu' until and unless I provide some hard legal source. I thereby apologize for my unsourced edits. Userid1438 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Urdu is mentioned as an additional official language of Uttar Pradesh in the sources, you have to prove through latest sources/circulars that the 'additional official' status of Urdu has been revoked now. Obviously you have to discuss those sources first in the talk pages. Secondly, you seem to add original researches and unsourced content in articles, which need to stop (WP:V). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like edit warring. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued unsourced edits

    Reported editor has not edited for a week. Have posted on their talk and invite any follow-up there. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    You're My Only Destiny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Despite multiple warnings, including 3 final ones as well as personal pleas (on their talk page) for them to source their questionable edits, this editor continues unabated as can be seen in their latest disruptive edit (I didn't bother leaving another warning, they are ignored). For months this editor has been changing personnel sections on music related pages without sourcing and when confronted, resort to excuses such as "Oh, I ordered my CD and still haven't received it, so I can't read it." A simple hover over their contributions will give one an insight to the problem and to be perfectly honest, though I have been extremely patient, I've reached the end of my tether. Please could an admin take a look and perhaps (re) explain the importance of WP:V as my attempts are seemingly not succeeding. Robvanvee 07:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a bump in the hope that an admin could assist with this please. Robvanvee 05:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Informed analysis

    I have seen this user charge into GAs and FAs and rewrite bits of them, introducing errors or going against consensus. To try and forestall this happening on Genesis (band), I decided to rewrite the entire lead from scratch this afternoon and left a talk thread here to try and resolve the dispute and a constructive note here, only to get reverted with "I do not care if it is FA if is is wrong." (which misses the point I was trying to make that charging in full pelt to a GA or FA where other editors have done lots of work, means you might get blowback and have to discuss changes) and putting grammatical errors in. I've got to stop work on this now before it starts to look like edit warring.

    Elsewhere I see him edit-warring on Katharine Hepburn, saying "Leave this alone. No one else object months last year or weeks now. Leave it alone." and on Aerosmith, saying "I do not understand why the other editor appears to have no concise writing skills and insists on re-adding repetitive and obvious text. Do not do again." which suggests an ownership problem, and his talk page has a bunch of warnings for edit warring and generally being disruptive.

    Can somebody else try and have a chat with this user? I feel like I've got a sore head. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Four other editors have either implicitly or explicity agreed with the additions I made in the Genensis lead. Look at the history. For example, why is only the fact Invsible Touch had 5 top 5 singles in the US mentioned. Where any of those successful anywhere else? Turns out only the titletrack and Land of Confusion were. The cherry-picking of only specific high success many editors do is in fact a contravention of the point of view policies. Why is mentioning the popularity of Mama and another signficant song wrong? People want to know some of their popular songs. Why is saying which was their first top 10 ablum in the US was X wrong and what their highest platinum level in the US was wrong? That was stated in several other articles.
    I should add some of the text which Richie cited as wrong was not text I added. If it was wrong before I added other stuff why was it in there?Informed analysis (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you analyze at the text I deleted there you would indeed see the old text was repetitive and inconcise. The text had Aerosmith repeatedly going on more and more extensive tours. The Aerosmith lead is the longest of any lead on any band I tried to add a key fact of their original breaktrough that is provien by the chart info and dates - that Dream On was re-released 2 years later after Sweet Emotion mde the top 40 and then became their first huge hit, and that editor has reversed in 4 or 5 times even though I explained my rationale several times. He prefers to have info in about rollercoasters and video games. He is exhibiting unobjective ownership. No one else expressed any concern.Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Informed analysis, That is not the point I was trying to make. My point is you seem to get angry and upset when people disagree with you and bark at multiple editors not to change stuff. That is incompatible with a collaborative environment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Richie - you made massive reversions without thinking or acknowledging some of the text may have been useful. You were angry when you made the massive reversions. You did not make any collaborative effort. You should be restricted from making massive reversions. That is the truth - I think a read of the history will show that - you blindly added back in text that I had already explained in my changes was wrong .Informed analysis (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not correct. If you look at the statistics for Genesis, you will see a number of editors who have worked on the article besides myself, including LowSelfEstitle, RoderickSilly, Joefromrandb and MrMarmite. As far as I'm aware, we've all edited the article at the same time without any issues, and I've had no cause to complain about any of their edits, nor vice versa. The only person who seems to have a problem is you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You inserted text saying a certain album was their first to chart in the UK when it was in fact their second. You also inserted text saying they had success in mainland Europe first when the only country the album had charted in was Italy (at number 1). Admit your error. If I made an error in something, I will admit I did. Of course, if you are adding text saying which their first to chart in the UK was, why would we not add text saying which their first to hit the top 10 in the US was?Informed analysis (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked Informed analysis to loosen their grip on the Bryan Adams bio, and I warned them that this edit summary was unacceptable, telling others to stop editing, which demonstrated WP:OWNership issues. I have had a few very spirited jousting matches with Informed analysis regarding how much detail was appropriate for the lead section of musician biographies (I argue for streamlined prose and less detail) one of which can be seen in the Pat Benatar editing history. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Binksternet and others just completely revert with no discussion large amounts of text that I had gradually inserted over weeks or months with no one objecting, including by cutting/reduced clearly overly detailed text on tours, record companies and members, and Binksternet and some of those others think that is fine and appropriate behaviour fro them to undertake?? Why? Read the history - Binksternet exhbits excessive, totally uncollaborative behavior over the Pat Benatar article. THe Def Leppard page noted above is one where I had carefully found ways to cut out less important text in order to add relevant text. Why is whether a video was one of the first played on MTV important to the overall impact of a band? It is not. Statement of greatest success "from early 80s to 90s" was partly wrong as they did not have hardly any success from 80 to 82 and is obvious when they read about the 3 albums from 83, 87 and 91. Why is simply saying they had 7 hits in the US from an ablum (which was wrong - a number 80 peak is not a hit - that is biased) adequate without saying how those tracks did in any other countries? It is not - I added key info to which Def Leppard single off Hysteria had actually had success in the most other countries or the only one that was a big hit in the UK.Informed analysis (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Informed analysis has also made a few thousand edits logged out, working on the same articles as when logged in. See Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/204.40.194.0/21.
    Starting in September 2019, Bettydaisies and Larry Hockett tangled with Informed analysis at the Gregory Peck bio. They might have some thoughts about the behavior of this user. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Binkersternet, I gradually added text over several weeks on the Benatar article - no one had any concerns - he then deletes every single word I added - that sure is collaborative. That is warring! He could have reviewed the text and deleted or reworded text he felt was truly wrong. I keep in as much of the text already but reduce its length to more concise/cut out repetitive and then I add informaation that many people seem to have found useful. What song and what country was her first top 10 song. What was her first top 10 song in the US? What was her highest charting single in the US? Stuff that is found in other leads but that Biskernet just did not want to include it here. What albums were her first big hits in other countries. As I full illustrate in the explanation of changes to Benatar segmnets, his text made no sense on which Benatar's biggest album was and suggested her success in Britain ccurred at a different time than it did. It was vague and misleading. As well, many leads give 2 or 3 lines about the band's or artist's early years/origins - for Genenis it gives needless detail on my members/organizers; I added what Benatar did in school and in her early 20s, right from the main body - Binksternet just deleted in without discussion.Informed analysis (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Further regarding Binksternet, for Alanis Moressitte's main article (not lead) I gradually added fully referenced chart information, sometimes aggregated i.e. "made top 10 in several countries in Europe" for her entire career over the period of weeks. I pointed out how she how her 4 number one singles in Canada had been number one for something like 30 weeks in a single year. The original article mostly mentioned the US and was wildly inconsistent, i.e giving all chart positions for some minor hits later in her career whereas for signficant hits early on it gave virtually none. So, I had added a larger amount of info so that the article was completely consistent like an encyolpedic article should be. No one had a single objection. He just came in a month latter and reverted every single item of text I had added. Every single item. Clearly that is warring, uncollaborative, acting angerly, and possessive. He should be santioned even moreso than myself. Same with Ritchie.Informed analysis (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! I have encountered this user regarding Peck’s page. They expanded if, but users on Talk: Gregory Peck thought it much too bloated. I made substantial revisions to Gregory Peck to improve its readability based on the concerns. The user expressed on my talk page unhappiness at this, stating I “began to destroy” “the most thorough” assessment of Peck’s work ever written.
    My personal feedback would be that civility should be kept in mind - as well as syntax and professional language. WP employs summary-style to write informative, digestible biographies. The relevancy of the primary subject to information is paramount. The most prominent issues here are struggles with WP:OWNERSHIP and collaboration. Constructive editing cannot be done without the user having a thorough and ensured understanding of the latter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found this editor impossible to deal with, in that they're just not interested in abiding by WP:NOR. After clashing with them over this issue at Hard rock, I've seen the editor rewrite leads and article text at other GAs (the Who, the Rolling Stones) where their main aim seems to be to present a more international picture of chart success than just mentioning the UK and US markets. Which would be fine as long as the sources supported that, but most band biographies and books on 1960s and '70s rock music do not discuss a song or album's chart performance in, say, Australia and Canada. Wish that they did.
    So, most of these changes at the Who and the Rolling Stones will have to be undone. But I get the feeling that other editors are (like me) holding back until they've got the energy to deal with what most likely will be another head-to-head confrontation, because Informed analysis makes it an issue of personal opinion between themselves and any editor who challenges them – when it's not that, it's about a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The chart statistics I inserted are completely accurate - in some articles I added them to the body first; in others they are from body or from the Discography page on the artist or the page on a specific song. Nothing has to be redone. It is amazing how every different lead on different artists has totally different level of information - some only state singles, some only state albums, some extra short, Aerosmith extra long talking about Rollercoasters and cultural phenonmon without any reference at all. One person says 5 paragraphs should be used, another says 4, another says 3. In every case, I try to include as much as the original text that is there as possible respecting what someone else earlier found important. They should be more similar and when you read all the differnt ones it is like what is going onhere. Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Informed analysis: Once again you're sidestepping around the pertinent issue – that is, whether the additions are supported by sources in the article, or whether they're original research in the context of the article because the information is unsourced. You're just choosing to focus on their accuracy and, as you see it, the need for such information.
    In the lead at the Who – through your contributions and those of an IP user, admittedly – we currently say that "My Generation" "went to number two in the UK and Australia, number three in Canada and the top ten in parts of Europe"; there's no source for these details, and they don't appear in the main body, sourced or otherwise. Same situation for "Substitute" and "I'm a Boy" being top-five hits in the Netherlands, "Pictures of Lily" and "Happy Jack" going top five in "several countries", "Jack" hitting number one in Canada; and for "I Can See for Miles" being a top-ten hit in Canada. It continues in the lead – Tommy as "the first of nine straight top ten albums in the US and Canada", inclusion of Canadian chart success of "Pinball Wizard" and "See Me, Feel Me", The Who by Numbers being "their fifth straight top five album in France". Nowhere in the 1964–1978 section of the article is any of this non-UK and -US chart success discussed.
    A lead section is supposed to summarise main points from the article. The lead's therefore been compromised by the inclusion of unsourced information, which amounts to original research; and it means that the article fails the Good Article criteria, specifically: 1b it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections ..., 2c it contains no original research ... After Ritchie333 reverted your first batch of changes, in January, none of this original research was there.
    Just because your additions are "accurate" and the information can be found at the artist's discography doesn't mean they belong, and it certainly doesn't get around the WP:NOR and GA criteria issues. So of course they have to be redone or removed if the article's to retain its GA status. And to echo a theme voiced by other editors in this thread – and despite your constant protests to the contrary – no one's going to thank you for compromising the quality of GAs and FAs, and you are in no way collaborative by continually ignoring warnings and other concerns raised on your talk page over the years. You're either wilfully ignoring WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and the like, not to mention WP:BRD with regard to working with other editors, or it's your competence that's the issue. And Ritchie and Binksternet are excellent collaborative editors, by the way.
    Your 7–9 February edits at the Beach Boys show you're doing the same to the lead there. You've not added any sources to support the information on the band's Canadian, Australian and mainland European chart achievements. JG66 (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I inserted ALL the relevant chart information with exact references into the Alanis Morisette, Pat Benetar, Foreigner, Rush, Bryan Adams, Abba, Journey and some other articles - go look at them. Then Binkersnet reverted ALL my additions of that to the Alanis M article three or more times, and refused to allow me to add anything at all; and deleted my addition to the lead of the Pat Benetar article 4 or 5 times. In Hard Rock my additions were mainly to the body and they were deleted. Due to Binksternet and a couple others, I gave up spending a week or more adding all the references to the body before adding things to the lead as it would just get deleted so I just went straight to the lead using information all found at the discography page for the artist or the page for a song or album.Informed analysis (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Hard Rock above, that article had random references to the chart positions that certain songs had reached, such as No. 12 for Don't Fear the Reaper and several others. I added the chart positions for some of the acknowledged agree-upon most integral early hard rock songs - Born to Be Wild, Girl, You Really Got Me, etc. and Baracudda by Heart. The other editor just blindly reverted what I added without any explanation - that is edit warring. I asked the editor to explain why the chart positions for certain songs was fine to include but not for more important songs and he did not respond. I added references to songs by certain artists who had no songs mentioned - the songs are listed on external lists of all-time best or most important hard rock songs and he deleted the names of the songs. Sounds uncolaborative. Informed analysis (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My frustrations are similar to the above. After he started synthesizing conclusions from movie critics over and over again (example here), I tried (and failed) to explain WP:SYNTH to him (on the Peck talk page, his user talk page and my user talk page). In hindsight, I could have provided more detailed explanations and showed more patience, but I was frustrated after the IP irregularities became apparent and most of my attempts to explain were met with deflection. (Example: Part of the edit summary for the SYNTH edit above says "go in a delete such statements from all other articles".) Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another editor at the Peck page kept telling me I should add the exact quotes of the movie review, so I did. Larry kept saying, the the reviews of 1 editor or 2 editors do not represent all reviews of the time period...so I looked up virtually eveyone available and for recent decades focused on 8 or 9 most well-known sources. I bascially did what 2 other editors directed me to do. Some people told me they thought it was an excellent read - there are books (Christopher Tookey) that specifly do that. If you read the point of view guidelines, simply including the quote of one reviewer on one actor's performance in a movie should not be allowed as that is not presented a broad perspective.Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues with synthesis (such as saying “Critics agree that ..." when no source describes such agreement) were brought to your attention about fifteen months ago. I'm disheartened because there is still not much evidence that you've attempted to understand the guideline. We work all the time with honest editors who have genuine misunderstandings, but when you respond to these IP address concerns by saying you forgot to log in a couple times, that is going to create a certain distrust that makes people lose patience. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Hockett - as I have said then and above - why is simply stating the opinion of one critic is isolation proper point of view?? It is not. It is suggesting that that one critic's statement is better than everyones elses. I got heck for just stating one critics opinion on other pages and even at Peck's. That is why I gathered quotes from 12 or 15 critics AND included the exact key part of the quotes PLUS links to the actual webiste, where availabe, and then said "The majority of reviews were positive citing such things as X or X", and then including the most interesting quotes AND allowing them to link directly to all the quotes. The I said "the few negative reviews focussed on X with one saying...." I cannot see how in the world that is wrong compared to someone just including the comment of one reviewer who someone simply decided to be the one they include. I explained this all to you 4 or 5 times in 2019.Informed analysis (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Informed analysis, I think you're missing the point Larry Hockett is making. I haven't reviewed the article, but from what you've just said it sounds like you're making an unsourced assertion about 'the majority of reviews'. If you collect a bunch of individual critics' comments about a piece of work, they can be used to support assertions about those individual critics' opinions, but presumably none of them say anything about what the majority of critics say, and thus they can't be used to support an assertion about what the majority of critics say. GirthSummit (blether) 14:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    regarding inclusion of only one critics opinion of movies, here is text from wikipedia's article on wikipedia:

    "Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.[95] All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article. This is known as a neutral point of view (NPOV)." This is why I included quotes of numerous critics both from the time a movie was released and in recent decades, not just one quote or viewpoint from one critic that so many other people feel is appropriate, in contravention of wikipedia's principles.Informed analysis (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Informed analysis I'll try to explain this again. The problem is not using more than one critic. The point is that if you have a bunch of sources, in each of which an individual expresses their own opinion, you can't go from that to say what the majority opinion is - that's where the WP:OR comes in, you are performing research by sampling a bunch of reviews, and determining that that's what the majority view is. I hope that's clearer. GirthSummit (blether) 10:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    TO EVERYONE: I challenge you to just read the history on Genesis (band) to see Ritchie's methods as he is the one launching this review. You will see he just massively deleted text I added whereas I tried to explain my changes. I challenge you to read the history on Pat Benatar with Binksternet - he was the warring one whereas I tried to reach middle-ground.Informed analysis (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I admit that I have not read any articles involved and stopped reading Informed analysis's comments above after seeing that this editor considers that getting to number one in Italy was not success in mainland Europe. Anyone who doesn't know that Italy is in mainland Europe cannot be considered qualified to be involved in writing a Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out that Italy was the only country it charted in - it did not chart in single other European country. That is not "success in Europe." Success is Europe means at least 3 or 4 countries. I wonder how many of you seemingly Americans consider an album going numer one in Canada but not even charting in the US "success in North America" Even when a song has success in 3 or so countries in Europe, people have tended to write "parts of Europe" or "Scandinavia" if that was were the countries were?Informed analysis (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To everyone - I propose a vote of each person who reviews all the above comments - read the current leads on the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Eagles and Genesis, and tell me if you do not think they are an excellent summary (all at length that is still less than Aeorsmith's and the one of Bette Davis - which some other person was trying to add more length too) of those band's careers. You could add Rush to that. No one has objected at to the Rush lead for a few months - but what if Binksternet or Ritchiee suddendly don't like it and revert everything from months ago? I guess that would be fine? For some of these bands, old lead did not even mention they were in the Rock Hall of Fame - how was that not in there???Informed analysis (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyone - look at Beach Boys lead - on December 8 editor ILIL rigigdly reversed additions I made listing some of the band's top charting hits (previous version only mentioned 1 or 2 songs) and despite myself explaining my additions (and deletions to make other things more concise) he repeatedly reverted even my moderate, half-way additions. He was showing rigid ownership. I gave up. On Feb. 7 I decided to just add TWO of their number one US ongs to the lead (which is done in many, many other leads). Now someone else (Merjin2), totally on their own, I swear this is not a co-worker (204) or friend of mine, has gone in on their own and added more info on their top charting songs. Clearly, other people agree with adding more on important songs, their chart positions, including outside the US. The problem here is mostly editors who feel they alone own a particular band's article refusing to allow someone like me to objectively analyze the situation and to add other useful information that a vast majority of people have not opposed and in some cases are adding back in themselves. Wikipedia needs to focus on the quality of the leads, and making them consistent which is clearly, in any objective analysis, what I have been doing.Informed analysis (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Logged out edits with Toronto IPs

    Informed analysis has acknowledged that they "forgot to log in a couple times", but the problem is much bigger than that. The range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 has made a few hundred edits, and some were clear violations of WP:MULTIPLE, for instance this sequence from yesterday in which Ritchie333 reverts a series of edits from Informed analysis, which is quickly reverted by 2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:69EF:EFDF:8697:2E80. Back in October–December 2019, Informed analysis made a concerted effort to fool others into thinking that there were two different people involved in the Gregory Peck article, when it was simply Informed analysis editing logged out using Toronto IPs of the range 204.40.194.0/21. Informed analysis referred to this other editor as "204" in the following edit summaries: "this addition of editor 204 from famous writer Shipman seems useful so I am re-inserting", "I discussed this with editor 204", "204 - these changes show the exact text you need to insert to do it properly..." and "204 - the soft break template shows up in red..." This is bad faith falsification, using two accounts to take advantage of other editors. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    204 was a friend at work who I used to talk to about making changes. She would make the herself. I could not control what she was doing and aver a year ago she lost interest in doing any more edits and since we now work from home I have not talked to her in ages. I don't know what else to say. This does not excuse Binksternet's repeated huge reversions without working collaboratively or trying to meet halfway as is explicity shown in Pat Benetar and Alanis Morrisette.Informed analysis (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not creative writing class. You and the 204s have the same edit summary style: "the changes I made are totally valid" and "this change is totally valid". Same with you and the 2607:FEA8 IPs: "paragraphing" and "paragraphing". You are all the same person. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because at work our supervisor and entire unit used the term totally valid and discussed changes to reports we prepared to go to the minister has valid or non-valid. We talked about using that term in our wikipedia edits.Informed analysis (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)th[reply]
    Color me disbelieving. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gee, are you going to accuse me of being Merjin2 at the Beach Boys and Floydian at Genesis too? They are both explicilty agreeing with my changes. And in numerous cases various editors went in and corrected minor errors that I may have left behind, obviously generally agreeing with my changes and trying to assist in their implementatin/finalizationInformed analysis (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see Binksternet or Ritchie defending their mass, repeated reversions, refusal to collaborate, and ignoring the explanations I provided. That is because their changes are completely undefendable and they acted in totally inappropriate, edit-warring fashion.Informed analysis (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see at the top of the thread, I wrote I've got to stop work on this now before it starts to look like edit warring and that's why I left a lengthy message on the talk page to resolve the dispute. You also asserted I did not discuss my revert on The Who as mentioned by JG66 upthread; which is not true. You also said Floydian supported your changes on Genesis (band) which is not true. If you continue saying things without backing them up with evidence, people are just going to tune out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an example where the 2607.fea IP accidentally replied to a discussion between me and IA on my UTP (before deleting the reply). Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Good example, and the person says they have more "contacts" who agree with them, obviously referring to the IPs working with IA in violation of WP:MULTIPLE. And then a few edits later on your talk page, the IP editor continues the charade by implying they are not IA, which is completely false. Purposely violating WP:MULTIPLE for more than a year now. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No substantial talkpage participation

    It appears to me that Informed analysis is mistaking this board for a content discussion forum, having saved all this discussion up for years with no talkpage participation, least of all on a bunch of GAs and FAs. Given that the wall of discussion above appears to be in lieu of any article talkpage participation on any of these articles since ... click, click, click ... I give up, at least since last November, I can understand why editors are complaining. IA, you are expected to use talkpages to explain your edits and to gain participation. Your complete absence of such engagement is disruptive and contrary to the editing ethos of this site. I see a whopping 62 talkpage edits on 3902 total edits, apparently with no talkpage participation at all for years. No wonder people are irritated. In short, stop posting here, go to talkpages and make use of them, and make no major changes without gaining consensus first, most of all on high-profile articles. If you return to jumping into articles with big boots and no discussion, you will face sanctions Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The proof is in the pudding - it is clear that in most articles there is only one editor (the one who feels they are the owner) objecting to the additions/reductions I made, often gradually over weeks; sometimes they only objected several weeks later. As I provided evidence of, some people explicitly and others implicitly agree with the specific and type of additions I made. In most cases, the talk pages have had no discussions in a long time - probably only the one objector would even check there and, given their obvious evidence of rigidly reverted any changes, they would have disagreed on the talk page anyhow. I note that two to three years ago on some webpages I engaged in talk about a few article and got agreement from the only person who commented. Then 1.5 years later someone else came in and changed everything. I objected at first but then gave up. Even the persion who had originally agreed with my approach changed their opinion.Informed analysis (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You appear to be under the fundamental misapprehension that you don't need to explain anything. Your edits are being disputed. It's 2021. Use talkpages - this isn't optional. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal : 1RR restriction

    I have to admit my patience is now being frayed. Despite working with MetalDiablo666 on the lead at Genesis (band) yesterday, and carefully documenting our findings on the talk page, cross-referencing the MOS where necessary, and despite Acroterion leaving a "seriously, use talk pages" message, I come in today to find Informed analysis has reverted without discussion again.

    So I would like to propose : Informed analysis is restricted to the one revert rule. That means they must not perform more than one revert, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Violations of this can be enforced by blocks. Logging out to evade scrutiny and attempt to avoid the restriction can also be enforced by blocks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IT SURE IS AMAZING THAT RITCHIE REFUSES TO DISCUSS WHETHER A BAND'S ONLY NUMER ONE SONG IN COUNTRY SHOULD BE MENTIONED. OR IF THEIR FIRST SONG TO GO TOP TEN IN SEVERAL COUNTRIES SHOULD BE MENTIONED. THIS SITE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT QUALITY INFO NOT ABOUT ONE MAN AND MAYBE ONE OTHER PERSION IMPLEMENTING THEIR UNIQUE VIEWS IN A CERTAIN LEAD. He's like Donald Trump spreading false information or news.Informed analysis (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    People - before you issue your "support" for the above, go read the version of Genesis that I last inserted and compare it to the last version issued by by Ritchie333. Think - his version contains minute detail about some guy name King who helped the band do their first recording etc. etc. etc. His version talks about recruition of some guy named Ray Wilson for their last album. It does not mention their only US numbr one single. It does not mention what single was their first to go to the top 10 in a good number of countries (their first true "international hit") and in the US. It omits any mention of the songs considered to be their most significant songs. It totally omits any detail on their most successful albums? Does anyone who reads the lead, who has no prior knowledge of Genesis get a true sense of when they achieved success by the current text? Do any readers read it and when they see a key song listed think "oh yeah, I recall that song - I do know who they are after all??? In response to a point Richtee made, Florian specifically said he/she supported the gist of what I was adding - look it up.

    The Genenis lead deviates from what many othe lead articles covered even before I made any changes. He and one other persion have some strange focus on keeping the content they like - BUT that is not the content that the average reader would find useful. If any Univeristy prof read the Genesis lead proposed by Ritchie33 and gave it a mark, they would give it probably 60% - extra detail where not needed and important detail excluded. THINK PEOPLE. This should not be about protecting the unique opinions of someone who thinks they own a page, but about creating a high quality product. Some of the above persons specifically said the only issue was that the seemingly useful detail should be in the article, which I began to do with the Who article.Informed analysis (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    I've blocked Informed analysis for 60 hours for continued abuse of this noticeboard to argue content and to disparage other editors. I expect them to address their own behavior, and this action does not preclude continuation of discussion here about further community sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Users who are frequently and incessantly using pejorative language and WP:ATA in deletion discussions

    @Carlossuarez46: and @William Allen Simpson: used pejorative terms in a recent CFD ( Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent ) we were involved with, namely "Delete another useless descent category (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories) without any indication that "Lower Yangtze descent" is definable or meaningful. " and "That's because your premise is both absurd and useless. " Upon closer inspection these two users also have a long history of using such terminology in deletion debates even though it is specifically advised against in WP:ATA. As such I find little faith of their ability to participate in CFD with integrity. I'm only posting here because I have spoken directly to both of them about it, and they refused to even strike their offending comments, whereas a third user who used similar language has taken this exact action.

    Carlossuarez46 has also indicated he will report me for canvassing and inappropriate talk page usage. I will agree to stop messaging either of them directly about matters related to this issue.

    --Prisencolin (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Carlossuarez46, these highlighted comments are an example of "belittling a fellow editor", see WP:IUC. Please be kinder in your comments. A simple apology would have avoided this escalating. Fences&Windows 22:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, thanks for advising me about this discussion, because contrary to the instructions the OP did not so notify me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I indicated my intention of bringing the issue to this board to both of you a few days ago, I think that's enough. If it pleases you I have now posted the notice template to both of your talk pages.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Prisencolin: it's not and never is. When the big box says you must notify, it means around the time you start discussion. (Most people notify immediately after, but it would be fine to post just before.) People shouldn't have to follow your contribs to know if or when you follow through with your plans in a day or two. (Obviously if an editor says something like, thanks, I will follow you contribs, you don't have to notify me again then it's fine to follow that.) And pings aren't enough even after you said you might do it a few days ago for the same reasons they aren't enough if you never said anything. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those statements are commentary on the contributions, not the editor. Not pleasant to receive but not personal attacks, not "belittling a fellow editor", and certainly not a reason to raise steam at ANI. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also like to highlight a larger pattern of these two editors systematically ignoring my evidence (supported by reputed scholars in the field), and relying on their own subjective judgement about a topic they know little to nothing about. WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS appears to be at play.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless you've got some better difs, I can't see this ending any other way besides "Well that wasn't all that nice, but they're not even really personal attacks, let alone anything actionable". Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those would relate to my second concern which is the fact that they are consistently ignoring whatever reliable sources I put out. I've asked about this issue on IRC and they suggested I take that concern here too.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know how you think that is heading towards something actionable either. I think you all just need to disengage for a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The more I look through the these users' recent history with CFD (see the sub-section), the more I realize this is actually a small part of a broader issue, which is potentially damaging to the project. I don't know whether it's an issue with the users, the CFD process or something else.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The way I see it, if your argument and sources really destroys the argument of the other two, then the CFD should clearly close in you favour and no major harm done. If the two name editors really persistently add useless comments to CFDs and are always wrong, perhaps we will take action. But we're not going to take action over two or three or even ten CFDs. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • How would you even go about proving this though? In a discussion a few places above this one, there is a discussion concerning possible sanctions over a user’s obsessive AFD activity. It lists the discussions and outcomes of 30 nominations given by the editor. I personally have little interest in compiling this kind of data, but I do hope that some kind of increased oversight over the CFD process can come out of this notice board request.Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? —Prisencolin (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't understand what you mean by "increased oversight". You've presented zero evidence of an actual problem with CFD. As always, since it's a consensus discussion and not a vote, if someone's arguments are not persuasive e.g. because they ignored sources, then they will largely be ignored. If someone is wasting people's time by making them read an excessive number of useless comments, then perhaps they can be sanctioned e.g. topic banned from CFD. But you will need sufficient evidence that this is a problem, which is either more than 3 discussions, or extremely excessive participation (i.e. a lot of comments) in 3 those 3 discussions. Frankly, having looked more closely inspired by RevelationDirect's comment below, your participation seems to be the bigger problem since you're coming awfully close to WP:Bludgeoning considering you seem to have replied to nearly every !vote. While most of your comments are short, it is unlikely there is something so unique about each comment that you need to repeat yourself 8 times or whatever. So I'm even more perplexed what sort of increased oversight you want. You could just stop posting to that discussion rather than asking for your actions to be restricted. Nil Einne (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In the CFD discussions, there is often a healthy tension between subject matter experts in a topic area and those more familiar with the categorization processes and notability generally which I think is what's being described above. Rather than being a negative, those differing but complimentary viewpoints generally produce better results for the encyclopedia's categorization. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Nil Einne, I had to repeat myself numerous times because the same few editors would make the same remarks that were untrue, and did not bother reading my previous replies to other comments about why they were untrue. Namely, in this discussion, William Simpson made a !vote saying "delete both per nom, not an ethnicity", I then (after a few other comments) presented evidence that it is considered an ethnicity. In the follow up CFD, Simpson reiterated the same sentiment he had before, to which I also correct him with another example, and he does not reply further. This kind of stonewalling is why I'm rather frustrated with this particular user, and if you look at his talk page it appears that others have had issues with him as well.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Misc. conduct in CFD

    To further illustrate examples of questionable conduct at CFD please refer to: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_4#Category:One-thousanders. A user put up an earnest question about a series of technical classifications for mountains used in the sport of mountaineering, and Carlossuarez46 inserted his opinion that they should all be deleted as he believed it to be some arbitrary measure invented by editors. This was apparently done without WP:BEFORE finding out more about the subject matter. I believe admin action should be taken if he continues down this pattern of behavior.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently, Prisencolin has been busy posting a WP:VERBOSE attack here overnight, the same as much of her/his "discussion". This is abusive.
    1. Obviously, I've A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines; I've been involved in writing them for ~16 years, and am a former developer who was involved in creating Categories for Discussion.
    2. Carlos has been active for even longer, and is a long-time administrator.
    3. Prisencolin recreated a nearly identical category after deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent, resurrecting Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#Category:People of Shanghainese descent.
    4. That is against WP:CSD#G4 policy.
    5. We don't categorize descent of people "by city or region". Descent is a WP:CATNAME#Heritage category. The place of birth is rarely notable and therefore categories that designate place of birth are discouraged. The place of birth or emigration status of ancestors is even less notable.
    6. I was the original editor of the Heritage and WP:CATNAME#Residence subsections of our guideline.
    7. Prisencolin is abusing Wikipedia review processes (both here and at CfD) as method of attack, both personal and procedural.
    Please suspend Prisencolin for a suitable length of time. I'd recommend at least a week, so that related CfD can run to completion.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I posted the discussion to WP:HELPDESK and another editor suggests that my participation in the discussion is not even particularly long to warrant WP:WALLOFTEXT objections (he did suggest it could be WP:BLUDGEON based on my insistence to reply to everything, but I think that's just a result of my being the only person to defend niche content on an obscure board.
    1. Nothing to say, you have both worked on the project for a very long time for sure.
    2. --
    3. It's clearly not G4 because it's intended to be a much broader category than the first one, a fact that you summarily ignored when I pointed out to you
    4. The admins appear to agree at this moment seeing as they G4 categories in CFD all the time. Given that I was the only one to work on the category, I requested WP:G7 deletion, in order to focus on a WP:DRV which was recommended by the closing admin when I spoke to him direclty. It is not WP:FORUMSHOPPING because DRV is a widely used path of negotiation.
    5. "We do not classify based on descent of people "by city or region" is literally just a made up policy that you insist on re-stating over and over in these discussions; it does not exist in the guideline you linked (If such a policy exists somewhere I apologize for misunderstanding and will remove this statement). Such categories do actually exist as well, I may add. e.g. Category:People of Catalan descent, Category:Bavarian emigrants to the United States. This classification is also not exclusive to people who's place of birth is Shanghai, so that part doesn't apply. --Prisencolin (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why we're arguing the WP:CFD over here as well. I wish to redirect attention back to the hasty and uninformed deletion of content performed at CFD. Perhaps they have been working at CFD for so long that they have become too accustomed to using their intuition rather than search for answered when a challenge confront them.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prisencolin is out of line; he or she is posting on CFD participants' talk pages, in their user space, all to forward some agenda that is specifically targeted to anyone who disagrees with him or her at CFD. This has got to stop. Will someone uninvolved talk sense to them before they cause more problems. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will attempt to explain my recent talk page messages to the best of my ability as I believe Carlossuarez is conflating a few things, using the chronology I found using the advanced contribution search. The first message I sent in relation to the CFD was an attempt on 28 January to get an explanation from User:Good Olfactory about the closing of Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent. Soon after I messaged User:Marcocapelle, who had nominated the CFD, about re-creating the category now that I added more information to a header article Shanghainese people in Hong Kong , Marcocapelle did not directly reply to the new evidence, but stated the CFD had already closed. I then went ahead and created a new category on that same day, and the category was put up for CFD (and not tagged for G4 directly I may add) by Marcocapelle a while later on 5 February. At this point I messaged him about the nomination again, and asked why the new one did not satisfy inclusion criteria even though I had worked extensively on it, and he gave a similar non-response. During the course of the CFD the two users who were mentioned in the initial ANI post made !votes on the CFD, and I took issue with the way they phrased their comments. I messaged both about this issue, and asked that they strike the comment I perceived as uncivil (per WP:RUC) but did not get a reply immediately. On 7 February a third user, User:RevelationDirect, used similar language in their !vote, so I spoke to them about it, and they agreed to strike the comment on that same day, and thanked me for taking it to their talk page, rather than the CFD discussion, thus implying that my course of action was correct. I went to User:Good Olfactory about my intentions to go forward with a DRV. William Allen Simpson replied back on his talk page, choosing not to comply with my request. I informed Carlos Suarez and William Allen Simpson about an impending ANI notice on 8 February, and got a reply from Suarez which I interpret as WP:BAITING ("Go ahead. You will not intimidate me. ") and he suggested that I may be breaking WP:CANVASSing rules. Carlos Suarez alludes to my activity on his userspace, and that regards a message I posted on his essay User talk:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories, in which I express concern over his appearance as an authority on academic disciplines which study ethnic identity and descent, where he doesn't appear to have any credentials in this field. This was not related to any specific discussion, but rather I felt the need to do this because he will often post this essay to CFD threads. Anyone who wants to review my claims can see my contribs filtered by User Talk space. I will also refrain from directly posting to anyone's talk page for at least a week.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, it's best to keep the conversation in CFD so we can all follow it. (The one on my talk page was fine since it wasn't on the substantive category discussion.) It looks like you were on every talk page of anyone who !voted, correct? - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There were only 6 !voters and I think I messaged 5 about their wording. To be honest I'm having trouble recalling the events between the two CFD's.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That must have been very frustrating. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sound advice. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time this is also a good advice to User:Prisencolin, namely please avoid bludgeoning. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Forum shopping by Prisencolin

    Prisencolin started an RFC on the Talk page of the nominated category. Rather than a short statement, it is yet another WP:WALLOFTEXT. I've closed WP:RFCNOT. Please suspend Prisencolin for a suitable length of time. I'd recommend at least a week, so that related CfD can run to completion.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The RFC is not about "Renaming categories," which is prohibited by by WP:RFCNOT, it's about creating a definition for said category with help from actual experts in history and geography. (this should be obvious if one actually read the text of the RFC...) The outcome is intended to have no bearing on the CFD. One again, you are ignoring everything I have to say..--Prisencolin (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if it's forum shopping, but it certainly does not seem productive to start such a conversation there since, if the CFD is successful, the associated category talk page would also be deleted so you would lose any of the input you are trying to gather.- RevelationDirect (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the RFC, you can see that I was trying to find a way to move the text back into the CFD (which is commonly done). Also, talk pages of deleted pages can be permanently restored (eg Talk:Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence/Archive_1 (although now that I think about it it may only be there because the admin forgot to delete it...) .—Prisencolin (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support for racism in category names by Prisencolin

    Prisencolin's most recent comments are beyond the pale:

    We do not remove content that can be construed as racist WP:NOTCENSORED and all social science (and science in general), is going to be biased in some way. Some fields (like IQ research) can be criticized more frequently for their biases, but I don’t think that’s a reason to exclude WP:POV depictions of said research on the encyclopedia.

    — —-Prisencolin (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    speaking of racism...—Prisencolin (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond the pale means "bounds of morality, good behaviour or judgment in civilized company." That there was a pale in Ireland, and a pale in Russia, and there have been others, does not mean this expression has or ever has had anything to do with racism. (The Pale is the monthly newsletter of the SCA Middle Kingdom where I'm located.)
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrassment by Prisencolin

    @Prisencolin: should be talked to about his or her behavior such as [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2021_February_11&type=revision&diff=1006455344&oldid=1006453101%7Cad hominin attacks]] since retracted and apparently trying to impersonate me on another editor's talk page. [[107]]. He or she retracted the first and corrected the second, but this editor's behavior - originating in a content dispute - moved into wikilawyering (I hope this editor realizes that he or she is misciting various policies or accusing me of violating essays), and has now moved beyond that. See our policy of Wikipedia:Harassment where "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." I don't get this behavior; it's repeated on many of the people who disagree with this editor on content matters and this editor attacks editors about their knowledge, opinions, and credibility. I ask that it stop and that some admin make it stop. Whether there is an element of racism or not as posited above I haven't fathomed but the behavior - regardless of its motivation - must stop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea why I was misidentified by another user as you, it was a legitimate mistake in not signing my comment, and I further have no idea why you are accusing me of impersonating you... My complaint, which I have tried to illustrate on this board is that you and probably others on CFD are carelessly... no let's use a more neutral term, just voting for deletion given your own opinion with WP:BEFORE carrying out the checks. Admittedly BEFORE is a guideline for AFD, and for nominations, but I feel it should still apply for voting. CFD resembles Wikimobocracy due to the small number of users involved, as the high proportion of categories deleted (from a cursory glance). Further, it almost feels like a bit of a trap when an editor brings up a category for renaming, and the category immediately gets voted for deletion even though that was no their intention. Perhaps Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion should be spun-off. It's not for me to say whether it was harassment or not, but so far no one seems to what I did was otherside the lines of civility other than yourself.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason you were misidentified is likely because you forgot to sign, but did link to Carlossuarez46's talk page at the end of your comment. [108] I agree you clearly weren't trying to impersonate anyone, but an important reminder why you should always make sure you sign. If people are voting in CFD, that's a problem. But AFAIK, you've presented no evidence people are voting at CFD. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing against consensus by Prisencolin

    Closed as keep Prisencolin is an involved party, and therefore not eligible to close. This is currently at 7 delete (most of them speedy G4), to 1 Keep (Prisencolin).

    Fortunately, it was promptly reverted.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what happened there, maybe a misclick (I've never used XFDcloser so I have no idea what it's like). But while closing would clearly be inappropriate, I don't see any reason to worry about a close reverted the same minute it was performed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Wikipedia:XFDcloser, I think a quick close could easily be performed in two clicks very close together. Probably especially easy on a mobile device. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In a series of edits to 24-hour clock and Talk:24-hour clock User:JohnMiller414 has added links to http://www.militarytime.site/ https://militarytimeconverter.org which appears to me to be the personal website of someone named John, who does not give a surname.

    In at least one instance the description of the site, after the edit, was misleading.

    In another instance the editor refactored another editor's talk page post. I will not revert any further edits by this user to avoid violating the three-revert rule. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC), link fixed 9 February 2021.[reply]

    It appears the website in question has been taken offline. Nightfury 13:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally such a website adds nothing not already in the article. The article already tells you how to convert (hint it's ridiculously simple) so a website that does it for you is completely unnecessary. Canterbury Tail talk 17:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Heads up

    (Continuation/resurfacing of: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Users_excessively_posting_about_Caliphs_of_Islam_at_help_desk)

    Google's search results have reverted back to displaying the pages on the Ahmadiyya Caliphate and Mirza Masroor Ahmad as the top results for people looking for the current caliph of Islam. Keep an eye on the edit filters, the talk pages of those articles, and on the public newcomer desks (WP:Help desk, WP:Teahouse, etc.). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    More pain for us.... Are those Caliphate Disruption filters still running? JavaHurricane 10:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They are, but only logging for now. As far as I can see, there's no 'featured snippet' (which I think was the main reason for the disruption), or am I missing something? Pahunkat (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, just found that searching for "who is the present caliph of Islam" returns a knowledge panel. Pahunkat (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: It appears that Google's taken down the knowledge panel. Pahunkat (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact they brought it back in the first place is kinda concerning. For what it's worth, this seems to be unique to Google - DuckDuckGo, Bing, and Yahoo! don't return either of the articles above (their top result is List of Caliphs instead) and both Bing and Yahoo! have what seems to be a Knowledge-Panel-esque thing at the top of their results explicitly saying there isn't one. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit more investigating on my end:
    • The string [current caliph of islam] returns Ahmadiyya and Ahmad as top results on Google, while DDG, Bing, and Yahoo! return List of Caliphs as the top result (and the latter two have something at the top stating that there isn't such a thing)
    • The string [who is the current caliph of islam] returns identical results on Google and pushes the list article down one or two spots on the other three, with websites discussing the matter being ranked higher. Bing and Yahoo! lose the Knowledge-Panel-esque header.
    So this issue is entirely with Google, it appears. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    can wiki software handle a noindex tag for just the information box? It seems google respects codes that protect part of a page. Various codes here
    Slywriter (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This wouldn't help, as part of the issue is Google teturning those pages as top results. It's not entirely because of the Knowledge Panel, and even if it were Wikipedia is far from the only source the Knowledge Panel pulls from (as the occasional "My photo is wrong in Google" helpees learn in #wikipedia-en-help). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a shame teturning isn't a word, because it sounds like it would be really useful in the right situation. EEng 02:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bori claws are not conducive to typing. Like boxing gloves. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 03:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

    He’s editing my comments to make me look bad

    Please can someone tell the User:Quisqualis to stop being such a stupid bully https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quisqualis&diff=prev&oldid=1006007082

    He’s editing my comment on his talk page to make me look like an idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quisqualis&diff=prev&oldid=1006007082

    This is clearly not allowed because the policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#EDIT says you shouldn’t do this. Make him stop please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.170.10 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This really isn't very civil, and choosing to double down on it wasn't a great idea either. That being said, the OP calling them "stupid" is not ideal either. SQLQuery me! 17:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left both editors messages to that effect. SQLQuery me! 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that Quisqualis already has an open section on this very board that is unresolved, here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, it's maybe not a slam dunk but it's fairly obvious that Quisqualis is being targeted by a blocked user, jumping to different IP addresses with impunity. In theory a perfect user would sit there and patiently take it, not rise to the bait, and wait for the SPI to go thru. It's not reasonable to expect people to be perfect. I've told socks of blocked users to fuck off my talk page before (yes, I know, conduct unbecoming etc); I see no reason to hold Quisqualis to a higher standard. How about this: I semi-protect Q's talk page for 3 days, they agree not to fake a header anymore, and we wait for the wheels of justice to turn slowly at SPI? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Хомяк1520

    User Хомяк1520 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of 1Goldberg2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see ru:Википедия:Форум администраторов#Бесконечный цикл or the same block descriptions in ru:Служебная:Вклад/1Goldberg2 and ru:Служебная:Вклад/Хомяк1520. 1Goldberg2 is banned for BLP violations, please ban Хомяк1520 to prevent them. Wikisaurus (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What is it that you base that assessment on? I'm only seeing 2 edits and I, at least, am unable to drawn an immediate link between these accounts. El_C 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The .ru links show that both accounts were blocked as part of the same sockfarm, if I'm reading it properly? Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff states this is an alt account of 1Goldberg2; there were no further socks at this point as far as I see. I blocked indef, since here it is block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Wikisaurus (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethnic slurs

    Could someone please review the casual use of ethnic slurs by TheOtter (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints? Specifically [109] [110] [111][112] I'm involved, and to be honest I'm not certain if this kind of "free speech" should be tolerated on Wikipedia, as I've never run across another editor saying the kind of racially insensitive things that TheOtter is. ~Awilley (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, the editor doesn't appear willing to abide by site consensus on style-guide manners for MOS:LDS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a message about this on their talk page. My thoughts on this are more complicated than people who know my politics might first think, but they don't really matter. I'll just say I don't think TheOtter needs a block at this time (mostly because they are not being intentionally used as actual pejoratives directed at other people), but I do think a block will be the rather quick result of continuing to casually use ethnic slurs to make a point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you User:Floquenbeam, that is perfect. ~Awilley (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was in Salt Lake City as a tourist 50 years ago and went to the visitor's center at Temple Square and took a tour of the areas that non-Mormons were allowed to enter at that time. The guide used the word "Mormon" dozens if not hundreds of times, and was especially proud of the world famous Mormon Tabernacle Choir which has a famous pipe organ with 11,623 pipes. It used to be on national TV a lot. Current U.S. Senator Mitt Romney has run for public office many times as a self-described Mormon, including his 2012 presidential campaign. His father George Romney, former governor of Michigan, described himself the same way. For much of the 21st century, this church ran a sophisticated advertising campaign called I'm a Mormon that featured dozens of the celebrity members of the church, proudly declaring their Mormon self-identity. All this came to an abrupt end in October, 2018 when the 93 year old head of the church decided that the word "Mormon" was suddenly unacceptable to describe members of this church, relying on "divine revelation" to justify his decision. The word "Mormon" was rapidly stripped from the choir. The advertising campaign was abruptly cancelled and the formerly embraced term was transformed into a slur by edict. This happened less than 29 months ago. Now, we have an editor going around indignantly insisting that "Mormon" is a slur and that all editors must accept the edict. This editor advances their argument by aggressively asserting that "Mormon" is equivalent to actual recognized racial and ethnic slurs, which the editor slings around freely. This argument is equivalent to imposing George Orwell's Newspeak on this encyclopedia. In my view, this is disruptive editing of the highest order, and if it continues, I recommend a topic ban on the LDS Church and "Mormonism", broadly construed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that background. I was scratching my head wondering why "Mormon" should be considered a slur, but now I know. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anyone who says "Niggers" had it better than "Mormons" in regards to 1800s-1900s American history should get their head checked, read a history book, and be topic banned from editing related to Mormonism. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to a topic ban on Mormonism, I would also suggest one on race, very broadly construed. CUPIDICAE💕 13:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. There's no comparison between using a racial slur that has for well over a century, at least, been a slur, and using a term for a member of a religion that was accepted as a self-description by members of that religion until a couple of years ago. There's nothing wrong with writing any word if the discussion is about the word and it is necessary in context (as not here), but in this case the editor seems to just be looking for as many possible opportunities to use the "N" word. And, I have to wonder, where do black members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fit into this heirarchy? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, interesting point, seeing as black people couldn't be full LDS members until 1978. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be pointed out that the official YouTube site for the Church has the film "Meet the Mormons" up on their channel, is still promoting it and was replying to comments on it as recently as last week and using the word over the last year. So it seems they officially aren't particularly bothered about the use of the word Mormons, even by themselves. In fact just a year ago they posted new videos entitled and logoed as "What Do Mormons Believe About God" and "What Mormons Believe About the Godhead". So to claim it's a slur and that the church doesn't use it is quite blatantly incorrect, and in fact supports the opposite. They even promote it as a commonly used term on their official website. So quite frankly TheOtter is blatantly wrong and the church in fact doesn't seem to care much about using the term Mormons. In fact TheOtter just comes across (appears this way) as an extremist in this matter that isn't supported by the church at large. And if they should continue that line they should just be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 22:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    COI and other problems at Danny Porush

    In 2013 Dporush1 (talk · contribs) created Danny Porush about himself, who is notable from The Wolf of Wall Street book and film. Since then he has made repeated attempts at whitewashing the article, almost always without a reliable source. He has been given numerous warnings, including about COI. He also has edited from several IPs located in or near Boca Raton, FL, where Porush lives. Now that edits on the article require review, Dporush1 returned with the same issue here and here. I hope his account will be indeffed. I also hope the page can be semi-protected because of his use of IPs. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed from editing the Danny Porush page. This action does not preclude any admin taking further action in excess of this PBAN (i.e. it may be upgraded to a full indef without needing to consult with me beforehand). Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism by 165.230.224.80

    In Mehmed the Conqueror, this IP adding "Category:Pederasty" and other irrelevant category, which the quote is Mehmed had a "reliably attested" passion for his hostage and favourite, Radu the Fair.. which is clearly outside mainstream view. This article request for protection at WP:RFPP by Beshogur, but because it is only happened in a single IP, i planned to report this to WP:AIV but will taking long respond, so i report this IP WP:ANI to give administrator actions to it. 36.65.47.156 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Partial block. Yes, this is of a sensitive nature, so I expedited the usual. Anyway, I've directed that contributor to the article talk page, so hopefully, the matter will be resolved there. El_C 00:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of interest editing on KS Tiga Naga

    In KS Tiga Naga, two IP users changing the location of the club from Kampar Regency, Riau to Bandar Lampung and changing the stadium location from Tuanku Tambusai Stadium to Pahoman Stadium, which seems that they conduct conflict of interest editing as well as adding unsourced content regarding the location. Two IPs were gave warning by MRZQ and myself, but they are still adding same behaviour. Please take an action to partially block that users because it had requested for protection in WP:RFPP. 36.65.47.156 (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's been years, also did the same thing in idwiki and xwiki related to Lampung, such as people from Lampung, stadiums, companies, football clubs, etc., often changing many places to Lampung, are users paid?? Range ips that stumble 114.4.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) 114.5.0.0/16 (talk · contribs)120.188.0.0/16 (talk · contribs). --MRZQ (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:wallyfromdilbert's persistent OWNBEHAVIOR, warring & MOS misuse after warnings

    User:wallyfromdilbert, despite warnings is engaging in persistent OWNBEHAVIOR at Jamie Raskin.

    • At this point, it was clearly OWNBEHAVIOR disguised as a content dispute.
    • In response, despite what I said, the user was only fixated on the MOS.
    • Then finally, since we had discussed the minor heading issue and there was no reason for there to be any problem with restoring my edit, I put it back here.

    Whew! So I've seen my share of MOS fanatics, but none who are so stubbornly and blindly determined to ignore the difference between guidelines and policies - nor one who so consistently misapplies those same guidelines - nor one who exhibits the persistent, textbook OWNBEHAVIOR of this one. The user also refuses real collaboration, compromise or AGF, and thinks nothing of repeated 3RR vios. This is beyond ridiculous. And User:wallyfromdilbert is no newbie. The user has been here for two years. When I pointed that out on their talk, the user even claimed that a personal attack, which in context, was nothing if not ironic. But honestly, this is the worst case of OWNBEHAVIOR I've ever seen and I've seen folks topic banned and indefinitely banned for less. Go down the list of telling behaviors and User:wallyfromdilbert literally checks off the first 3 boxes under OWNBEHAVIOR Actions and half the OWNBEHAVIOR Statements. And again, that's without all the rest. So make no mistake, this is not merely a content dispute. This is a user in need of serious WP policy education, behavior modification and sufficient discipline to make the points stick.

    In the past few months wallyfromdilbert has already been blocked 72 hours for warring. Obviously that instruction didn't stick. Because the behavior has gotten worse. So any new response should reflect that. X4n6 (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I see WP:OWN here. It looks like you made changes and wally disagreed with those changes. At that point, the burden is on you to find consensus on the talk page. Edit warring to restore your changes, then telling the other person not to edit war before even going to the talk page, isn't typically persuasive. If you think wally is wrong or disagree on interpretations of MOS, it's probably a good idea to solicit a third opinion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was never aware the style guidelines at MOS:BIB to place an article subject's publications at the end of an article were even controversial. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I included lots of links here, and it's a lot of reading that likely invites skimming. But if you go through it, chronologically, the OWN becomes pretty blatant. But the bulletpoints are: I explained my edit to the user[113]; invited the user to discuss rather than revert[114]; went to the user's talk page to repeat that request[115]; never issued a former 3RR warning; invited the user to offer their own compromises[116] - they declined[117]; warned the user about OWN[118]; so I invited the user to RfC rather than edit war.[119] Instead, the user edit warred.[120]. X4n6 (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    this seems like a good example. If I understand correctly, you're reinstating your preferred version that wally disagreed with (and which differs from the long-standing section heading). But you're operating under the assumption that your version is the default, and that the burden is on wally to convince you or run an RfC rather than the other way around. WP:BRD. I'm not saying it's not a totally frustrating position to be with, dealing with people with strong opinions about MOS, but BRD still applies here. It's on you to find consensus for the change (whether through normal discussion, soliciting a 3O, RfC, or whatever). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's start here, since this was the original edit that started it all. There's nothing controversial about it. Certainly nothing that should have required prior discussion or consensus. Actually, if you read the paragraph, which was mainly about the subject's education, including education in the heading was common sense. So the question becomes, was there a problem with the edit? The user changed it with this. New info and new heading. Perfectly fine so far. But now the heading did not include all the information in the section. So I did this. Then I realized there was enough content for two sections, so I split them and did this. Well that was apparently a bridge too far and the user reverted to the original heading despite all the new information and said this. That put us right back to the original heading, which, now with the new info, was even more inadequate. So I did this. From there I was reverted, tossed a misinterp of MOS and told I needed to talk to discuss this obvious - and obviously minor edit. Seriously? Sorry, by that point that's not RfC. That's OWN. But don't take my word. Read the first line under Actions. And if there's still doubt, this comment is an almost perfect mashup of lines 3, 4 and 8 as described in Statements. X4n6 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are definitely correct that you did not need "prior discussion or consensus" to make the change. WP:BEBOLD and whatnot. And just to be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong in your edits or that they should be considered controversial -- only that they were challenged by someone. I don't understand how most MOS disputes wind up getting so heated. I suspect it's because both parties see their edits as completely natural and uncontroversial, and they resent the other for making them waste time on it. But such is Wikipedia. I digress.
    WP:OWN is a very hard case to make here concerning active contributors, for better or worse. My take is that this is premature -- there are dispute resolution tools that haven't been used yet such that, absent a pattern across multiple articles and over time, I don't think you'll have much luck with WP:OWN claims. That said, I'll shut up and let other people voice opinions at this point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Having just become WP:INVOLVED in that discussion, I will note that I am also finding Wally to be very stubborn and very much insisting that his opinion is the only correct interpretation of WP:OVERSECTION - even when I quote the language of that guideline to him. With that said, I agree with Rhododendtrites that this issue should be worked out at the talk page. More people might be inclined to join the discussion if they aren't put off by each comment becoming an endless, repetitive argument - approaching bludgeoning. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Listen, in one sense, I've actually already achieved two of my three objectives here. One was to simply point out to folks - and to this user - that they were being... what I'll charitably call problematic. And to say that certain behavior will land you here. Which is never any fun for anyone. But when it becomes clear that the other user isn't really warring with you - so much as they're acting as the "guardian" of their views about an article - or a rule or guideline - that needs to be addressed or "enforced," then you've got a real problem. So, many thanks to Rhododendrites and MelanieN for your input. Especially to MelanieN, because you actually dipped your toe in the water and saw firsthand what I was dealing with. But the third part of what I wanted still hasn't happened? What happens next with this user? If all that happens is we all agreed with nary a word or action re: this user, then what was the point? And what exactly does he learn going forward? And what incentive or deterrent is there moving forward? As I said early, I noticed this user got a 72hr block for warring just a few months ago. But that obviously didn't alter behavior. I haven't done a dive into his edit log, but everything tells me this wasn't some isolated recurrence with just me. I'm guessing there are lots more alleged WP/MOS grievances, and unreported warring. And if nothing happens now, there'll certainly be more. And this kind of stuff is a prime reason why folks get chased off the project. When their joy in editing gets unreasonably disrupted. X4n6 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hard Rock Genre Warrior Who Capitalizes Everything

    RANGEBLOCKED
    /64 Rangeblocked by Widr for two weeks. (non-admin closure) --Jack Frost (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Somebody using IPs from Victoria, Canada, has been genre-warring in music articles for the past nine months, in many cases adding the hard rock genre, and in every case Using Far Too Many Capitals.[121][122][123][124] This person has been warned many times but has never communicated by way of edit summary or talk page. Can we get this person's attention by blocking Special:Contributions/2001:569:BDB7:AB00:0:0:0:0/64? Or whatever you think will work. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Widr (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive behavior — MSBS Grot article

    Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Warned Military Galaxy Brain on curbing misconduct. Left an article talk page note for further emphasis. El_C 06:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'd like to report disruptive behavior on the FB MSBS Grot article. User Military Galaxy Brain has re-added disputed text [125], which was recently added by IP 91.237.86.201 and subsequently reverted for reasons stated on the article's talk page. What's most concerning are the personal attacks involved, first by the IP (as summarized in an earlier admin report, here [126]), and now by user Military Galaxy Brain, who started throwing around accusations against me, alleging that "Polish Nationalists have vandalized this article" [127] and asking rather confrontational questions which border on personal attacks, such as this one: "I'm also curious as to why you're vandalizing an English language Wikipedia article when you're a Polish speaking Polish person"[128]. Also, what's unusual about user Military Galaxy Brain's account is that it was dormant since 25 Oct 2018, only to reactivate now for this discussion and to re-add all of of the disputed text which was originally inserted by IP 91.237.86.201. I'm not sure if this may be a potential sock, but there are similarities in the use of personal attacks, and the re-adding of the disputed text without gaining a consensus and without addressing the specific concerns which were raised regarding the new additions. --E-960 (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wrong namespace, confused user

    USERFIED
    Article moved back to userspace. (non-admin closure) --Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I found this article while fixing CS1 errors, the user seems a bit confused about namespaces and submissions, some guidance and a speedy delete might be needed. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevo327, I've moved it back to his userspace, as it's not ready for article space. Adam9007 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adam9007: thank you for responding. - Kevo327 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bernard A. Maguire - Today's TFA suffered persistent vandalism

    Please protect this page because after it was posted as TFA, IP vandals attack the article with adding wrong information about this BLP article. It makes a assumption that every day article listed as TFA, there is much higher of vandalism than usual. This article already requested at RFPP. 180.242.47.91 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. I beieve this is the third TFA in three days which I have protect from vandalism (either being asked here or at RFPP, because, surprise-surprise, TFA of the day receive a lot of vandalism. They are preemptively move-protected by bot, may be we should also preemptively semi-protect them for this day they are on the main page?--Ymblanter (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems sensible to me, but I can also see the negatives and contradictions in how newbie editors are put off when discovering that they can't edit the featured article on the main page of the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit'. RandomGnome (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How about creating a custom Editnotice to display on protected featured articles, explaining why the page has been protected and pointing them to places they could look to help out? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have always thought the TFA should be semi-protected while it is on the main page. We claim we are leaving it open so newbies can edit it, but how is that a positive experience when newbie edits almost always get immediately reverted? Not necessarily because they are vandalism, but because the newbie doesn't know anything about editing Wikipedia - what we allow, what we don't, how to do it. They are more likely to walk away in disgust than to be excited about having edited an article. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a discussion (started 2 February 2021) open at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. Narky Blert (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. I have no doubt that a brand new editor is very likely to have their edit reverted on a featured article. But it would be great if we could capitalize on that edit, turning it into a positive for the newbie by providing some tactful and effective tuition and advice to help them on their way to being a good editor. Becoming a good, seasoned editor seems to almost always be a baptism of fire rather than a welcoming, nurturing experience. RandomGnome (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't this already discussed in June last year, when we were suffering an LTA TFA vandal... Re. pre-emptive pending changes for the day might do better? It keeps both options (preventing vandalism being displayed, while allowing edits which are good, additionally having a second set of eyes on any potential edit by newbies, thereby maybe effectively providing some "tactful advice") available. Of course, if we end up regularly having to semi-protect them, that's a different story. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor using WP:AWB to violate WP:NOTBROKEN

    Mandarax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using WP:AWB to "fix" numerous redirects in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. The AWB Rules of Use say that users must "Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices". DuncanHill (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This sounds like a WP:COSMETICBOT issue, although I will note that there are circumstances where direct links are preferred over redirects, and mass-editing to effect them (particularly following a page move of the linked page) has generally been considered permissible. BD2412 T 02:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without knowing (or caring) about the content issue, I'm just supremely disappointed that this kind of think is being brought here, 7 minutes after your first message on their talk page, when they haven't edited since. You've always struck me as a reasonable person, I'm really at a loss for why you came running to the Great Dismal Swamp to tattle as an initial step. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      disappointed that this kind of think is being brought here – That's right, there's way too much think going on around here. EEng 16:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuck it then, just ignore me. DuncanHill (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DuncanHill - Oh c'mon... there's no need for that. Floquenbeam was just trying to say that they haven't edited since your warning on the user's talk page. No need to throw down the towel; Floquenbeam was just trying to help. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was "just trying to help" and I get the playground omerta called on me, and find I've "supremely disappointed" someone. DuncanHill (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you had discussed this with me instead of immediately running to ANI, I would've suggested that you read all of the WP:NOTBROKEN section, where it says "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect." That's what I was fixing. (Unlike you, who undid my edit and restored a misspelled redirect.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I don't understand why this is even on the noticeboard. I've made countless minor edits in the past with the edit summary avoid redirect attached. Mandarax's version restored. El_C 07:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I suggest that if fixing a typo then "fixing a typo" would be a more appropriate edit summary, and less likely to cause confusion? DuncanHill (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? It's a redirect, avoid it. Anyway, you're welcome to do as you see fit with your own editing, but I'm content with precision and see no reason to alter my longstanding practice. El_C 10:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The way this was brought here is highly deficient, and the edits are mostly beneficial. Just one thing, Mandarax, if I may; here you change [[Diego Velazquez|Velazquez]] to [[Diego Velázquez|Velazquez]], which means that you correct the part no one sees, and leave alone the actual reader-facing bit: preferably, it should either be the reverse, or both should be changed. Fram (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing that out. I do try to take care of such things, but there were a lot of changes in that edit, and apparently as I scrolled down, I missed that one. Higher up on the page I had changed "the [[Diego Velazquez|Velazquez]]" to "Velázquez", because there was already a link to him in the previous sentence (and the "the" was extraneous). I've now taken care of it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated unsourced edits

    Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 10:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Since the recent creation of their account, this user has made mass unsourced edits to articles and though I have exhausted every avenue (edit summarized reversions, talk page warnings and personal pleas) in attempting to explain the importance of WP:V (especially WP:CATV), this user has flat out ignored me and continues relentlessly. This, the most recent. Here are some other examples of their disruptive behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. In the last example (no 5) they are changing sourced info to their own unsourced addition. I'd greatly appreciate some administrative assistance. Robvanvee 09:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:NOTHERE editing by User:HistoryOfTurkic

    1. Wrote to a veteran user that he's as a "'lying stupid mullah".[129]
    2. Says to the same user once again that he's lying.[130]
    3. Writes "why are you Iranians Iranizing everyone?" to another user.[131]
    4. Adds heap of unsourced information to the Aisyt article. No edit summary/explanation.[132]
    5. Removed well-sourced content from the Afsharid dynasty article that stated that the dynasty was Iranian. No edit summary/explanation.[133]

    Looking at the compelling evidence, i.e. the major violations of WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE, WP:VER (amongst others), its safe to say that this user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also do we think this is an account created solely to harass User:HistoryofIran? Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. And agreed, this looks like this is an account solely to troll/attack HistoryofIran. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about the exact origin of this (though I don't think it really matters), but I am of the opinion that this recent wave of harassment against HistoryofIran —see User talk:Ali banu sistani (final warning) and User talk:KY-Acc (indeffed with talk page disabled)— is to be dealt with extreme prejudice. El_C 14:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I'll keep an eye on it, however my editing areas don't much cross there. I'll add HoI's talk page to my watchlist just as a lookout. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done the same. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by User:Rage476

    (See sock investigation here.)

    Made an edit request regarding the "parents of Timur" on the Teahouse[135] as Rage476's previous socks had done.[136][137][138][139] Also note the similar English language difficulties.

    I had opened a sockpuppet investigation a few weeks ago regarding this, but it didn't get any attention. I'd normally drop the matter, but looking at the history and talk page of an article they created, I'm seeing several editors having their time wasted trying to clean up JUDDHO's work.

    This besides the fact that the user has serious competency issues[140] and has a habit of removing deletion tags.[141][142][143]
    Alivardi (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks,  Confirmed, done. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CANVASS regarding Mary Ann Mansigh

    User:Ema--or seems to be getting a bit carried away with the promotion of Mary Ann Mansigh.

    This involves WP:BLUDGEON of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ann Mansigh and it's talk page, and also Talk:Mary Ann Mansigh.

    Plus more seriously, WP:CANVASS of potentially at least these projects:

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj cheetham (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this here before any substantive discussion with the editor?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ema--or advised how to post a neutral notification of AfD's to Wikiprojects. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    anti-Semitic remarks directed at editor?

    Bad faith report, just someone trying to make HEB's life incrementally harder. IP rangeblocked by NRP as a blocked proxy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Does this remark by Horse Eye's Back directed at PailSimon classify as covert anti-Semitism? The topic at hand was unrelated to Hebrew/Judaism/Israeli topics, but one that is related to slurs on an article (anti-Georgian) that is currently disputed between the two. As a Jew, I can't count enough times as to when a non-Jewish person have used phrases like those as an ad hominem attack to put down someone with Jewish ancestry or when discussing about Jewish topics. Thank you. 172.93.146.211 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you referring to the use of the Yiddish term, Oy vey (translation: "woe is me!")? I have used it myself, and I am neither Jewish nor anti-semitic? Britishfinance (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be absolutely shocked if this was a new user. I’d be even more shocked if they can make a cogent argument that the way I speak is anti-semitic but I’d like to see it made, I’d find it infinitely amusing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's entirely possible HEB is a Mel Brooks fan. There is a point when we have to just accept that not everything that could be offensive in some context is always offensive. Springee (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oy vey" seems too incidental to be considered an anti-Semitic remark. Would saying "For Pete's sake" be considered anti-Christian?—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Problem editor

    Blocked indefinitely. El_C 22:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An editor named Fumarolo has been making largely problematic edits to articles over the past week. Most notably, they insist on adding the phrase "hash dealer" to the introduction of Doug Ford, ahead of even mentioning the political office that actually makes him a Wikipedia article topic in the first place, and have repeatedly editwarred over it anytime anybody has reverted them — however, they've also insisted on adding the phrase "convicted drug dealer" to the introductions of marijuana legalization activists who were convicted of mere technicalities (like passing around one joint in a social setting) during the transition phase around the legalization of marijuana in Canada, adding content to Justin Trudeau that alleges he's a closet bisexual just because he once held a meet-and-greet in a gay bar during Pride, claiming (without sources) that Canadian politician Hazel McCallion is not known as either "Hazel" or "McCallion", but only by a monomymous use of her maiden name "Journeaux", and other weird and non-neutral stuff. In just one week of editing as a registered member, they've already accumulated one 31-hour editblock, and very few of their edits have gone unreverted by somebody.

    However, as a person who's been involved in some of the reverting, I don't want to just impose a longer-term editblock myself, so as to avoid the appearance of misusing administrative tools to get the upper hand in an edit dispute. Accordingly, I wanted to ask if somebody else could review their edit history to determine if a longer-term or permanent editblock is warranted. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a WP:NOTHERE & WP:CIR situation. The editor-in-question should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Failing to drop the stick and other disruption at Talk:Wright Flyer

    Hi everyone! I'm here to discuss the editing behavior of Wright Stuf and the user's failure to drop the stick on Talk:Wright Flyer, as well as their continued disruption on the page. This issue was first brought to my attention on my user talk page here by BilCat. Wright Stuf and other editors have been engaging in discussion on the article's talk page here, but it has quickly turned into finger-pointing, incivility, and other drama - and I believe this to be mostly caused by Wright Stuf. If you see their user talk page here, it is littered full of warnings, requests to drop the stick, and requests for the user to stop their disruption there. It hasn't stopped, and I believe that action is required in order to put a stop to the disruption. I'm not sure exactly how I should go about handling this properly, so I'm turning to the community for input. Should this user be partially blocked from the article's talk page? But then, in my mind, the discussion and finger-pointing will just move elsewhere. If I fully-block the user, I fear that it'll just continue after the block expires, and will only set them off and make them cause further disruption. How should I go about handling this? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    He's way over 3RR. Far too invested in his own notions to collaborate. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone reviewing that case can clearly see that I Dropped the Stick and walked away 3 times. Each time in my absence, my posts were tampered with. It is my GREATEST DESIRE to exit that page. Exit cleanly. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wright Stuf - ...But you came back after others removed the discussion, restored it, and continued to edit war over it. Why? Dropping the stick means that you move on, and you clearly haven't done so. As evidenced by your responses here and here (among others), you clearly haven't discussed the issue peacefully, and you're continuing to push your thoughts when others have indicated that it's time to move on. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I committed to staying away for the remainder of 2021. I hope that Admins will choose to uphold WP:Consensus on this issue. Among other WP violations I've flagged.
    As for 3RR, I never once did more than 3 reverts on anything. Binksternet's claim is a distortion.
    And you'll all see that the MUCH BIGGER ISSUE at the root of the entire discussion is lack of Policy. This entire mess could have been easily avoided if WP:Colorization existed. But it doesn't. LOTS needing to be fixed here. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: pushing my thoughts...
    The part I have been insistent on since I walked away the first time days ago is simply that my posts remain unmolested in my absence. I see this to be perfectly reasonable. Especially since I was the one conforming to long established consensus. Established in 2014. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclosure: I'm the editor who first reverted Wright Stuf's addition of their colorized photo and their simultaneous deletion of the historic black & white photo of the first flight in two articles: Wright brothers and Wright Flyer. Their argument is based on the fallacy that consensus about photo colorization among editors in another article (Ilia Chavchavadze) compels the same result in these two articles. That's what they are referring to when harping on the idea "that Admins will choose to uphold WP:Consensus on this issue", "established in 2014". (Postscript: someone just swapped the colorized photo back to b&w in the Chavchavadze article, so the "consensus" there is not as certain as WS believes.) DonFB (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR violation at Talk:Wright Flyer

    Wright Stuf reverted many times at Talk:Wright Flyer.

    I count six reverts in 24 hours, or seven if you count the null edit which was technically a manual reversion. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    By my eye, those look like SEPARATE ISSUES. Never more than 3 on any.
    Furthermore...
    Permissible reverts on VANDALISM is unlimited. I made multiple requests for anyone to explain why my posts being repeatedly tampered with was not vandalism. My requests were repeatedly ignored. By Binksternet, among others. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:3RR policy says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Your argument is invalid, that you were attending to "separate issues". And if you read the policy page at Wikipedia:Vandalism you will not see any support for your second argument. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wp:VANDALISM is very clear on what constitutes vandalism. What happened on the talk page for Wright Flyer does not meet the criteria for vandalism. WP:3RR is very clear on how many reverts an editor may perform to a page outside of vandalism. 3RR applies to any page on the encyclopaedia, not just article pages. 3RR is also quite clear on the exceptions allowed, and the reversions on Talk:Wright Flyer do not fall into those exemptions. 3RR has quite clearly been exceeded even after the editor was warned. Yesterday Wright Stuf even posted the policies on 3RR exemptions on their talk page, so it's clear that they had read them. They have chosen to interpret that policy in a way no one else is interpreting it and continue to double down in their disruptive editing to push their editing preferences (preferences which are clearly against consensus on that talk page and are in my opinion violations of WP:OR, colourising an image is original research to determine what the colours were, their hue etc.) I think it's quite clear what needs to be done here so I have done it. They keep claiming they wish to walk away from it, if the editor returns to editing after the block it may be an idea to block them from the Wright Flyer article and talk page if disruption continues. Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Canterbury Tail - Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Canterbury Tail - I concur. - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dtt1 and Ashish Chanchlani

    Dtt1 is tendentiously attempting to create an article on this Youtuber. Articles have already been created and deleted as A7, and then created and deleted after AFD, and created with a variant title in order to game the history, and deleted after AFD. The title was then salted, but a Deletion Review said that re-creation should be allowed. There may have been a misreading of the DRV as to whether re-creation was allowed in draft or in article space, but it has been re-created yet again in article space, and has been tagged for deletion by User:Pradixicae. The current AFD should simply be allowed to run, but then Dtt1 filed a case request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which does not handle deletion disputes. I have closed the DRN request as forum shopping. This was vexatious litigation at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to add to the above, more name gaming about a week ago: Draft:Ashish chanchalani (see Teahouse thread 1 and Teahouse thread 2). That was not created by Dtt1 but by a new user who has since been globally locked as a LTA. It looks like there is a marketing push to get an article about Chanchlani created. --bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ashish Chanchlani. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Title Blacklist

    I recommend that Chanchlani be title blacklisted to prevent future gaming of naming protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think this would be a good idea. --bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic-Ban

    I recommend a topic-ban against Dtt1 having to with Ashish Chanchlani.

    DDP-Trooper1777

    Blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing concerning acute editorial incompetence and a failure to communicate. Moving GiantSnowman's drafts to the mainspace a second time is gross incompetence, at best, and just plain harassment, at worse. El_C 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    DDP-Trooper1777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is a user who is trolling, incompetent, or both. Their talk page history is littered with various warnings for disruptive editing - but my experience is as follows:

    1. I leave them a message about adding unsourced content to a BLP;
    2. They approach me to ask if they can help with my 'To Do' list (which is a list of my draft pages);
    3. I decline;
    4. 2 minutes later they remove my talk page post;
    5. They then proceed to move a bunch of my drafts into mainspace, many of the moves were botched - see histories of User:GiantSnowman/Isaac Drogba, User:GiantSnowman/James Finnerty and User:GiantSnowman/Toby Edser;
    6. I revert the moves and warn them;
    7. I then block them (as I misread the time of diffs and thought it was ongoing after my warning) and then immediately unblock them (when I realised my error and that they had stopped after my warning);
    8. No interaction between us for nearly 2 weeks until tonight, when they again move some of my drafts (User:GiantSnowman/Liam Morrison and User:GiantSnowman/Jake Hirst) into mainspace;
    9. I leave them a further warning, which they then remove 4 minutes later;
    10. They then move their user space into mainspace;
    11. They then leave me a message claiming they are "helping me".

    I think a competency block is in order. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 22:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had my eyes on this editor since they joined. I am going to go out and say they fail competence is required. I’ve come across many bad edits, they’re had a huge percentage reverted by many editors, but I’ve not seen anything that’s outright vandalism. I think they’re not competent enough to edit the encyclopaedia and are causing much wasted time and effort by other editors. Canterbury Tail talk 22:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They also seem to have a very, very poor understanding of copyright. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the issue regarding copyright. They are causing extra work for the rest of us (example: Draft:Stuart Bloom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). I recommend, at a minimum, a mainspace-block until competency in composing drafts is demonstrated or 6 months have passed with no issues, whichever comes first. I will not address the other issues raised, as I have not interacted with the editor enough to be competent to say anything (pun intended). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalism on TFA Grant Memorial coinage

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Another TFA semi bites the dust. El_C 23:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please protect this article because after it was posted as TFA, vandalism was so increase. This article already requested for protection in WP:RFPP. 36.68.187.181 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

    Neveselbert

    Perhaps someone else can educate Neveselbert (talk · contribs) about Wikipedia:Canvassing (specifically "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions"), per [145], he claims it's perfectly OK to only notify one side of a discussion. DrKay (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @DrKay: I have reverted my notifications to said side, in respect of policy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They've already received notifications. They can still read what you wrote on their talk page by looking at talk page history. It's blatant canvassing. All editors who previously contributed must be notified not just one side. DrKay (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry for not doing that, DrKay. Should I notify them all now? I have struck through the comment I made on my talkpage, which I recognise was in contradiction of canvassing policy and again, I apologise. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Horse Eye's Back

    The user in question has a previous history of WP:WIKIHOUNDING and was in fact blocked for two weeks for it on their previous account. He has continued this with me which establishes a pattern of behavior and a failure to alter their behavior even when given a lengthy block. I have mentioned this to the individual in question on their talk page but to no avail. He seems to have a personal vendetta against me, just as he did with the previous user he exhibited the same behavior with and was ultimately blocked as a result of.

    Examples of him following me to articles and/or reverting when followed to article include: 1 2 3 4 5 6 PailSimon (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks El_C, I see. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that my use of their edit history is well within the allowances enumerated in WP:HOUND and I *did not* follow them to all of the pages they claimed above (although I believe I have followed them to a few pages they didn’t name). If El C is saying I’m over the line and what I’ve done is inappropriate its obviously the last time I do that, but I will keep addressing issues when they pop up on my watchlist. I’d also note that PailSimon disrupted wikipedia to make a point with this series of edits [146][147][148] the last time we had a discussion about hounding. They professed innocence last time and I AGF but if this is how they want to go about things WP:BOOMERANG applies and we should be examining the totality of the interaction history [149]. I don’t know about you but I see almost no blue in PailSimon’s column on that editor interaction report and there is a shocking amount of overlap for an account with less than a thousand edits. I also note that this post here appears to be retaliation for comments I made at Talk:Anti-Georgian sentiment and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Horse Eye's Back, that's a fair response. Obviously, any (longstanding) watchlist items are fine. But, as far as that SPI report is concerned, as I note there, the behavioural evidence you've submitted strikes me as rather weak. Might I suggest that both of you stop with all of the back and forth there.? Seems markedly unhelpful for all concerned. El_C 02:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to the SPI report I had been watching that page for some time and can prove it because I thanked the OP [[150]] long before PailSimon was either informed of the report or commented on it. I ended the conservation there hours ago, it went on much longer than I’d planned and I have no plans to restart it. The evidence might be weak, but PailSimon is also strutting around wikipedia claiming BRD overrides BLP etc much like the socks did. Can we agree on its own that claiming that a policy exists and then failing to provide evidence for it as they did at Talk:Anti-Georgian sentiment#I made this just for you PailSimon (yes in hindsight I do regret naming that, I was feeling piquant at the time) would be an issue regardless of stalking or socking? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also assume you’ve seen it but between the first time PailSimon threatened to take me to ANI on Talk:Anti-Georgian sentiment and them making this post a now blocked IP opened an ANI case (above under "anti-Semitic remarks directed at editor?”) which viscously misconstrued a lighthearted comment I had made directed at PailSimon and attempted to paint me as anti-semitic. After that section was closed and the sock blocked PailSimon opened this discussion. That is an amazing coincidence. They also edited my talk page repeatedly [151][152][153] (I'm not counting the notice for this post, but that is a nice way to get a last punch in after being told not to post on a talk page anymore) after being told in no uncertain terms not to[154][155]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Theres a lot of claims here.

    1. "I’d also note that PailSimon disrupted wikipedia to make a point with this series of edits" That whole nonsense I have addressed on your talk page and it is inaccurate, I would poinit others to it.
    2. " They professed innocence last time and I AGF" I frankly laughed out loud when I read this. You did not assume good faith you were very rude and said "Don’t play stupid and don’t disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. " Assuming good faith my ass!
    3. With regards to the whole anti-semitic thing and the motivation for me filing this report. If I wanted to report HEB for "antisemitism" I would have simply done it on my own account, not used a needless proxy IP. I decided to make this report after HEB encouraged me to do so himself!PailSimon (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I called a spade a spade, I did however eventually accept your word as you are well aware. I wonder if you might name that policy were invoking over at Talk:Anti-Georgian sentiment (you know “You need to understand that just because you think you're right that does not give you an excuse to edit war without a consensus, please follow wikipedia policy and stop the WP:WIKIHOUNDING and disruption. The onus is on those challenging the long-term stable version to gain a consensus for their edits i.e you. I would also add that you seem very hysterical right now and emotional and should calm down.”[156] and "Repeating an obvious Wikipedia policy (gain consensus when challenging stable version) is becoming very boring but again (and for the last time) the onus is on those challenging the stable version to gain consensus. Lets follow this instead of emotionally spasmic reverts.”[157]) but never got around to linking to? Also notice how close you’re skating vis-a-vis WP:NPA with those comments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "I called a spade a spade, I did however eventually accept your word as you are well aware" - Another lie. You ended the conversation with "Nobody is laughing along with you. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point."
    2. " I wonder if you might name that policy were invoking over at Talk:Anti-Georgian sentiment" - As previously said I don't engage with bad faith editorsPailSimon (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you ended the conversation by not responding, you would have known if I didn’t eventually accept your rather extraordinary argument about how you found yourself on that page because a report would have been opened here. You’ve been engaging this whole time, seems like an awfully convenient time to stop. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Horse Eye's Back, you need to take a step back, maybe two. The fact that you link to Talk:Anti-Georgian_sentiment#I_made_this_just_for_you_PailSimon proves to me that you don't really have a concept that, just as a section header, that's not okay. It is combative. It is adversarial. It turns the discussion into a battleground, so you need to start reigning it in better. There's no other way. El_C 04:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What part of "yes in hindsight I do regret naming that, I was feeling piquant at the time” proves to you that I don't really have a concept that that's not okay? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was a reading comprehension failure on my part. Stricken. Still, taking a step (or two) back would be a good thing. You're antagonizing PailSimon, getting into all sort of rhetorical back and forth with them. All the while there's that questionable SPI looming large — how are they suppose to feel having to deal with you when that's ongoing? The problem with SPI is that it is often abused (unwittingly and otherwise), with a poor evidentiary basis serving to basically harass. CU is not a fishing expedition. El_C 05:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I get it. They bring out the worst in me and I really need to avoid them. I didn’t open the SPI case, I don’t think that its being used for harassment here but I do agree in general that SPI is an imperfect system on a lot of levels. Perhaps I am antagonizing them, it feels like I’m the one being antagonized but then again it would wouldn't it? The back and forth over the made up policy is silly, I’ve just never seen someone make up a policy and then stick to it for that long. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are, indeed, not the filer. Another reading comprehension failure on my part. What is with me today? Not to mention that upon a closer look, maybe that SPI report isn't that out there after all. Those Lori Mattix edits give me pause. Hmm, maybe I'm the one who should take a step back. Hey, we can do it together! El_C 06:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism on Parler

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Logged AE action. El_C 01:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please semi-protect this article, because vandalism has become more persistent and ClueBot NG involves to revert many edits by IP. IPs adding horrible words by (98.156.233.70), and so many IP vandals that adding nonsense words. It already requested in WP:RFPP. Pending changes already invoked in the page but there are still many vandals on it. 36.68.187.181 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Johnviz, sockpuppetry

    I blocked Johnviz for sockpuppetry. Johnviz plans to take this public, "we are going to use all our resources to bring this to the public and your donors". I have no opinion on Dead Talk Live or Johnviz for that matter; the block was solely for violations of WP:SOCK. I welcome another checkuser to review the technical evidence. Any checkuser is free to lift the block if they believe I'm mistaken. Is there any reason to notify anyone else, such as press@wiki? --Yamla (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to be a relatively ridiculous threat, as after previous similar threats, I have not seen onwiki disruption from anyone else than the editor himself, and his sockpuppet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While being preventative is generally wise, I'm not sure there's a need to contact press@wiki unless there's actual pertinent press activity. Myself, short of the many times I've had to contact the WP:EMERGENCY end of the Foundation, I've never really had any contact with them in so far as activity on en is concerned. No idea about the veracity of CU data. I leave that to those with CU permissions. El_C 01:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this person think SAG will do for them? Force us to have a (I presume glowing) article about their web show? 331dot (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jumping in as a WP:TPS (I have AN in my watchlist for fun). I watched their "show", and, first off, they said they were going to talk about Wikipedia for 10 minutes (as per their talk), and then they drag on and on for forty out of the sixty minutes of the show. Obsessive much? As well, they didn’t say anything new, just blah blah don’t wanna name any names (even though they said on their talk that they aren’t holding back), blah blah Wikipedia is discriminatory and all the content that people end up seeing is a result of the bias and prejudices of the administrators (which isn’t true cuz I’ve seen/written some articles that admins haven’t even touched yet), etc. Anyways, I see no need to contact press@wiki for now. However, I think someone needs to have a message on standby as they have alluded to the fact that they will be making this "public" and that Wikipedia will be one of the main focuses of their show and blog until this is resolved, which could take a while. The reasoning that it might take a while is because I’m pretty sure they just invited their viewers to edit the draft articles and "demand" that it be "listed" as an article. And then they have the audacity to say "but I didn’t tell you all to do that, just a suggestion". D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 03:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite claiming to have 300k ""followers"" they get ~ 50 views on YouTube, about 500 on Instagram about 250 on Facebook and probably a few hundred more on the other services I couldn't be bothered to check so realistically what, 1000 active followers? How many of them are going to volunteer their time to trying to get an advert for this show onto Wikipedia having listened to a 40 minute rant instead of the podcast content they wanted to listen to? Maybe one or two if they're lucky? as I said above I very much doubt this is going to result in anything, maybe we'll have to delete or protect some drafts. A random internet nobody with 1000 viewers isn't going to need a WMF response even if they do go "Public". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    300k? Ha, try half a million. They "bragged" about it on their UTP. I found it hilarious why they would even bring it up in the first place. As well, I was the only one in their Twitter livestream (not kidding when I say that it said "1 Viewer" at the bottom). Adding onto your point: their fans are probably tired of hearing about Wikipedia for 40 damn minutes when they came for their daily dose of news. I don’t get why this person couldn’t have made a separate stream solely about Wikipedia, that way, their "fanbase" can choose if they want to listen to a grown ass person complain about one of if not the most popular online encyclopedia for 40 minutes or actual news. D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 03:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, this is as unambiguous a CU finding as I've ever seen; two accounts editing the exact same articles with the exact same material from the exact same IP. Conceivably, he could have been honest about this and clean things up, but instead he's lied from the start. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Fuaacena appears to be either a prodigious "test editor" on active pages or is a vandal

    Editor @Fuaacena: appears to be either a prodigious "test editor" on active pages or is a vandal. I happened across five edits to the Laura San Giacomo page made by Fuaacena which on the first view appeared to be "test edits". I reverted these changes and made a comment on the Laura San Giacomo talk page and made a comment on Fuaacena's talk page concerning these edits. Being curious about what Fuaacena might be doing, I looked at Fuaacena's edit history and saw a troubling pattern of suspicious "test edits" on numerous Wikipedia articles. Many of these "test edits" had already been noticed and reverted.

    Fuaacena's pattern of suspicious "test edits" on Wikipedia articles seems to merit examination with a view toward "Administrator intervention against vandalism".

    Osomite hablemos 01:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by 70.114.31.252

    This IPv6 range is repeating the same behavior as the now-blocked IPv4, disruptively adding wikilinks to redirects and adding unsourced material among other similar edits. User continues to refuse to discuss when contested, resorting to edit warring their preferred content. Geolocation of both the blocked IP and the /64 range (especially the latest IP) match one-to-one. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pedro Pascal

    The article Pedro Pascal is receiving multiple removals by apparently new accounts. There is already a report at RFPP that has been there for 10 hours. The article has been receiving vandalism due to Pascal's current popularity but it's getting ridiculous. I can't say it's sockpuppetry but I truly find it weird that every account that removes information is removing information that is not related to what they catalog as "irrelevant to Pascal's life" (this text, for example, is relevant and is not incorrect at all: "[Pascal has two siblings] Following [the death of his mother], he began using [her] surname professionally both in honor of her and because people couldn't pronounce his [paternal] surname"), and that every one of them is using the edit summary when removing the information. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)I reviewed some of the edits and consider some of them to be WP:BLP objections; specifically WP:UNDUE with respect to his father's scandal when they were sourced to references that do not mention Pascal. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    edit warring, personal attacks, threats by 181.44.116.104

    SPA on Nation Georgaphic related topics.

    And based on [171] seems to have moved on to another related IP. Meters (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    definitely on another IP now. See [172] by 181.73.146.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Meters (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Meters, another series of personal attacks [173] and [174] Ashleyyoursmile! 05:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's not Nate Speed, they're doing a good impression. These IPs are two different countries, so I don't think range blocks are going to help. Just report any new ones to AIV. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Zzuuzz, thank you for blocking. I just reported another 81.132.219.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to AIV. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, after the block I was wondering who the LTA was. Realized after my initial post that I misread the IPs and that the IP range was far too wide for range block. Meters (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Busy busy. Blocked – for a period of one week to the original IP, with everything disabled. Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Applied to National Geographic Society, Touchstone Pictures and Hollywood Pictures. Various revisions deleted. Let me know if I missed any pertinent pages to protect or revisions to delete. El_C 05:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @El C:May need to protect National Geographic Partners too. Didn't see this until after the above. Meters (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another 86.183.102.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Ashleyyoursmile! 06:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, now I'm remembering. It's that LTA, I forget the name of the master (is it Nate Speed? Bah, who cares), who mostly disrupts TV and movie studio pages and then evades blocking by IP hopping, all while delivering endless all-CAP screeds. I've blocked many tens of their IPs and protected many tens of pages (often for many months) over the years. It just has been a while. El_C 06:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    El C, and another one 176.88.93.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Ashleyyoursmile! 06:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, they'll keep going like this until they tire themselves out.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 06:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nate Speed (or as they call themselves "Nate Spidgewood") again? They're a funny LTA - semi-censored expletives etc. And of course the (angry?) emoticons D:< Pahunkat (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) AussiePete56 indefinitely blocked by Mjroots for legal threats. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    By AussiePete56.[175] Alexbrn (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Imjha1 - Possible UPE, possible NOTHERE, complete failure to communicate

    Imjha1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I'm not sure where else to go with this. This user has accumulated numerous level 4 warnings for various behaviours including pure vandalism, promotional editing and UPE. Their behaviour is perhaps worst on the articles that have now been deleted. I have no doubt that they have made some constructive edits but there have been a lot of tendentious edits on non-notable people like Zayn Saifi and Nikhil Sharma (YouTuber). I do believe that there is COI/UPE involved but the user has not responded to any attempt to communicate with them on their talk page about this. I also dislike their use of edit summaries, especially 'fixed typo' to imply that the edit is minor when it is anything but. User:GSS initially communicated with them regarding their paid editing and I can't see that they have responded despite clearly being told to cease editing until doing so. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the history of Mumbiker Nikhil and Zayn Saifi, I can see that this spam has been going on for a while. Do we know if Imjha1 is a sock of any of the previous creators of these spam articles? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User should be indefinitely blocked for violation of WP:PAID now they’ve ignored all 4 paid notice levels. SK2242 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) Marking +5,944‎ as WP:MINOR is nowhere near the record, but it's certainly ambitious. Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    New IP range block needed

    A six-month range block on 2600:1003:B0A0:0:0:0:0:0/44 expired a few days ago and they're right back at it. It also looks like 2600:1003:B02B:4C90:0:32:68C3:7101 is making the same kind of edits (example) but isn't captured by the original range. I'm not too familiar with how IP addresses work so not sure if the range can be easily expanded. Best, DanCherek (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Reblocked range for 1 year. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Antondimak manipulation of CfD outcomes

    User:Antondimak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been moving articles between categories to prevent deletion or merger during and after CfD, and mass reverting deletions of inappropriate categorization.

    See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#User:Antondimak evasion of CfD outcomes

    We have a strong restriction on categorizing by place of birth, unless that was both defining and notable:

    1. WP:COP-PLACE: The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual.
    2. WP:CATNAME#Heritage: The place of birth is rarely notable and therefore categories that designate place of birth are discouraged.
    3. WP:CATNAME#Residence: The place of birth is rarely notable.

    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the discussion. I have been transparent from the very beginning. I have made and maintained most of the categories for more than half a year now, and we are currently restructuring them to better fit with the established model. William Allen Simpson has been removing articles to influence the discussion, as has done before in similar cases (they mass removed articles from similar categories, citing different, often visibly wrong, reasons, and then tagged them for deletion for being empty). If they have a legitimate issue with the way the entirety of biographical categories work in practice in Wikipedia, maybe it would be better to address it as a whole and not target articles in a particular discussion to achieve a result.
    I will note that I have generally abstained from "voting" in such discussions, in order to avoid this user from dragging me into situations like this. --Antondimak (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also just as a note, I too don't categorise based on birth place alone. In every case when a biographical article mentions that someone was born in a place but then soon moved elsewhere, it isn't categorised by birth place. If I had been doing that, the categories would be quite larger. --Antondimak (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In looking at the other editor's talk page (who was not notified, but who has responded), it appears that this is a dispute between two editors who do not like each other. I am not sure what if anything the community can do about that state other than to minimize getting dragged in. I know very little about categories, but this looks like a content dispute that is complicated by stubbornness (which can become conduct) on both sides. Is there a neutral administrator who is knowledgeable about categories who can try to help? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I picked 2 articles and took a closer look:
    Clearly the two editors have disagreements both about which categories should exist and they also have a disagreement about how many articles should be under these categories. I don't see any attempt to override CFD consensus here though, but maybe I looked at the wrong two articles or there are category changes that don't show up in the article histories? - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclosures: I participated in some CFDs but don't routinely edit these articles. I generally agree with WAS's view of which categories to merge but am neutral on WP:COP-PLACE claims. I favor sanctioning Antondimak on the other ANI where the issues are quite different. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    2600:8805:A091:7C00:596A:C648:6265:473F

    Block evasion of rangeblocks on

    Adding age fields to infoboxes of television networks and cable companies which aren't living entities; earlier rangeblocks need to be extended and a new range applied to the new one. Coming here because AIV is slow to respond, and this IP always ignores talk pages and tries to do as much damage as possible. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 22:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks pretty fishy

    An editor named User:SarahAMatthews1 as their second edit to Wikipedia created a 18K draft article about Sarah A. Matthews, the former deputy press secretary to President Trump. The entire article is not built bit-by-bit, but is made in a single edit, all in proper form, with multiple references, all this from a supposedly brand new editor. Seven minutes later the editor User:Ogg Uploads, who hasn't edited since mid-October -- and has a pretty checkered history of editing, judging from their talk page -- moved the draft into mainspace.

    Since a deputy press secretary does not fulfill the requirements of WP:NPOL, I've nominated the article at AfD, but that's not the real problem here. The creation of the article has all the earmarks of paid editing -- or at the very least proxy editing -- by someone with a past history of Wikipedia editing, with sufficient enough experience under their belt to write an article from scratch. And Ogg Uploads' involvement is just strange -- how did they come across this brand new draft 7 minutes after it was made, and then moved into into mainspace when they've never done anything remotely like that before?

    There's something very fishy about the whole thing, enough that an admin might want to look into it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Who and what on earth are you, why don't you go back to trolling people about nazis. You are dead wrong. This article fulfills TWO of the required "NPOL" criteria: #4. The person has been elected or appointed to serve on a given country's legislative body or legislature on a national or subnational level. AND #The person is a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage outside their specific region. Which would be clearly apparent if you actually read the article you obnoxious, trolling idiot. This account has no affiliation with the object of the article, as stated during the non-autobiographical disclaimer. Wikipedia needs to dismiss this spam and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahAMatthews1 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment was posted in a newly-created section called "This suggestion is SPAM", but since it was a response to my comment, I combined the two.
    And in answer to the person, a deputy press secretary is not elected, they are appointed, and they're not even confirmed by the Senate, it's just a flat-out hire by the President. They fulfill none of the requirements of NPOL -- but that won't be decided here, that's what the AfD is for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SarahAMatthews1: What, if any, previous accounts have you edited under? The personal attacks need to stop regardless of your answer. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    100% WP:UPE case (even fully aware of BMK's habits and WP:NPOL). Britishfinance (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    OggUploads is also the editor who uploaded the photograph of Matthews to Commons. Schazjmd (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This article fulfills 2 of the so-called "NPOL" required criteria: (#4). The person has been elected or APPOINTED to serve on a given country's legislative body or LEGISLATURE ON A NATIONAL or subnational LEVEL; And (#7). The person is a major local political figures who have RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT PRESS COVERAGE OUTSIDE THEIR SPECIFIC REGION. This account has no affiliation with the object of the article, as stated during the non-autobiographical disclaimer. This is a viable article pertaining to a political official who has served in four consecutive posts at the national level, and been headlined in the Washington Post, Times of India, New York Times, and various television outlets. There are several pages which reference less noteworthy and published figures, such as "TJ Ducklo", "Brian Morgenstern", "Judd Deere", "Eric Schultz" and numerous other White House aides and secretaries. This article is equally as notable as a repeated precedent of the notability and noteworthiness of Presidential aides and United States National figures. This article is tremendously well sourced by reputable outlets which both contribute to and support this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahAMatthews1 (talk • contribs)

    @SarahAMatthews1: This is not the place to argue about the article. The topic is you. Please answer (1) are you being compensated for your edits and (2) have you ever edited under another account on Wikipedia? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Robert McClenon

    There are at least three questions here:

    I think that User:SarahAMatthews1 has demonstrated (regardless of whether she is Sarah A. Matthews), that she is not not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, and should be indefinitely blocked.
    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I actually have an outstanding request a WP:UAA for User:SarahAMatthews1. They have stated here they are not affiliated with Sarah but their username suggests differently. They, nor Ogg Uploads, have addressed the core issues raised both on their talk pages nor here. S0091 (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked boldly per DUCK. I don't think we need to watch this play out further. The user's comment below quoting from a 6-year-old Reddit post and refusing to answer questions about paid editing or COIs should tell us plenty. The user can address these on their talk page if they desire in an unblock request. Unblocks are cheap. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      May we have a look at Ogg Uploads? They moved the draft to article space within minutes of it being created. S0091 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      They've been blocked by ToBeFree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Robert McClenon: she is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, and should be indefinitely blocked. 'Support' as proposer." This kind of censorship and pile-on attacks are baseless and unhelpful. If anything Robert McClenon is not only not contributing constructively to the site, but is also actively destructively harming other users. This is a needless, unnecessary bully. A troll. And should not be heeded or taken seriously. This is the first post to wikipedia, and this kind of pile-on of attacks, exclusion, and censorship is hardly encouraging or acceptable. It has been said before: "Some of these top users in my opinion are a problem though. For example, they may be marking dozens of pages a day for deletion but spend unreasonable amounts of effort defending their own crap. I'm a pretty regular wikipedia editor and dealing with these power users is an absolute nightmare at times. There's good folks out there but there's many who are a pain." <----- 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahAMatthews1 (talk • contribs)
    • As described at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ogg Uploads, this is not purely about having published the blocked account's page; I found additional evidence by comparing Commons filter and upload timestamps with the content and timing of "SarahAMatthews1"'s edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would be tempted to delete the article as well, given that there's a 99% chance it was created by a previously blocked editor, together with the socking and UPE issues. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      As the normal deletion discussion seems to approach the same result, and a general decision about the subject seems preferable to a behavior-based one, I wouldn't take any speedy deletion action for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1006651839"