Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion, click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Remember to sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. Alternatively, you can click on the signature icon (OOUI JS signature icon LTR.svg) on the edit toolbar.

Closed discussions should not usually be 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.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives

Disruption by MWise12 and Netoholic at Boogaloo movement[edit]

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

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

MWise12 background[edit]

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

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

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

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

Netoholic background[edit]

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

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

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

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

June 26 disruption[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


In regards to the editing vs discussing, I apologize for being too quick to edit before discussing and will make sure to fix that in the future. However, I will point out that I didn't even come close to breaking the 3RR. I also disagree that we ever reached a valid consensus to keep "far right" in the lead. Just because I was too busy to continue debating for a few days does not mean I accepted your position. MWise12 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Your description of your behavior regarding Carrillo's Facebook post appears to continue to misunderstand WP:OR, a policy which begins by stating (emphasis mine) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Including this content to try to make claims about Carrillo's political affiliations, when the sources made no such statements, is OR.
    As I stated on the talk page, it's fine if you're too busy to continue a conversation. But the conversation was not just between you and I, there were other editors involved. Furthermore, if you believed consensus had not been achieved, you could have re-opened the discussion at any point rather than edit-warring your preferred version of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I reject the characterization of any of these edits as "disruption" - GorillaWarfare is simply using language priming to poison the well. GorillaWarfare has above admitted to violations of 3RR and cannot possibly characterize only one side of this as "edit warring" while trying to escape the same label. In fact, when content is disputed, the WP:ONUS is clearly on those seeking inclusion, and so any reverts seeking removal of disputed content are implicitly -less- "disruptive" than the reverts pushing the material back into the article. WP:BOOMERANG should be deployed and GorillaWarfare given a ban from the Boogaloo topic area for her disruption, edit warring, and misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    I honestly could not have asked for a better example of the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that Netoholic has been exhibiting, which makes collaborating them extremely difficult. In this short paragraph they manage to:
    • completely sidestep any discussion of their own behavior
    • call for an unwarranted boomerang ban against me from the page
    • characterize my use of the extremely commonly-used term in dispute resolution, "disruption", as "using language priming to poison the well"
    • inaccurately state that I've admitted to multiple violations of 3RR — I did acknowledge a singular breach of 3RR that was not only accidental but only a violation in the strictest interpretation of the policy: nearly 24 hours had elapsed and it was a completely different day, and the reverts were on completely different edits to the page
    • incomprehensibly accuse me of "trying to escape" the label of edit warring—I listed my own edits in the groups of edits I described as an "edit war"
    • once again misuse WP:ONUS; I've already pointed out to them that that consensus was achieved, and now they've shown up ten days later to unilaterally state that there was no consensus. They could have reopened the conversation or started a formal consensus-gathering discussion, but instead they chose to edit war while also handwaving at "lots of sources" and claiming that somehow ten days elapsing rendered the previous consensus stale ([6])
    • falsely claim that repeatedly removing the content is somehow less disruptive, in contravention of WP:STATUSQUO ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo")
    • baselessly accuse me of "misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC" — I was already quite clear on the talk page that I intended to fully review the sources and then, assuming the weight of the sourcing still supports the "far-right" label, start an RfC. I started this ANI discussion because MWise12 and Netoholic were continuing the edit war (which I will note I stepped out of yesterday) while I was trying to urge everyone to discuss the issue like we're supposed to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Verbosity does not equate to legitimacy. You've made your claims, and are certainly welcome to try and defend your actions, but how about you stop WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:FILIBUSTERING. You are not the arbiter of this situation - your determinations are subject to the views of others. -- Netoholic @ 19:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) It's a truism, I think, that muddying the waters tends to dirty one's own shoes as well... ——Serial # 19:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If you are going to make false claims against me, I am going to correct them. That is not bludgeoning. As for verbosity, well, that I am guilty of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, that was Netoholic, fighting over that caption a while ago? I remember seeing that. And now they're edit warring over "far-right" and that DHS statement? The evidence for "far-right" is so overwhelming (I mean, in Military Times?) that these edits are simply ridiculous. The argument for that Facebook post is ridiculous as well, and suggests CIR. I think both should be topic-banned from the AP2 topic area, and I'd do it myself if I hadn't just scolded Netoholic for some disruption pertaining to the Dixie Chicks. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Isn't it really time to show Netoholic the door with a site ban, after years of these convoluted extreme disruptions on a wide array of articles, talk pages, and noticeboards? SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it's that bad, SPECIFICO; I mean, I've seen, on occasion, some weird POV edits made from that account, but if you want a site ban you'll have to come up with a strong case. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Drmies: Understood. I do not have the time these days to gather diffs, but many of those who watch this page will remember the histories of his many previous sanctions and dramatics. The first one I knew was when he tried to edit an absurd definition of "philosopher" into our article Philosopher so that, among other POV nonsense, he could call far-right blogger Stefan Molyneux a philosopher in the first sentence. Fortunatey he got a TBAN and the article now says "Molyneux a far-right, white nationalist podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views." I mean, if anyone is inclined to post the evidence here, there would be no doubt what to do. Sorry, I will drop out now. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Drmies - "weird POV edits"? C'mon, that's so baseless its barely even an WP:ASPERSION. In the specific case of the article being discussed here, its clear from the current talk page discussion that the situation is not so cut-and-dry, and that there are valid points on either side. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Shit, SPECIFICO, you're right, and I remember that Molyneux nonsense. And I looked through the history (where I didn't find myself, not in that dispute), and that's like a time sink of 1500 edits. For the record, I closed a tiny discussion, see Talk page, Archive 8, not involving Netoholic. Yeah, I support an AP2 ban, at the very least. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • SPECIFICO, An AP2 ban is much more likely to fly. Guy (help!) 22:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I hope that also will cover things like "bias of Wikipedia" and race and gender issues. Those are the only article page areas in which I've encountered him. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Netoholic challenged the label "right-wing" on boogaloos and the photo of Hawaiian shirts with military garb and guns. Both of these are very well documented. Back in 2014, the diff SPECIFICO was looking for was this one where Netoholic gives a right-wing racist his own platform to define himself in a friendly manner as a philosopher. These sorts of edits make me conclude that Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence. How low must he go before we ban him? I think we're there already. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No idea why you pulled a random single edit diff out to make your point when you should have linked to the full RfC on use of "philosopher" which, by the way was -not- a landslide, but resulted in not using it - a decision I disagreed with and yet have upheld as consensus to this day. That is the -same- as I did for the issue about the Boogaloo image, and what I would do for the use of "far-right" in that article if an RfC later shows that consensus. My god, get some perspective - not everyone who is skeptical of strong terms being stated in WP:VOICE is "defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence". Holy cow - is this what political rhetoric has become? No quarter given, everyone is the worst extreme? This is not acceptable behavior, Binks - its BATTLEGROUND and I reject it. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, no, that's not the same as you did with the boogaloo image at all. When that discussion turned out in favor of the image being kept, you went to Commons to circumvent the outcome by trying to get it deleted there. This is the permalink to the discussion at the time when you started the Commons deletion discussion; it shows that you only initiated the discussion after the discussion here on enwiki had ended with agreement that the image should be retained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Commons has its own inclusion policies and community. In the interest of protecting Wikimedia from potential legal and moral issues, I took it to that community to make their own determination. -- Netoholic @ 00:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    Netoholic, seriously? You expect us to believe that? Guy (help!) 22:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    @JzG: I certainly don't, especially not after this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have had a few interactions with this editor that have been unnecessarily uncivil and ended with both parties edit warring. I think a history of combative, acerbic and uncivil editing is evident when looking at Netoholic's history. They rarely discuss issues at talk pages and when they do it's rarely civil. I feel like they are disruptive and unwilling to change, at least in regards to subjects relating to right wing politics. They are uncivil, frequently accuse other editors of acting in bad faith and regularly involved in edit wars.Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Ah here they all come. Since Bacondrum is casting ASPERSIONS without links, I'll have to contradict him. The ONLY article we've closely interacted was recently at Virtue signalling after he'd first nuked the content then submitted a ridiculous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtue signalling which SNOW-failed. Things didn't go his way - that's the only reason he's piling on here. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
And right on cue for the vitriol. Case in point - doesn't listen, doesn't want to change, not interested in being civil. A disruptive editor. Have a short look through their edit history, the combative and uncivil nature of this editors interactions with other users becomes clear very quickly. It's not Netoholic's fault they are being "piled on", it has nothing to do with their own behavior, it's everyone else's fault that they are constantly engaged in edit wars and other argy-bargy.Bacondrum (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Just look at some of the bad faith accusations directed at GorillaWarfare above. Anyone who has interacted with GorillaWarfare knows those are unreasonable and unfounded accusations. Bacondrum (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah here they all come. I think that this outlook basically shows the problem. Yes, of course the AP2 topic area is contentious, but it's precisely because of that that we have to try and maintain at least some degree of civility and WP:AGF-attude towards each other, even when we strenuously disagree on matters of sourcing, weight, interpretation, and how to summarize these things; sometimes people with differing outlooks on the world can legitimately disagree on even the entirely-encyclopedic way to handle a contentious topic. You have consistently refused to extend that faith towards the people you disagree with on political topics. See eg. here, here, here + here, and here, just for some recent ones. --Aquillion (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The diff-less accusations against me in this thread are what is uncivil and wildly-lacking of AGF (did you see "Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence" above?), yet you don't comment on them. You had to go back a month to find 4 diffs in my history (of which none are uncivil and, in fact, one is openly compassionate), some others are trying to go back 6 years. Is it possible that this thread, like happens too often elsewhere in AP2, piling-on and double standards are being used in order to just attempt to take a chess piece off the board? -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmm I've seen a whole bunch of diffs by now, and I don't think the chess analogy is very helpful here. You're badgering every single person here--there are better metaphors to use. You're not so much a chess piece as a big concrete block in the middle of a busy sidewalk. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If I were silent, you'd say I had no defense or take it as a tacit admission of guilt; and the impartial readers would not know the context of why people might be piling on. I have the right to respond. Whats disappointing is that your analogy characterizes me as an immovable object which is simple 'in the way' - is that really fair? Is that how you AGF and treat me civilly? -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The very fact that we are here, and I am giving reasons for why I think you should be banned from this topic area, means I have given up your good faith. Isn't that obvious? I believe you have a right-wing POV, at the very least, that renders you incapable of editing our articles neutrally, of following our policies, of participating in a collaborative project which aims to write quality encyclopedic articles. I don't know what's uncivil about that, by the way. I haven't called you names, although maybe you can guess what I think about people who abuse Wikipedia in order to whitewash articles on right-wing, far-right, white supremacist topics. So yes, I think you are in the way. In hindsight, the Molyneux business six years ago should have led to a (topic) ban. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Just for discussion, is there anyone in this thread that you believe has a left-wing POV? And BTW, I am not right-wing - I simply think that strong POV language (sometimes anti-right, sometimes anti-left) in our articles should be tempered from extremes where evidence is not there to support it in our WP:VOICE. Even in regards to the original purpose of this ANI report, GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" - not even a majority - so our objections to its inclusion are at least reasonably valid (we'll see how the RfC turns out). I do nothing here on WP based dogmatically on my personal POV - hell, my interests are wildly esoteric and I don't even focus on political topics... unlike some editors in this thread that seem to dedicate themselves to that area daily. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
You could always acknowledge that you have been uncivil and disruptive and try to do better in the future. Refusing to see the problem isn't helping. Civility and collaboration are cornerstones of Wikipedia, they are not optional. You make it really unpleasant for everyone else when you make acerbic comments and edit war, and it's not necessary. Bacondrum (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Surely getting this many other editors noses out of joint should make you question how you are conducting yourself here? Bacondrum (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I remember butting heads with Neto last year over the Women-in-Red AFD thing, the NPROF thing, the WikiProject Men thing, and the Chairman/Chairperson move, among others. Neto was blocked in July 2019 for edit warring and after that, the account's activity was significantly reduced until March 2020. Plenty of good edits in March and April, but once they come into conflict, forget-about-it, back to the same old. Edit warring at Magdalene Visaggio and bludgeoning Talk:Magdalene Visaggio#Birth name; at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Edit war; at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, and see various threads on that talk page; improper use of SYNTH tag and edit warring over it at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery (1 2 3); plus, the edit warring described above in the OP.
    Neto's first block for edit warring was 15 years ago. Admittedly, their block log isn't actually as bad as it looks at first (I guess we didn't have rules about wheel warring before 2006), but it seems whenever they actively edit, they actively edit war. Three edit warring blocks in the roughly one year between June 2018 and July 2019, and since their return to full editing in March 2020, it's quickly become a repeat of the same edit warring behavior. And it doesn't seem limited to AP2. I think a sitewide 1RR restriction would help reduce disruption. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
In addition to or in place of an AP2 topic ban? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
In addition to, I guess. My concern is if it's just an AP2 tban, Neto will change their topic area but not their underlying approach. For example, the stuff last May through Nov was gender stuff, not AP2, e.g. [7], [8] (discussing [9]), [10], [11] (suggesting, for lead image of Woman, [12] and [13]), [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Now it's AP2. What'll be next? Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 18:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Those links are just discussions. Do you think my particular viewpoint on those discussions is what makes me deserve a sanction? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you really not see how your general approach is uncivil and combative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talkcontribs)
@Netoholic: No, I don't. Do you see any problem with your edits that are listed in the OP? Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 03:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
A while back, I too had experiences like this with respect to pages dealing with the political views of college professors, and in particular, with the POV that US academia has been taken over by leftists. (Or maybe taken over by Drmies and me.) It's worth looking at Talk:Political views of American academics, and particularly Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC about HERI survey and Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC on inclusion of HERI data chart, where Netoholic tried to push such a POV, and his position was soundly rejected by the RfC respondents. There are similar discussions at Talk:Passing on the Right, about a book that takes a minority view among secondary sources, and at Talk:Neil Gross, a BLP about a respected scholar of academic politics, where I had concerns about BLP violations intended to discredit the page subject. Assuming that WP:ACDS#Awareness has been satisfied, it seems to me that an uninvolved admin should consider using DS under AmPol here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I dunno, all those links just show me participating in discussions and expressing various viewpoints that at best turned out to be non-majority in the RfCs, but hardly radical. "US academia has been taken over by leftists" is YOUR words, not mine - I've never said anything like that. I have to ask - do you disagree with the ample literature that shows that the population of left-wing academics far outnumbers right-wing? The scholarly data that shows that its a widely-held, majority view. But since you have identified yourself and Drmies as being left-wing academics, I have to ask, are you seeking sanction on me just to WP:USTHEM? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I never said anything of the sort about either Drmies or myself in that parenthetical joke. And I never called you radical. My concern has always been your failure to adhere to NPOV (whether you profess to see it, or not). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Netoholic Look, I think all most of us want from you is to tone down the bad faith accusations and stop leaving acerbic edit summaries, basically tone it down, be civil - we can disagree without the nastiness. And don't edit war, if you disagree, take it to talk and have a civil discussion. If you can agree to tone down the combativeness I think everyone would accept that in good faith and move on without further action needed. Believe me as someone who can also get carried away (as we both did recently), it's better to try and keep things friendly. We are not piling on, we are asking you to reign in the combativeness. Bacondrum (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Britishfinance, wow. "fake news industrial complex" is way out there into WP:CIR territory - it's a complete repudiation of WP:RS. Guy (help!) 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Britishfinance, thank you for that note. Your comment on "22 out of 59" supports something bigger than the narrow topic ban just instituted by Barkeep49 (though I appreciate it, Barkeep--it's a good start). Yes, that's one of those things where you can't decided if it's incompetence or POV-pushing, but I disagree with JzG--that's not just CIR territory, it's irredeemable POV pushing. I just ran into another example of this, small but telling: the proposal (which is getting overwhelming support) to move "Dixie Chicks", which Netoholic calls "a fanatic rush". No, we need a larger topic ban here, per AP2, on all the political and cultural material. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that the "22 of 59" thing is bizarre—Netoholic has repeated it in several places now, despite me having pointed out that, like many articles, this article includes sources that are somewhat tangential and don't describe the movement directly. In this case that includes sources that describe: the meme but not the movement, the phrasal pattern "____ 2: Electric Boogaloo", and the 2020 boogaloo killings (which were originally not known to have any boogaloo connection). Additionally, NorthBySouthBaranof pointed out that I took a conservative view to counting the sources. A deeper dive into this is perhaps more appropriate for the RfC than here (link to the RfC, where I've addressed it in more detail), but it does seem to be a bad-faith attempt to portray extremely solid sourcing as a minority view based on numbers alone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Sigh ... Netoholic continually exhibits WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Paul August 18:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

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

  • Yes, I think Netoholic feigning innocence and claiming he is simply being piled on is gas-lighting. This editor has never acknowledged their frequent incivility or edit warring. Now there are apparant efforts to game the system being brought to light, at this point I think they are here simply to battle and push a right-wing agenda calling Wikipedia "part in the fake news industrial complex". After reading that comment and looking at the editors attempts to get around guidelines regarding images, I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks GW. I had not seen that. An(other) extreme action to take after being turned down at two fora. Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, that's outrageous. Guy (help!) 16:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

  • One last comment re claims by Netoholic that GorillaWarfare should be sanctioned for edit warring. I believe GW's history on Wikipedia speaks for itself, a diligent and high quality editor. If they have been edit warring it is for the same reason many people end up in edit wars with Netoholic - they've been goaded by a disruptive and uncivil editor who appears to be gaming the system. Bacondrum (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    To be fair to Netoholic, I actually believe the case in which I exceeded 3RR was primarily due to reverts of MWise12, not Netoholic. I did not pay close enough attention to how many reverts I was making in the time period, which was a failure on my part, and the responsibility for it is mine and not the other parties in the edit war.
    I understand Netoholic wishes to see me sanctioned for it (see their talk page), and I suppose that is a decision for reviewing admins to make. It does seem retaliatory on Netoholic's part, given they have only seen fit to pursue a sanction ten days after the incident now that they themselves have been sanctioned, and not closer to the incident when they could at least have argued such a sanction would be preventative. I've already said that I have been much more careful since that incident to watch 3RR and more hesitant to revert in general. I think this is evident in the June 26 edit war, where I stepped away after two reverts despite it leaving the page in a state that did not reflect the established consensus for several hours, and instead discussed the issue on the talk page for quite some time, eventually culminating in my doing an enormous review of the sourcing and starting an RfC to re-establish the consensus on the wording of the lead. If a reviewing admin wishes to discuss the incident more I'm happy to, otherwise I'll leave it at that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Barkeep's tban of Netoholic is good but insufficient. Netoholic isn't here to write an encyclopaedia; his agenda is to make the fringe seem mainstream. Tolerance of his behaviour is disrespectful to the people who're here to inform and educate the public in a NPOV way. Permablock please.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Based on the pattern of behaviour outlined on this thread, I would support an AP2 Tban at the very least. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    K.e.coffman, that should probably go to WP:AE, for optimum transparency and fairness. Guy (help!) 10:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I had the same experience that Levivich describes above: Netoholic repeatedly opened new "fronts" in whatever battle they were waging (so trying to get the Boogaloo image deleted on Commons after failing to find consensus here strikes me as completely in character) but also repeatedly moved from one battle to the next. I would expect, if they are banned from AP2, that they will stop for a while but will find some not-overtly-politics area to continue with later (biographies of European politicians? cycling back through gender/sexuality? etc.). So I do not object to AP2 but I think that a restriction that was more focused on the behavior than the topic is more likely to be successful; sitewide 1RR seems like a reasonable idea. --JBL (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • We were here 14 months ago not sanctioning Netoholic, largely because some people felt a pattern of behavior hadn't been established. The pattern of anti-progressive battleground behavior is much clearer now. Given the range of articles he disrupts, prior warnings, and comments like "fake news industrial complex", I support a full site ban. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


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

I don't think the above discussion contains the kind of consensus necessary according to policy to implement any formal sanction so if you want that I would suggest you formally propose something and see what uninvolved members of the community think. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
There was no consensus as to which particular sanction should be imposed, because the discussion did not proceed to a structured poll. Having reviewed the thread however, I think it's clear that there were many convincing arguments for some sanction, with no convergence as to which one. SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I think this needs to go to AE. There's no obvious consensus for a siteban, but the edits are egregious so a topic ban would be eminently defensible, if you can find any admins who haven't got at least some history with Netoholic to enact it. Guy (help!) 13:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Back to User:NVTHello[edit]

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

  • I left a note linking WP:Communication is required and urged him to read it before making any further edits. Lets see what happens, while leaving this report open a few days. Dennis Brown - 19:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • They still haven't edited, just wanted to keep this thread alive. Dennis Brown - 06:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Dennis Brown, User has attempted another unsourced addition, but seems to have self reverted after giving up on spelling the intended genre correctly. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    I know this is slow, but keep me in the loop. I don't want to block him just to block him, I've given him info, and I hope he will read it. If not, then he will force me to block me until he does. Hoping that can be avoided. Dennis Brown - 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have indef blocked the editor for repeating the same edits that got him blocked the first time. Based on the edit summaries, I question their ability to work in a collaborative effort at all, but will let the reviewing admin decide that, assuming they appeal their block. Dennis Brown - 10:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks at War of 1812 talk page[edit]

Reason for report
Personal attacks
War of 1812 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
My posting: [18:55, 28 June 2020][19]; Elinruby's reply: [Revision as of 19:26, 28 June 2020][20]
Requested remedy
Topic ban on article
Elinruby's personal attacks on me
Oh good lord. I see now why nobody is currently editing the article. [06:12, 24 June 2020][21]
I have little patience with wikilawyers who refuse to examine their beliefs. [14:33, 25 June 2020][22]
Of course big American bwana know better what happen to me!!!! [07:21, 26 June 2020][23] really understand nothing at all about Canadian history and you should not be in this article at all [07:40, 26 June 2020][24]
...You took an exclamation at your ignorance and tried to say I couldnt prove it...I was trying to explain how insulting you are but I see now that you are incapable of understanding such a thing. You know nothing, Jon Snow....This tells me that I have been wasting my breath. If this were a different article I would suspect paid editing or some other COI. You spout wikijargon very fluently, always inappropriately mind you, but well enough to intimidate many editors. (Bites tongue) Your responses are off-topic, demand proof of assertions that were not made, and never ever provide a source. This is contentious editing and what you call consensus of historians is a cudgel you use when you WP:DONTLIKEIT. I suggest you reflect on your behaviour. You and I are done with this topic [09:10, 28 June 2020][25]
You spelled his name wrong AGAIN....{God you are patronizing)...It would also be very nice if you discussed in good faith. [09:25, 28 June 2020][26]
I don't call you "pompous", I call you by the name you gave yourself. [20:53, 2 July 2020][27]
I still think you need to brush up on Wikipedia policies. [19:43, 2 July 2020][28]
I've been on Wikipedia longer than you have actually, and I have actually done some constructive editing, not just trolled on talk pages. [20:47, 2 July 2020][29]
So your comments are confusing again. [21:04, 3 July 2020][30]
Elinruby's attacks on other editors
it may astonish you but being wrong for years doesn't mean it's right. Talking to you is like talking to Bolsonaro henchmen, and I would know. I was actually going to suggest partof, but sheer exhaustion overwhelmed me. It's cute that you think you can keep saying there is a consensus. No there is not, because here I am. Exterminating "Indians" is not a good thing, sorry, and it's even worse when you fall it an atrocity when they fight back [22:36, 6 July 2020][31]
@Ironic Luck: good luck with that. I have no interest in debating anything so poorly enunciated and ill-founded, which furthermore betrays a fundamental misperception of what the hell I actually said. The change I was talking about in the wiki box is in a completely different section, so I am really not sure why you posted that wall of text? You have a nice day. [23:45, 5 July 2020][32]
TL;DR. Perhaps if you focused on specific points rather that grandstanding god help us another section. Meanwhile I see no reason why I should respond to your jejeune remarks about what you think I said somewhere. Improve your reading skills maybe. [15:04, 6 July 2020][33]
This is what you and TFD WP:OWN. Hope you are proud. It's really really sloppy [22:54, 6 July 2020][34]

Since this editor began editing the article War of 1812 about two weeks ago, they have consistently attacked me and to a lesser extent other editors on a discussion page. While I have requested them to stop, the abuse continues. Most recently, I replaced their comment "You are just trolling" with the template "Personal attack removed" (RPA).[35] Elinruby then replaced the template with:

Hard revert, TFD was just whining about his comments being moved, yet feels entitled to say it's a personal attack when I agree that there are ownership issues on the page. If the shoe fits, dude, but that is not what I said. Your bad behaviour is escalating. It must be sad to be stuck on one topic like this, I feel for you, really. But uh no, we not be deleting random parties to this war to please you. [Elinruby 23:33, 6 July 2020][36]

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

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

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

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

Yes, pls stand by... Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
<sounds of crickets chirping> EEng 00:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
lol, thanks for reminder; copla more things, then I'm here.. Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Tl;dr: Not much to see here, admin-wise: trouts all around. For Elinruby, a trout for allowing himself to be goaded into some intemperate language; and for User:The Four Deuces a trout or more for placing false user warnings.

Elinruby (talk · contribs) is a long-time user with 40K edits, and a major contributor to a wide range of articles; we have collaborated on translations and articles involving Brazilian and French history and current events. Elinruby is a consummate Wikipedia contributor and content-creator, with a 11::1 ratio of Mainspace to Talk page usage (Main=80%, Talk=7). He collaborates well on Talk pages, and is often the first to seek the opinion of others.

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) has been here equally as long, with 41k edits, and a 1::6 ratio of Main to Talk usage (Main=11%, Talk=67). I don't believe we've crossed paths much, before Talk:War of 1812 where I have 5 edits.

All of the links provided by TFD above are from Talk:War of 1812, where they have been editing since 2010 (34 in July). Elinruby has edited since 23 June 2020).

Apparently, the War of 1812 is somewhat controversial, as far as the question "Who Won the War of 1812?" is concerned, at least among Wikipedia editors at the article Talk page. (I get the feeling this controversy does not extend to historians, who hold differing views as they often do, but apparently among some editors here, it is a hot-button issue, with one dedicated archive even called, "Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?". Who knew? But I'm not that familiar with either this topic, or the talk page.)

Elinruby gets along with most everyone, generates a lot of content, and uses Talk pages to have fruitful conversations, often inviting feedback from others. That is typical for him, posting numerous Talk page discussions asking for feedback on content matters, as he did at the 1812 Talk page:

Six discussion sections opened by Elinruby at Talk:War of 1812 seeking feedback

Whatever this is on Elinruby's part, I see no widespread pattern of abuse. What I see from TFD's links, is Elinruby getting frustrated, notably by TFD, and lashing out out of frustration in ways he shouldn't. Elinruby should monitor his own reactions better when being baited, and pay more attention to WP:AVOIDYOU. That's him at his worst when provoked; however mostly what I see is Elinruby acting pro-actively on this Talk page to to foster collaboration.

Even when he disagrees, cordial responses are more typical of Elinruby's interactions, such as these fruitful exchanges with User:Tirronan:

Discussion excerpts from Talk:War of 1812

Excerpt from discussion at Talk:War of 1812#Check for neutrality

So as far as you are concerned this is beside the point? And yeah, it often does sound like excuses. But you say better-trained matters? Because I think there was one of those too. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Nationality aside, ... [ long response truncated ] To that extent, the single ship battles did matter, mostly to the long term detriment of the USN.Tirronan (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok that helps thanks. Elinruby (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Excerpt from discussion at Talk:War of 1812#Cited, but neutrality questioned anyway:

Yeah that is absolutely correct. They got crushed in the one battle they attempted to fright and, they went away.Tirronan (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Huh, think I disagree with you on that, but you do seem more famiar with events than I am. Which battle are you talking about. Thames I guess? The part I was questioning was "defence" -- standing in line and waiting to get shot was not their preferred tactic, but there are a lot of mentions of ambush, right?Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, got it in one. Confederation fighting methods were more modern than the line up and fight methods. Huge losses to a Nation's forces tended to end fighting for that nation over a long term.Tirronan (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD, on the other hand, is overly quick to criticize other editors, but has a thin skin, when legitimate problems with his behavior are pointed out, retreating into non-explanations in an attempt to justify his behavior.

When despite the heat in the discussion at Talk:War of 1812, Elinruby wouldn't bend to TFD's preferred content, TFD then placed an invalid Edit-warring template on Elinruby's User talk page (here; diff, perma) even though the WP:3RR criterion of 3 reverts within 24 hours had not been met. (Elinruby has three lifetime reverts at the article, one of those, a self-revert. In response, I placed this notification (diff) at TFD's Talk page to explain why the EW template he placed was mistaken. Rather than thanks, or even silence (probably the wisest course), he chose to make a snarky reply trying to wriggle out of it, claiming without evidence that he "counted more than three reverts", and avoided dealing with his misbehavior by taking on the victim's role.

TFD appears generous in his bestowal of accusations of bad faith and viewing the behavior of others as personal attacks, but unable to distinguish between an accurate description of unacceptable behavior on his part and a personal attack, when he is the one being called out. If he isn't getting his way at an article Talk page, placing erroneous user warning templates is not the way to gain consensus, or simply stifle opposing views. A trout at least.

Nothing seriously actionable here, at this point. Sorry it took me so long to get back; I need to move someplace that has a 28-hour day. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to thank Mathglot (talk · contribs) for speaking up. I have not been ignoring this, but did not want to generate a bunch of defensiveness for you to wade through. TFD's quotes above are accurate but out of context, and I can trust you to see that, right? For instance, I told him he did not understand Canadian history *if he didn't understand the link between Quebec and French-language instruction*. "Big American bwana" was in response to being told I had a false memory of what I learned in high school, not that I was even saying that this was proof of anything... Anyway. I wish someone would explain the distinction between balance and weight and fringe theory to him, but if this is a boomerang (and personally I think it should be) then I don't think the penalty should be a topic ban, at least not yet. And yet, several of the editors have been intimidated by him, and I am not sure how to solve that. I will answer any questions that anyone has, but that is what I have to say. And BTW, Mathglot and I know each other from WP:PNT and a number of big translation projects, but have never met outside of Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


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

  • 1. The article contained the following sentence "Raymond lost his life fighting against Nur ad-Din in the Battle of Inab in 1149." Norfolbigfish modified the text, stating that "Raymond II was killed fighting Nur ad-Din at the Battle of Inab." ([37]) After I asked him to refer to the source of his statement ([38]), he stated that the info correct, stating that he added a reference to verify the statement ([39]). The source did not verify the quoted sentence and I again asked him to verify it ([40]). In response, he stated that the sentence about Raymond II's death in the Battle of Inab is verified by the following text from a scholarly work: "Pons was killed and Raymond II captured by Zengi". I had to repeat the question, before he realised that Raymond (I) of Antioch was killed in the Battle of Inab and his death on the battlefield can hardly be verified by a text about the capture of Raymond II of Tripoli in a different battle. The example demonstrates not only Norfolkbigfish's limited knowledge about the crusades, but also his negligence when reading the sources.
  • 2. The following edit did not contain a single factual error, but it was filled with typos ([41]). When dealing with him, an edit that only contains typos can be described as an achievement, so I thanked it.
  • 3. He could not properly define the term "crusader states" although he had "completed" the article about them ([42], [43], [44]).
  • 4. During the review of the article "Crusades" I placed various tags in many sentences that he had written. He did not understand my remarks and collected them and his comments under a separate title on the article's talk page. His comments clearly show he had not read the allegedly cited books or misinterpreted them.

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

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

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

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

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

1. Yes, Norfolkbigfish achieved three GAs. Are you sure the articles were actually GAs? I reviewed the article "Crusades" during its FA candidate. It did not reach the level of a GA - or do you think misinterpreted sources, editorial bias and close paraphrasing are necessary to achieve a GA? OneOffUserName strongly supported its promotion as a FA, even sending me messages and pushing me to also support it - @OneOffUserName: do you really think you are in the position to comment on this issue? Norfolkbigfish's second "GA" is the "Crusader states" article. It also contained major errors - or do you think editors who misinterprete the cited sources and ignore major aspects of the topic should be rewarded? His third "GA" is the Historiography of the Crusades. Please read remarks by editors who are actually experts of the topic during the article's A-class review. 2. My communication style is mentioned in all above remarks. I wonder how would you react if you were described as a vandal after starting the review of an article or you were mentioned as an editor with a Catholic Middle European bias while you are reviewing the article? 3. @Ealdgyth:, you do not want to stick your head into a buzsaw, but I can share the Norfolkbigfish experience with you. For instance, review his last edit: [45]. I hope you realized that it contains not only mispellings, but also mispresentation of the cited source. I can edit the articles on which you are working in his style, because I am not an expert on your favorite fields of knowledge. Can you promise you will not take me to ANI after eight months? 4. Norfolkbigfish is described as a hard-working editor, but his readiness to manipulatively quote the cited sources is not mentioned. Is this the certain sign of a constructive editor? 5. Yes, I expanded the article about the Crusades. I added sections about the development of crusading ideology, about women's role in the movement, about the financing of the military expedition. I do not know how this changed "the subject of the article by stealth" as @Johnbod: claimed, but he probably can explain it. Neither do I understand Johnbod's reference to my complaints about bullying. 6. @Onceinawhile:, I have completed 70+ GAs (among them 10+ articles closely connected to the crusades) and 2 FAs. All articles were reviewed. Do you really think if I had reacted "extremely aggressively to feedback", those articles could have been promoted? In the closing note of one of the FAC reviews, the coordinater mentioned that "It's always gratifying to see serious concerns discussed in a collegial manner, as has been the case here." Norfolkbigfish's ignorance and negligence prevent all constructive discussions. 7. @Grandpallama:, could you refer to a single reliable source stating that the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch were created after the First Crusade as your above statement implies? Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
ANI is for behavior, not content, but I will say there is a difference between the conquest of territories and laying the foundations of the crusader states and the later establishment of the organized, (ostensibly) unified crusader state that occurred only in the wake of the creation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. As far as behavior goes here, if you really think you have the high ground, please re-read your preceding statement (Norfolkbigfish's ignorance and negligence prevent all constructive discussions) and pay attention to the fact that multiple editors are disputing that view. Not to mention the fact that said quote is indicative of the behavior problems multiple editors are saying you are displaying. The diffs you have provided, and the language which you are using, don't make you look particularly collaborative or collegial. Grandpallama (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes ANI is for behaviour, not content, but you made a statement which cannot be verified by reliable sources. I repeat that Norfolkbigfish's ignorance and negligence prevent all consturctive discussions and I also offer you to share the Norfolkbigfish experience with you. I will edit any articles you are working on in his style if you promise you will not take me to ANI. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Refusing to sidetrack this discussion does not equate to an inability to support a statement that I made. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Borsoka, hi. I'm completely uninvolved in this, and cannot profess to any deep knowledge about the history of the period. That shouldn't really matter, since we're here to discuss conduct rather than content. Above, I observe however that there are three very experienced and talented editors saying that your conduct in this area is more problematic than that of the person you're here to report. I'd like to ask you whether you have reflected on that, and what conclusions you have drawn, if any? GirthSummit (blether) 06:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I reflected on that above: I offered them to edit articles they are working on in Norfolkbigfish's style for months. If they could fix my endless typos, misinterpretations, biased summaries for a period of eight months without making sarcastic remarks about my abilities, I would be ready to accept their judgement. Borsoka (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Borsoka, I'm afraid that I find it hard to interpret an offer like that as being serious, or as evidence of any genuine reflection.
Let me try to put it another way. Normally in a thread like this, Editor A will start a thread saying that Editor B has been disruptively editing in a topic area, and link to CIR. Editors C, D and E will come along and say variations on the theme of 'Yeah, they're really disruptive, but we should give them some ROPE,' or 'Yeah, damn right, support TBAN this has got to stop.' This thread is unusual in that Editor A has said that Editor B is being disruptive, and Editors C, D and E have come along and said 'Actually, Editor A is really difficult to work with, whereas Editor B, while not perfect, is editing in good faith and has the capacity to take criticism on board'. That's unusual, and I'm not sure what to make of it - I'm inviting you to give your take on it. GirthSummit (blether) 07:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I maintain that an editor who is unable to make edits without 4-5 spelling mistakes, without misinterpretating the cited source at least once per edit should not edit. My offer is serious. Two or three editors expressed that they think I should cooperate with him and I should tone my behaviour down. I offered them to share the Norfolkbigfish experience with them for months. If they are able to cooperate with me for eight months while I am making typos and presenting my obvious misinterpretations of the cited sources, they are right. Please read his latest edit: it is filled with typos ([46]). (And it also contains misinterpretation of the cited source, but you stated you are not an expert.) Which is your favorite article? As soon as you name it, I will begin to edit it and I can offer you 4-5 typos per edits. I can also misinterprete any source, because English is not my first language. Are you ready to cooperate with an ignorant and negligent editor for months? I am ready to be ignorant and negligent and you can prove your ability to remain nice and cooperative. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Borsoka, we're not going to topic ban someone on your say-so. If you think that this is a good line of argument to take to convince people that someone else, rather than yourself, has a problem with collaboration, I don't know what to say to you. If you start damaging articles to make a POINT, you can expect to be blocked, whether or not anyone has taken you up on this ridiculous offer. GirthSummit (blether) 08:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
–Yes, my offer is as ridiculous as all remarks above. None of you have whenever tried to cooperate with an ignorant and negligent editor for months and none of you is ready to try it. Nevertheless, I am convinced that WP is a healthy community - negligent and ignorant editors cannot survive for long. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the issue - even if I think you are all wrong. Borsoka (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Another "ridiculous remark": You should consider editing in some other areas and leaving the Crusades page alone. Your responses here and refusal to consider the possibility that your words and behavior are less than ideal are worrisome, and as I look through the diffs, so is your insistence that only your understanding of the content is correct. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Let's examine the core of your first remark sentence by sentence. 1. "This is my field of training (graduate degree in medieval history with a concentration in crusade history), but I generally stay away from the topic on Wikipedia because of the strong feelings it evokes in many editors." Do you really think it is relevant in this context? I have never met an editor to refer to their real life experience or degree, because most editors understand what the statement "WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means. 2. "For an example, one of the diffs Borsoka provides here involves whether the crusader states of Outremer were established before or during the crusades (it's after, by the way), but did so by repeatedly tagging that line as "dubious", as if it were a significant distinction." You are proposing a topic ban, but you have so far failed to refer to a single reliable source stating that the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch were established during the aftermath of the First Crusade. Just for uninvolved editors my remark on the Talk page was the following: "The first sentence of the article is not verified in the main text. (Actually, it contradicts the main text, which says that the crusader states were established as a consequence of the First Crusade)." - interestingly Norfolkbigfish accepted it after three unsuccessful attempt to define the crusader states. 3. "Similarly, he argues in the talkpage about whether or not historians generally agree 1291 marked the end of the crusading period (they do) because of Cyprus, to which NBF replies that he meant the crusading period in the Holy Land. Borkosa chides him for not explicitly stating that, but the tagged text explicitly stated that." The problem is that I did not argue that 1291 marked the end of the crusading period or not and the tagged text explicitly does not say anything about the end of the crusading period. @Grandpallama: sorry but I still think your remarks were ridiculous: you shared an irrelevant detail of your life with us, you made a statement about the crusader states without referring to a single reliable source and you challenged a statement that I never made. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Sorry, I do not understand what "a one-way IBan" means. I rarely take other editors to ANI. If "a one-wy IBan" means that I will be banned from editing for ever, I will accept it. I have become more and more convinced that WP is alien to me. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
If I may offer some unsolicited advice, you're escalating quite quickly here and it might do well to take a deep breath. On Wikipedia, we are called upon to tolerate those with whom we disagree, those whom we think are less adept editors, and yes, even typos. Article improvement is not a straight line; but even setbacks can ultimately lead to a better final product. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
you shared an irrelevant detail of your life with us Are you fucking kidding me? You're the one who has repeatedly called in his edit summaries for experts to weigh in at the article talkpage. Then I identify my background (for the first time in over a decade on Wikipedia, in fact) in order to explain why I'm weighing in at ANI, and because you don't like what I say, my background is irrelevant? I also didn't propose a topic ban, and your characterizations of your own statements on the article talkpage are factually incorrect (i.e., the diff to the "vexatious tagging" discussion that you provided explicitly shows you arguing about 1291 and the Holy Land as if you hadn't even read the text you tagged); I'm starting to think I should propose a TBAN based on what seems to increasingly be reading comprehension difficulties, whether because of WP:IDHT or because of some other issue, both at the article and at ANI. Walk away and drop the stick, Borsoka. I'm already prepared to support any one-way IBAN proposal regarding NBF, as Serial Number suggested, based upon your demonstrated battleground mentality here and your refusal to even consider you might be the issue. Grandpallama (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
If you think an "expert" in WP is an editor with an academic degree, I think we do not understand each other. I still maintain that you misinterprete my statement about 1291. However, I will gladly accept any ban. Although I still do not know what a "one-way IBan" or "one-way IBAN" means, but I am sure you have been convinced that I have to be punished for my sins. Just another question, can I receive a badge or similar about my one-way IBan or IBAN to place it on my User page? Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
How is the view from up there these days? Dumuzid (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Borsoka, a one-way iBan means that you are not permitted to interact with, or comment on, the other editor named in the ban - that would extend to reverting their edits. It would perhaps give you a degree of freedom from what you seem to perceive as your duty to correct what you see as mistakes in their editing - if such mistakes occur, you would not be permitted to address them, that would be down to others. You can see more at WP:IBAN. GirthSummit (blether) 17:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the above clarification. Now I understand what will be my punishment for my sins. In the region of the world where I live, we are informed about the nature of the punishment before we receive it. I would really enjoy this punishmen. It would give me a place in WP heaven. Can I place a last message on Norfolkbigfish's Talk page before receiving my IBAN? I would like to suggest him to approach the editors who vote for my IBAN, because they would like to experience the joy of cooperating with him for months. He should not deprive them of this joy. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I generally agree with the comments above of Onceinawhile, Ealdgyth, OneOffUserName, Girth Summit, Grandpallama and others. I've been amazed at Norfolkbigfish's patience & restraint under a long-term barrage of abuse. I had lots of comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive1 his first FAC run in 2017, which rather stalled & was archived without passing. The 2nd one in June 19 is currently mostly invisible from a template lurgy now fixed - thanks Choess! - Ealdgyth, anyone? I think I contributed [actually I see I hardly did]. The Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Crusades/archive3#Johnbod third one also stalled before I'd completed comments. I think this was the first time Borsoka reviewed - interesting to see that he began "I think this is an excellent article, summarizing most important aspects of the crusades", and later "No, I am not an expert [on the Crusades]". I think this review was the point where things began to go wrong. I've always found Norfolkbigfish polite & pleasant, if inclined to let things drag on. Frankly I don't know why he persists with this article under these conditions. I haven't delved into my books on the recent issues (they are in boxes somewhere), & no doubt Borsoka is often right on points of detail. He had his particular angle in the FAC, but now seems to be attacking everything Norfolkbigfish does, which I doubt is right. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I think your comment is the first one properly summarizing the case. 1. Yes, for the first time I went through the article very quickly and I was impressed by Norfolkbigfish's style. However, it was also obvious that the article does not cover crusading privileges properly. I raised the issue and Norfolkbigfish answered that they are mentioned seven times - which was true: they were mentioned randomly, but they were not mentioned in the context of the First Crusade or its background. Everybody knows the importance of crusading privileges - so Norfolkbigfish's response rang my bell. ([47], [48]) 2. His answers about the political crusades also convinced me that his knowledge about the crusades is very limited. For instance, he said that the Aragonese crusade (proclaimed in favor of Charles I of Anjou) was mentioned together with Louis IX's crusade because Charles I of Anjou was Louis IX's brother (link to the whole issue: [49]). 3. I started a more thorough review and I realized that the article contains plenty of errors and stated that I oppose its promotion ([50]). Do you think FAC is the proper place to write a FA? 4. I also realized that his methods are not always fair. He stated that my statement about three unverified sentences in the article was untrue - after he deleted one of the sentences and added citations to the remaining two sentences ([51]). Later he went as far as quoting a truncated text (describing the situation in Anatolia after 1070) to verify his statement covering 8th-11th-century Palestine ([52]). 5. He also stated on my Talk page that my edits are close to vandalism. 6. Yes, it was my first review. And I was totally astonished that there are editors who obviously had no knowledge about the crusades, but they are reviewing an FAC about the crusades and are pushing me to promote it - I refer to Lingzhi2 who also commented on this issue above after Norfolkbigfish approached him for "a kind word". 7. I am not an expert. What is the difference between myself and Norfolkbigfish that I have read dozens of books about the crusades before starting to edit on this field. 8. Nevertheless, an IBAN would be the heaven for me - I do not want to deprive other editors of cooperating closely with the talented Mr Norfolkbigfish. 9. @Johnbod: just a last question, because you actually studied his edits - I am convinced that he had a strong pro-Turkish and a less obvious anti-Armenian bias. Do you agree? Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't remember being conscious of either, and would rather doubt it frankly. It might be some of his sources. He is at the least based in England, and until recently mainly wrote on English medieval history - I may first have encountered him in 2013, when I was (rather fatally) an opposer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House of Plantagenet/archive1. Johnbod (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. No, his sources are not biased. Borsoka (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Borsoka: serious question, because I'm finding it difficult to tell whether you are being serious in some of the statements you've made above. You've said more than once that you would welcome a one-way IBAN with NBF - are you being ironic, or was that said in earnest? GirthSummit (blether) 09:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have been always serious. Yes, I could accept any ban, IBAN, TBAN or what you think is a proper punishment. If I were not banned, sooner or later I would start to fix Norfolkbigfish's edits. I am sure I would make dozens of sarcastic comments about them and this is a deadly sin in our community. Can you answer my previous question? Can I receive a badge or something similar about the ban? I would like to place it on the top of my User page because I will always be proud of my punishment. Thank you all for this experience. I really enjoyed it. Borsoka (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Borsoka, we're not talking about punishment - we're talking about preventing disruption. Sarcastic comments are not a 'deadly sin' here, they are unfortunately commonplace (despite their being an ineffective way to communicate in a text-only environment populated by editors with significant differences in culture and levels of fluency in English). Your sin, if you have one, has been an apparent failure to even consider the possibility that, when half a dozen people disagree with you and nobody seems to agree with you, you might not be entirely in the right.
    Once again, I find myself wondering how much of your statement is in earnest, and how much is ironic - since I genuinely can't tell, I'll answer the question about a badge as if it were serious: no, of course you couldn't have a banner celebrating an IBAN. You would not be able to comment on the other person in any way whatsoever. No userboxen, no topicon, nothing. It would be logged here, and you would just have to remember to abide by it. GirthSummit (blether) 10:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Please believe me I am always serious. Can I celebrate my IBAN or whatever ban at the top of my user page? Can I link this thread to it? Borsoka (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Borsoka, I thought I just answered that - no, you wouldn't be able to 'celebrate' an IBAN on your userpage. I will propose that the IBAN be enacted below. GirthSummit (blether) 10:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: this is my very own private IBAN. Why could I not mention it at the top of my User page? For instance, "Hereby I announce that I am under an IBAN. I am really proud of it." Could you refer to a WP policy forbidding me to celebrate my IBAN? I am serious. Borsoka (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


I suggest that the community impose a one-way IBAN on Borsoka with regards to Norfolkbigfish. Borsoka seems to want one, it would perhaps help them feel like they don't have to be the one to address any perceived issues with NBF's editing, or feel the need to repeatedly open threads at various venues about them. GirthSummit (blether) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand the following part of the text: ", or feel the need to repeatedly open threads at various venues about them". This is my very first thread. I raised a theoretical question twice - it was not me, who revealed that I may refer to Norfolkbigfish. Please do not suggest that I took him to ANI several times. Yes, I know I should have taken him to ANI months ago, but I failed. Borsoka (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Borsoka, I was referring to the discussions that SN mentioned in his earlier post - that's why I said 'at various venues'. If you think the wording of the proposal is unfair, I'll be happy to amend it. GirthSummit (blether) 15:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
As I stated above, I raised a theoretical/technical question twice, without mentioning Norfolkbigfish. Am I reasponsible for the words of administrators who did not answer my question, but began to investigate the (still not existing) case? If I am not responsible for their words, I would like to ask you to delete the part of the text I quoted above. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Borsoka: struck per your request. GirthSummit (blether) 16:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. It is OK for me, provided my limited knowledge about the crusades and my disability to understand basic information in English do not require a more severe sanction. May I ask a last favor? Could you answer my question above, I would like to know which WP policy forbades me to celebrate my IBAN/TBAN/whatever ban on my Talk page? Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Borsoka, I don't understand your statement about having a disability - I'm not sure what you're trying to convey there. The answer to the second question is found at WP:IBAN - specifically, you would not be permitted to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly - a reference to an IBAN would be an indirect reference to the editor that the IBAN is with, and hence not permitted. GirthSummit (blether) 18:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not a native speaker, so I easily misunderstand English sentences - as two administrators and Norfolkbigfish has (!!!) explained to me. OK, this is a secret punishment which actually is not a punishment, but it is a secret. Thank you for the clarification. I more and more enjoy this procedure - we are in the Roman Age. Borsoka (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments in the thread. However, Girth Summit, it's not clear to me that Borsoka fully understands the IBAN or what it's going to entail, or that we've fully thought through the likely outcome here. From looking through the article history, NBF's work on the article is so extensive and regular that an IBAN is going to work out to a de facto page ban for Borsoka (which I wouldn't be opposed to, but which I'm not sure he realizes); it's not absolute, but pretty significant. I also suspect Borsoka hasn't realized that a one-way IBAN means he can't touch and/or comment on NBF's edits to that page (or others), but that the same restriction is not placed on NBF. From what I've seen, it's not going to be pretty the first time NBF tweaks a Borsoka edit. The repeated accusations of bad faith, the self-imposed need to "police" NBF, the request to put one last message on NBF's talkpage, the speculation about NBF's nationality, etc., all suggest to me that the nature of the IBAN needs to be clearly laid out to Borsoka and that admins need to be pretty unforgiving in enforcing it. Grandpallama (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, but I think the Crusades are pretty much the only area where their editing interests meet, so he may just have to stop editing on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to drive at. This IBAN is, in effect, likely a TBAN. Grandpallama (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I understand that I cannot interact with him at any area. I also understand that Grandpallama want to achieve a TBAN against me. I was considering to create new timelines about the crusader states and the crusades, but I and the comunnity can live wirhout my new articles. I really enjoy Grandpallama's comments - he is a main reason I am proud of any ban. I waited more than eight months to take Norfolkbigfish to ANI after he called me a vandal and referred to my country of origin and to my (assumed) religion in a negative context. Grandpallama is ready to expel me from any territory a day after I stated that his statements are funny or baseless (although I demonstrated above that at least three of his statements are funny or baseless). Grandpallama please suggest a TBAN for me. I promise I will never ask you to refer to a reliable source stating that the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch were established after the First Crusade.Borsoka (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Borsoka: for the record, as long as its a IBan and not a TBan, you can create any article you like (subject to the usual), and if you do it in your userspace, no-one else should touch it either. So it doesn't restrict you from writing new articles: just from interacting with another editor once they're in mainspace. See what I mean? ——Serial # 14:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Good grief. Grandpallama (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I perfectly understood it. Borsoka (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Nevertheless, if any administrator proposes a TBAN I will also accept it. Grandpallama, you have already concluded that my knowledge and language skills prevent me from adding value to the community in this area (crusades). Make your proposal. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I may be wrong, because I cannot understand basic English sentences, but I think this thread has reached a stalemate. 1. I am still convinced that Norfolkbigfish should not edit articles about the crusades, because his knowledge on the subject is limited, his edits are always extremly negligent and often biased. 2. I am still sure that none of the administrators who have made comments during this procedure were able to cooperate with Norfolkbigfish even for a month if he began to make regular edits in articles on which they had previously worked heavily. 3. On the other hand, I must acknowledge that I have been unable to convince a single administrator that Norfolkbigfish should be "rewarded" with a TBAN. (I was taught that a ban should not be mentioned as a punishment.) 4. I also must admit that I adopted a stronger language when communicating with Norfolkbigfish than it is usually expected in our community. Based on the previous statements, A) I am ready to refrain from making ad personam remarks on Norfolkbigfish; B) I am ready not to edit the articles Crusades, Crusader states and Historiography of the Crusades; C) I am ready to refrain from taking Norfolkbigfish to ANI for whatever reason, save edit warring or vandalism; however, D) I claim the right to review the three articles, but without opposing their promotion as a FA/GA; E) I claim the right to revert or comment Norfolkbigfish's edits in articles that I created or I proposed to be a GA/FA. I emphasize if the administrators decide that I should be "rewarded" with a IBAN or TBAN, I am still ready to accept their decision, because anything is better than fixing his edits. Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeated insults by Kyteto and problem with an admin[edit]

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

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

Links to the personal attacks are needed. What El_C said may have been misrepresented, as they did not OK personal attacks. Also, I think the removal of sources when such removal decreases the likelihood of an WP:AfD candidate being seen as notable is a poor idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, can you clarify what you meant when saying: “Also, I think the removal sources when such removal decreases...”? It’s a bit ungrammatical. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, I thought I provided links to his talk page comments in the first paragraph. At the end of the third line. In his changeset comments he called my approach to this hypocritical twice in the first one and in the second one at the end he said "it comes off as hypocritical, in my opinion - the fact that you compound that with the justification of "bad edits" also comes off as arrogant, in my opinion." I'm pretty sure he said it in other places to, but even he didn't that's more then enough IMO. Especially since I asked him to stop after the first time.
I agree removing the sources might have been a poor idea, but I wasn't thinking about doing the AfD at that point and I said Kyteto could restore them if he wanted when I realized it probably wasn't the best thing to do. Last time I checked though articles can be edited during AfDs anyway and I assume that would include removing badly sourced content. Either way, it doesn't warrant the personal attacks. Although, I removed them before I decided to do one. I don't think I misrepresented what El_C said. There might not have been an outright OK of the personal attacks, but they weren't addressed at all. Which seems like tacit approval to me. Especially since it was combined with the statement that Kyteto could say whatever he wants. Otherwise, El_C should have explicitly said otherwise. He/she was fine calling me out for casting aspersions, when I wasn't the one calling anyone arrogant. So, if he/she had a problem with Kyteto doing it there was zero reason not to just say so. BTW, Kyteto also accused me of intentionally trying to hide what I was doing multiple times for some reason and went off about how I was trying to miss-lead people with my changeset comments. Undid revision 966615420 by Robert McClenon (talk)Which made no sense. Really, most of the interaction seemed like an attempted character assassination or something on his part. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
If you don't want to be accused of arrogance and hypocrisy then stop behaving with arrogance and hypocrisy. Kyteto took the time to give a lengthy explanation of how your actions were incorrect without making any personal attack. Read and understand it. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Phil Bridger, that's well and good. Except I said already that I did and said multiple he could restore the sources. I'm not sure what's arrogant or hypocritical about agree with the persons and telling them to do what they want. Even if it was though, there's still a civil way to go about things. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I reverted Adamant1 on that article. It's never smart to remove good sources, even if it is trivial, when an article is at AFD. They are smart enough to filter the wheat from the chaff there. Dennis Brown - 12:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, except like I said I removed the sources before I did the AfD. So, I don't know what your talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
You know exactly what I'm talking about. Removing reliable sources then sending it to AFD is no different than sending it, then removing them. Your Jedi mind tricks don't work around here. Dennis Brown - 19:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Adamant1: it's a silly thing to edit war over, especially when it's clear that it's an edit-war rather than 3RR (meaning your two reverts would stil be considereed warring). the AfD will see that it all comes out in the wash, one way or another. ——Serial # 12:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Adamant1: I think the links provided support the conjecture that you have been casting aspersions. Maybe you're just tetchy today or something, but you are coming across as bellicose. We do edit articles at AfD, BTW. Generally we seek to rescue if possible. As has been noted, removing cites looks like the opposite of WP:BEFORE. If an article is to sink on the shoals of AfD, let her go down with flags flying and brightwork polished. Don't see much here to do of an admin nature-- Block/Protect/Delete --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, I never claimed I didn't cast aspersions. Just that it wasn't proportional to or in the same nature as Kyteto's and that he didn't called out for his casting of them while I did. Like I said in my original message I would have been fine letting it go if Ahunt hadn't of came along and chastised me for it without doing the same to Kyteto or saying it was cool for him to do because he's been here awhile. I'm perfectly fine with someone saying my tone could have been better, I'm not fine with me being the only one that gets called out for it though when Kyteto clearly did the same thing. The excuse of long-term membership by El_C wasn't a good way to approach it either. Also, what was bellicose about saying he could restore the sources if he wanted to? He was the one that didn't and continued the argument instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
When referring to Ahunt and Kyteto, Adamant1 wrote: Re sock puppeting. It doesn't matter if you are "individual people." "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. So, I warned Adamant1 that those two users are editors in good standing who may edit and comment as they see fit. I also warned him not to WP:HOUND Kyteto, but instead use ANI for any pattern of problems they may identify. This report is not what I had in mind. Needless to say, I stand by that warning, even if I did let Adamant1 have the last word (at length). Which obviously wasn't enough. But that very lengthy discussion on Kyteto's talk page, that clearly needed to end sooner rather than later. El_C 15:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
El_C, I have zero problem with you saying Kyteto can edit how he sees fit because he's a long-term member (although I think that's questionable when it comes to edit warring). My problem is with the part that he can "comment" however he wants due to it. Which your not addressing in your message. My original comment about sockpuppeting has nothing to do with it and seems like a whataboutism. I was just explaining to him why I had reverted him and Ahunt in the first place, because at the time I felt like they were working together to slant the AfD in a certain direction. So I'm not sure how it's relevant. It has nothing to do with or justifies him calling me arrogant or hypocritical multiple times . Let alone you not calling him out for doing so. When you where fine calling me out. It's completely ridiculous to act like there's a connection between me explaining myself and him saying I was an arrogant hypocrite, or that there was no reason to say anything to him because of it. It just shows he wasn't willing to accept my explanation and continued badgering me. Which you fully should have said something about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Adamant1, I'll focus my warnings as I see fit. You are welcome to bring that up to review, which you have done with this report, but I would suggest, again, that you move on from this and take my warning to heart. El_C 19:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like a very good way to handle this. I think it's fair to request that you be more balanced and fair in how you focus your warnings and to bring it up when you aren't. Telling me to just move on when I'm bringing up what I think is a legitimate complaint about how you dealt with something is rather muh IMO. Especially since you suggested on Kyteto's talk page that I file complaint if felt like things weren't settled or that otherwise I'd be violating WP:HOUND by continuing it. I can't bring it up for review like you told me to do and also move on from it at the same time. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Adamant1, I don't know what muh is, but this is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. If you're unable to move on from this, that is on you and not to your credit, I challenge. El_C 21:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I note that despite the original poster's verbosity above we still haven't been given any diffs of personal attacks, rather than valid criticism of edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your talking about. I included the diffs of personal attacks in my first message, at the end of the third line. I'm not sure how I was being verbose either. I thought we were suppose to explain things and people keep miss quoting me, or saying I didn't say things that I did (like with you). So, I felt the need to be more detailed. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)--Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I have read the diffs that you provided in your first message and still can't see any personal attacks there. Can you please quote the particular sentence(s) involved which contained personal attacks, rather than criticism of edits? And they were both edits by Kyteto, but you also complained about El_C. How about some diffs for that complaint? Phil Bridger (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Re quotes, for Kyteto
  • "You're hear complaining about being reverted several times, but you've done it to me in the same timeframe at more than double the frequency, so it comes off as hypocritical, in my opinion - the fact that you compound that with the justification of "bad edits" also comes off as arrogant."
  • "hiding that deletion under the euphemism of 'fixing' is underhanded,"
  • "I find it deceptive to be removing the autogenerated Undid revision xxxxxxx by yyyyyy from your edit summaries, as if you're trying to obfuscate your reversion actions from the log,"
  • "either your latest version of events is a lie, or your edit summary was, they cannot be both true. False narratives indeed,"
  • "you value your own opinions and actions to a higher level than diametrically identical actions being performed by others," "I'm sure you'd be mystified if I suddenly started telling you about the actions of random editors and how their actions should be transposed onto you; in such a circumstance I am certain you'd be unhappy. Again, a double-standard,"
  • "my takeaway from this is that your belief is, that when you edit content that's not the same, it 'doesn't count', but when I edit content that's not the same, you're counting it differently? Sounds like a hypocritical approach to me." Etc etc. All that is from only a few messages to.
With El_C the main thing was him saying "Adamant1, a warning: like Kyteto, Ahunt is an editor is good standing. They are entitled to comment as they see fit. Please do not cast aspersions." When Kyteto was the one casting aspersions as I've quoted him here as doing. Which El_C didn't call him out for. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • These aren't personal attacks, they are criticisms. If you can't handle disagreement or criticism, you're not going to have a good time at Wikipedia. Personal attacks are along the lines of "You are an asshat" or "You're a fucking idiot". Those would be actual attacks. Commenting on your actions is, well, commenting on your actions. There is nothing actionable here. Dennis Brown - 10:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see how what he said was "criticisms" or how the distinction matters anyway. WP:PA says personal attacks involve "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." So, I assume saying things like I was using changesets comments to hide my reverts, that I was lying, and that I have a hypocritical approach to this whole thing would qualify as personal attacks. No guideline anywhere, WP:PA, WP:AGF, or otherwise says bad behavior is just confined to saying someone is a fucking idiot. Him saying I was using changeset comments to hide things isn't just a disagreement either. I'm totally fine with someone disagreeing with me or commenting on my actions. That wasn't all he was doing though. Also, if what he said is just normal stuff that people on Wikipedia have to tolerate I don't see why El_C would have ever called me out for casting aspirations. It's kind of a weird double standard to argue that what Kyteto said was normal criticism that I just deal with, but then to also claim El_C calling me out for casting aspersions was legitimate and the appropriate thing to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Adamant1, I'm a lot more sensitive to aspersions about socking than I am about some jabs that are lightly interspersed in a very lengthy discussion thread. Especially when these are borderline, at best. Also, do you not see a problem with the manner in which you engaged this very report? My sincere hope is that you will be able to draw some lessons from this. Please rely more on your critical faculties and introspect. El_C 16:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
El_C I wasn't accusing Kyteto of being a socket puppet on his talk page or anywhere else. I was saying that if both of them were reverting me in a concreted way together to try and get me to violate the 3RR rule so they could report me for it that my defense would be them sock puppeting. Which is why I specifically said "I'd be fine making the argument of sock puppeting if" Otherwise, I wouldn't have just let it go after that and reported them for it. Saying "i'd be fine going to the grocery store if I needed groceries" isn't the same as saying "I'm going to the grocery store for groceries." I'm not sure how can say me doing the first one is casting asperations. Let alone that it is at all comparable to him calling me an arrogant hypocrite multiple times. There's no way me saying what I did was was worse then what he said, and if they were equal you still didn't call him out for his part of the arguement and should have. Instead of tacitly approving of it by saying he can say whatever he wants. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
El_C, quit casting aspirations and just wallow in the mud with the rest of us. Grandpallama (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Grandpallama I don't see how it's wallowing in the mud to ask for fair treatment and for people to be treated equally. Anyway, El_C said to take up the issue here if I wasn't satisfied with the outcome. I wasn't, so I did. That's it. Non-constructive and overly critical comments like your's are a big reason why this whole arduous discussion hasn't ended yet. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
this whole arduous discussion hasn't ended yet Really? I don't think you're reading the "room" correctly. But please, carry on. Grandpallama (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll stop responding when you stop writing useless critical comments. How about that? Like I said, I was over this a long time ago and I'm only responding still because of comments like yours. So, us both stopping seems fair to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Aspiration effect in casting: [53] --T*U (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hope this does not turn into Aspiration pneumonia from mud wallowing --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible breach of edit restrictions[edit]

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

  • Those editing restrictions seem to be withdrawn. Reyk YO! 14:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Didn't notice that. However, they first created this article in article space in February 2019, which would still be a violation. And if this is the standard of articles they're going to be producing, then maybe the restrictions were correct to be in place. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If that's the case then I'd guess this article was known to Ad Orientem when they decided to unban. But let's see what AO says about it. Reyk YO! 14:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm. A few points. I have provisionally lifted the editing restrictions based on a gradual improvement in their article creation. To date he has created over 700 articles. Most of those are stubs but clearly do pass GNG and cleared AfC. I was not aware of this list, but the BLP and general quality concerns raised appear valid to me. Regards the breach of editing restrictions; it's possible he may not have understood that the list was covered in those restrictions (I don't think English is their first language). In any event the breach is from a year and a half ago, so I am inclined to treat this as stale sans evidence that it is part of a pattern of behavior. As far as I can tell he was pretty good about abiding by the restrictions and I am aware of only one other breach, which was minor and treated as a no harm no foul event. Having said this, I am not at all impressed by this list and may chime in at the AfD. I would very much like Das osmnezz to join us here, acknowledge the concerns raised above and assure us that this is not going to be the sort of thing we can expect in the future. Lastly, I would caution Das osmnezz, formally, that editing restrictions can be reinstated if sloppy editing and/or questionable page creation starts to become a recurring problem. We all make mistakes and even experienced editors have had pages they created deleted. But I don't want to see this becoming a pattern. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping @Sulfurboy:... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
If the first thing this user is going to do is put this level of crap into mainspace, it seems to me that they've not learnt how to write decent articles. Most of their articles have been borderline notable stubs anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This is really stupid. That was created in mainspace back in 2019, probably accidentally, and moved back to mainspace on 3 July. There's a reasonable argument that the article wasn't directly about a BLP, and it's so far back that it's not an urgent issue. This should have been dealt with back then, but I don't support any further sanctions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I second what SportingFlyer states. AO pinged me to this as I recommended to them that the restrictions on Das be lifted. I have reviewed a few dozen of their articles via the AfC process and all passed notability guidelines with flying colors. Trying to nitpick on some year and a half old list article is a case of WP:DEADHORSE Sulfurboy (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see any purpose in sanction here. It might be a technical violation, but 1. it is very old, 2. it is possible that they didn't see this as being covered by the restriction because it wasn't an article on any individual. Any sanction at this late of date, under these circumstances, would be punitive rather than preventive. In a nutshell, if this is the worst he did while under the restriction, we should overlook it. Dennis Brown - 10:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • My 2p - one, this is not an "old" violation, he moved the page into mainspace less than a week ago. Two, and more importantly, we are missing the bigger issue here - Das osmnezz's lack of understanding and competence. I have seen a large number of their creations at AFC, some are non-notable, some are notable but in incredibly poor condition. It's such hard work tidying up after this editor. GiantSnowman 10:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Spam-only account[edit]

Account is blocked by the admin who reviewed their draft - the type of block is in their discretion. GirthSummit (blether) 14:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Status:     Done

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

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

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

Post close reply on block of BALA YESU SCHOOL--[edit]

Reblocked by Deb as a SPAMU. Which is fine. SPAMU places obstacles to article creation, so I went with SOFTER block and a COI notice. The subject may or may not turn out to be notable. Actually, it would have been better, User456541, to discuss with me before taking the matter to WP:AIV or here. Also, as this concerned an action I took, it would have been nice to have been notified me of this discussion. I also chose SOFTER in an effort to be less bitey. There has been a concern with driving good faith editors away with overly enthusiastic blocks. Yes, a SPAMU block is acceptable under policy. I just did not feel it necessary. That Deb changed it is fine, though. We all have different thresholds and different sensibilities. (I used to only block possible VOA's for a week. A certain other admin kept changing them to INDEF.) ANd I've made it clear over the years that changing an admin action of mine is at the discretion of any other admin. Oh good grief, I just saw the "vandal" label on the template. So much for WP:AGF. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see I did not delete the draft. It was tagged by OP. Once again, different sensibilities and threshold. The draft did not meet my threshold for WP:G11. Promotional tones, but I did not see it as "unambiguously promotional". That Deb deleted it is, once again fine. However, I don't see a single errant attempt to create an article as sufficient to brand a new user as a "spam only" account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess we've pretty much given up on explaining how WP works to newbies before blocking them. This is what we do to some kid who dared to make two misguided but good faith edits, with no edits after the first message on their talk page, in draft space, about their school. To be clear, those messages weren't after they continued to edit; they all came after they made their two edits. The hard block was a nice touch. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    I shall increase my efforts to welcome and warn. Yes, I know we are all tired, burned out, and sometimes COVID-adled (waves hand). Sometimes the easy thing is not the best thing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm being too harsh and snarky, sorry. I think I'm less annoyed that you and Deb did what you did, and more annoyed that this seems to be what almost everyone is doing these days to almost all newbies in similar situations. I mean, a rename was obviously needed eventually, and that's the standard template, and there were links to the teahouse, so this all seems like SOP. But if I was a newbie faced with a user talk page like that, after just two good-faith (if misguided) edits, with two different (contradictory) block notices at the bottom, including one that says I have to convince an admin that I'm not a spammer before I'm allowed to create a new username, I'd just throw up my hands and walk away. You don't need to increase your efforts so much as we need to increase our efforts. We have to figure out a way to differentiate between actual spammers, and new editors who don't know any better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It's been going on for years and years, Floq. In this instance, declining the draft as completely unsuitable for mainspace is all that was required. The blocks were superfluous. Either this is a kid who doesn't know how WP works, who would be back, or a spammer who has said their piece and departed, not giving two hoots about the block. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to correct this, because it's difficult to argue against an admin saying "I was just following policy, guv" followed by two other admins who say "yes, 'x' was following policy". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

. So probably it would have been better to just notify them of the user name violation instead of blocking. Will do that more and the other less. And probably need to raise my threshold to creating G11's instead of just promotionally toned editing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I generally go very easy on G11s in draft space, and reserve it for very serious piss takers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


  • In January User456541 was warned by TonyBallioni, as a CU, from continuing to make comments that aren't particularly helpful and are if anything distracting or disruptive to the SPI process. Praxidicae advised them against templating CU-blocked editors; Primefac warned them against unnecessary tagging.
    Okay, that was January. Fast forward to June.
  • On the 8th, there's a bizarre discussion, between himself and a now-retired editor, whom 456541 had twice attempted to speedy-delete their talk page, and when the retired editor came to 54etc's talk, 54etc accuses them of turning his page "into a Discord DM channel" and threatens to get his page protected so the retired ed. can no longer post.
  • On the 16th, they misapply a G11 tag which is swiftly contested. The same day, ST47—yet to receive a reply to their email regarding oversightable (or not) material—is forced to publicly tell 54etc that oversight is not for routine requests under any of the criteria for speedy deletion; further, ST47 notes that 54etc requested the oversighting of "Hiiii" under CSD criterion U5 (misuse as webhost). The same day, NJA warned them to take more care in their AIV reports, noting that he edits were not vandalism, but COI at most. Shortly after, Atlantic306 [asked them to take more care with their CSD tagging, which was reiterated by Passengerpigeon; the latter also offered adoptioon as a possibility. This was accepted; but has it stalled since the end of last month?
  • On June 22, Dreamy Jazz declined a G5, and the following day, Jogurney declined an A7.
  • June 25th, and Praxidicae again warns 54etc that he is continually making the same mistakes that he has already been warned about; her reply is a slightly bald and less than reassuringly unsigned "OK" four minutes later.
  • Last but not least, on 7 July, Premeditated Chaos reiterated previous concerns: Please, stop tagging things for speedy deletion until you are more experienced - the amount of people pointing out issues with your speedy deletion tagging on this talk page is really concerning reiterated previous warnings.
    I say nothing about the curious WP:ENGVAR instruction at the top of their talk page, but having been warned about misdirecting their actions into adminesque-areas in January, that they are still repeatedly making the same mistakes in spite of multiple warnings weeks on end, leads me, unfortunately, to suspect that they're not really listening; if they are, there's little evidence of it. (First things first, they could reduce the amount time (currently over 50%) that they spend on user/talk pages perhaps.) ——Serial # 12:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I should take a wikibreak to get more familiar with policy. –User456541 12:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm also trying to improve, because I can now spot G11 and U5 without any problem. –User456541 13:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
"I should take a wikibreak" as a response to all of these very valid concerns is not doing you any favors. Rarely, if ever does this work for editors who do this. We call that diva quitting and avoiding sanctions. You need to address each issue and commit by action to not continuing this. Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Bloody Hell. All I wanted was for them to understand the need to discuss with other users before posting to ANI and to notify them on doing so. Note Britishism --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

RE: "can now spot G11 ... without any problem" Well, no. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal TBAN(s) User:User456541[edit]

These can be implemented on their return. Due to the serious WP:BITE concerns, User:User456541 should not CSD tag anything, particularly WP:G11 or WP:U5 and should not request WP:UAA blocks. User:User456541 needs to leave other user's user space alone. Will definitely need to discuss with any user before going to any noticeboard. User:User456541 should restrict themselves to article improvement. There's enough work to be done here to last a lifetime-- Wikipedia:Community_portal (Feel free to add if needed.)

(Amending to add recent changes patrolling. Not convinced they have the experience for that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC))


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

Guy, or you can save everyone some time and just AE ban that topic area per WP:ARBPS. I would support. El_C 16:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
We've already discussed taking Belteshazzar to ArbEnf. There's no need for discussion here. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
"over a year" is misleading, as I edited very rarely until March of this year.
Please note that I asked an optometrist for help, which I obviously wouldn't do if I were advocating for the Bates method. (He has not yet responded, probably because he knows of no better sources.)
Most recently, I simply tried to more accurately reflect an already cited source and sources it cites, which say there is sometimes an improvement of more than two lines in acuity from the initial blur after glasses are removed. That would seem to be more than "slight". Belteshazzar (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
As far as the claim that I advocate for "sources that fail RS (and especially MEDRS), blatant WP:SYN", this is applied quite inconsistently in the current Bates method article. A reference to pseudomyopia is excluded because the source does not quite connect it to the Bates method specifically, whereas other sources cited in the article do not specifically connect the Bates method to things they are cited for. Sources from 1943 and 1957 are used to source a key point about why the Bates method might sometimes seem to work, but a 1952 source by Elwin Marg is rejected insofar as another such point is concerned. Belteshazzar (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I was going to sit on the fence for this one, but with the suggestion[54] that "short-lasting" might not mean "temporary" because of some unspecified "context", I think a line has been crossed. I think it would be good for everybody if Belteshazzar could focus on other areas of the Project than the Bates method. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Did you see my response here? I do believe the intended meaning was likely a bit different, but I acknowledge that it does indeed appear to say what you think it does, and I certainly won't try to impose my interpretation on the article. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The trouble is that in creating pointless discussions, editors' time, the most valuable resource the Project has, is being wasted. Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
        • If we're going to talk about people's time being wasted, the current article will likely not dissuade readers from wasting their time with the Bates method. If pseudomyopia and "flashes of clear vision" were explained, readers might realize that they or someone they know are not likely to get much more improvement than they already have. "ineffective" at the top is also damaging in this regard, because it might convince such readers that the article authors don't know what they're talking about. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Primal Groudon and OR[edit]

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

Now you're lying about the number of reverts and the fact that my edits weren't original research? How despicable. Primal Groudon (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
You've now made 3 at Book of Ruth, and 4 at Book of Joshua. My original post had the wrong one at 4, and I've since corrected that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
In reality, I'v only made two on each. Primal Groudon (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Here are now the 5 reverts at Book of Joshua: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] and 3 at Book of Ruth: [60], [61], [62] (not even including the initial edit which was to re-introduce material that you were trying to add to the article several months ago). Insisting that something isn't a revert in an edit summary doesn't make it so.–Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Some very strange edit summaries from Primal Groudon, claiming their reverts on Book of Joshua aren't violations of 3RR "as this edit isn't a revert". Instead they believe it's "the vandalism that constantly reverts me" that violates 3RR. I'm baffled, but I suppose a highly AGF explanation could be that they don't understand, or have not seen, the definition of a revert: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". They don't seem to understand, or know, the "whether in whole or in part" part. And are unwilling to learn — the "How despicable" above is not promising. Anyway, they have now reverted Book of Joshua five times in less than an hour [sic], with those kinds of aggressive and IDHT edit summaries, and are also edit warring to insert original research in Book of Ruth. I have blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring. It's a pretty short block considering the disruption, but then it's their first. Bishonen | tålk 19:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC).

Can someone check out what Groudon did at Talk:List of states by population in 1 CE? I'm not sure whether there was agreement to this redirect and whether it involves a rename. Achar Sva (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Although deletion of the mother-article seems an attractive alternative.Achar Sva (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


LéKashmiriSocialiste, who was indeffed per WP:NOTHERE then unblocked upon promises to engage in better behavior,[63] is here mainly for engaging in POV pushing as he refers all American and Indian sources as "biased" because "United States government is an anti-communist and anti-Chinese government".[64] Clearly he is engaging in WP:RGW.

He is failing to drop WP:STICK as well. He was rightfully blocked for 1 week for edit warring as he made more than 4 reverts over same content, and since the expiry of the block he has continued to attack admin Yamla with words like "do they allow dictators like you?... how does it feel to be abusing power and beating someone to near death over a lost penny"[65], "Yamla here recklessly and harshly blocked for mere 2 reverts",[66] even after being to stop it. But he remains hostile to users.[67] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aman Kumar Goel I suggest you learn the meaning of POV-pushing. United States is an enemy of China and it's not just my views. When I said better behavior I didn't mean I will try to not say something you don't like or do what you want. Here's the source that shows how USA is engaging in overt and covertly acting against China: [68]. You have had no counter even if I have proven with reliable sources that USA is an enemy of China.
Yamla has acted in a tyrannical way and his block was incorrect. Regardless I have agreed not to call him that, but it's not an insult when he has abused his position. I havbe no regrets for it [69]. That's because WP:3RR and making multiple reverts is only meant to discourage an edit conflict and one or two reverts can't be a war as long as you have no intention to revert further I had "Even without a 3RR violation: "an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times".
Thing is there's nothing prohibiting more than one revert either, it's just intent of edit-warring. So Yamla is wrong in his block and has refused to apologize. After my 2 reverts, I didn't revert for a day nor I intended to revert anymore. So I had no intention of edit warring. And just like 1 or 2 punches doesn't mean a fight, 1 or 2 reverts when you don't intend to make any further is not an edit war. If you think it is, then you can have the policies edited.
The one being really hostile here without here is you making up false claims because you don't agree with me on India-China conflict. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Also btw, I stopped talking to Yamla or leaving messages at his talk page many days ago. I agreed not to comment on his talk page even. And I haven't talked about my 1 week block for 2 reverts with anyone else too for many days. So WP:STICK has nothing to do with it, no matter what way you look at it. I request that you amend your complain. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Religious POV pushing and personal attacks[edit]

Sanjoydey33 is blocked for 1 week for making personal attacks and disruptive editing by Bishonen (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 06:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User appears to be pushing a narrative suggesting that events from Hindu mythology were historical. During the last week alone, they twice removed or replaced the word "mythology" in section titles which discuss Hindu gods.[70][71] In the second case, they justified their actions by directly stating that it was due to their personal belief that a medieval chronicle with heavy mythological elements was a "true history". In a later discussion with me, they justified the removal of sourced content in another article because they saw it as contradicting two-thousand-year-old religious texts and mythological epics.[72] When I said how problematic such a rational was,[73] they launched a series of personal attacks against me, accusing me of "Hinduphobia" and having an "Islamic supremacist agenda".[74]

Note that I have twice warned them that their actions constituted a potential violation of WP:RNPOV,[75][76] though this has apparently been ignored.
Alivardi (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Wiki Loves Pride: Annual accusations of bias[edit]

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

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

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

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

I've hatted that noxious mess per WP:NOTFORUM. Sorry you have to put up with this sort of abusive nonsense - goes with the territory on Wikipedia these days, I'm afraid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
For edits such as this, this, and the final warning they received, I have blocked Somua35 for this edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, Ian.thomson, and Swarm: See more here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Update: The comment has been removed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That user left a message on my page complaining about my description of Somua35's post as if I was addressing him instead. Um, @Ray2556: you sure you want to say it that way? Because that doesn't leave the best implication for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, upon counting their edits and seeing that just over three-quarters of their activity is complaining about Wiki Loves Pride (half of that before that WP:POINT-edly made lipservice of doing something else), I'm just gonna block them as NOTHERE (not sockpuppetry, even though they stumbled into what I could pretend was a confession). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


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

Flight of the boomerang

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

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

The IP who opened this discussion did not inform NitinMlk of its opening. I have left them a note on their talk page informing them of the thread. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "He doesn't read the references"? This revert you made of Nitinmlk actually contains no sources at all, as one webcite saying a book exists isn't actually a source, and the other paragraph has no source at all, so unless I hear a good reason why your version is superior, I'm going to revert it as well. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Caste warriors do show up from time to time. There is the ability to give them a warning about discretionary sanctions for South Asian artilces, though I am unsure whether such a warning is reserved for admins to give or whether any editor may give them. It feels like a admin grade warning. Fiddle Faddle 06:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Anyone can add it. It is an alert, not a warning. It does not imply wrongdoing at the point of being issued. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Please add it whenever you see a new caste warrior, Fiddle Faddle and others! It's a big help for admins if an alert gets added early. We can only give DS sanctions for disruption that occurred after they got the alert, and it's quite frustrating, I find, to have to first give the alert and then wait for more disruption. (So doesn't the alert ever stop the disruption? Well.. frankly.. not so's you'd notice, no.) Bishonen | tålk 08:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC).
    • Bishonen, Sitush, Thank you both. I have now worked out how and when to deploy it and will add it to my portfolio of non admin tasks I am able to do Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The anon's source appears to be this, which was written ca. 200 years ago. It is essentially a primary text. - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the anon for a month. If that was an account, they'd get a NOTHERE block. Bishonen | tålk 09:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC).
  • First of all, I apologise for the delay. This report was filed after I logged out yesterday, and I came to know about it only a few minutes ago.
As already explained by Sitush, they only provided an approx. 200-year-old source. Such outdated, non-scholarly works are not considered reliable for history-related details on this project. In fact, there are many modern scholarly sources available for the subject, and I cited one of them in my edit summary. Here is the full quote from that book's latest edition:
Few details about Bhai Mani Singh
  • McLeod, W. H.; Fenech, Louis E. (2014). Historical Dictionary of Sikhism (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 199. ISBN 978-1442236004.

MANI SINGH (1673–1738). A Jat Sikh born in a village near Patiala. He became a devoted follower of Guru Gobind Singh and after the evacuation of Anandpur in 1704 escorted two of the Guru’s wives to Delhi. Returning to join the Guru in Damdama Sahib, he inscribed, by tradition, a copy of the Adi Granth at the Guru’s dictation. He is also said to have gathered together the various works that now form the Dasam Granth. This too is by tradition. In the controversy over changes introduced into the Panth by Banda, he evidently sided with the Tat Khalsa. When the Punjab eventually quieted down following the execution of Banda, he was placed in charge of Harimandir Sahib by Mata Sundari. In 1738 he was executed by the Mughal governor of Lahore on a spurious charge of failing to pay tribute. Since then he has been remembered by the Panth as a great martyr.

As far as mentioning caste in a BLP is considered, we have a long-term consensus that caste should be mentioned only if the subject self-identify with it – see here for details. Also, I always read the references properly and provide clear edit summaries for my edits. Rest of the anon's comment is just full of nonsensical claims and personal attacks.
PS: The anon removed an unsourced detail from the article,[77] after which I posted a welcome template on their page.[78] And that was my only interaction with them before they opened this thread. So I am a bit surprised by this mud-slinging. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User blocked indef in line with egregious ableist bullying. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Above is a little strong. Both sides agree now that there was a highly unfortunate coincidence in the choice of words. An apology has been made and accepted, and the block lifted. (That's JMF's block; a ham-handed kibbitzer who managed to make a bad situation much worse remains blocked.) EEng 15:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

As EEng said, there are better ways to sort this out than going to ANI. MiasmaEternalTALK 00:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I have revdeleted the offending edit summary. We aim to be inclusive to the utmost on Wikipedia. Any mocking of one's disability will be responded to most harshly. That said, I can't tell if that was the intent here, but I will warn the user against doing so in no uncertain terms. Are you sure you want this report to remain visible, Psiĥedelisto? El_C 00:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to request at least a cursory look at whether there's a boomerang concerning this editor's consistent battleground mentality and disruptive editing at template:Char and its associated TFD. There seems to be a pretty consistent WP:NOT HERE and WP:DE pattern in this user's refusal to edit collaboratively. A couple days ago, it looked like he might be turning over a new leaf by engaging a bit with User:Spitzak, but that seems to have been wishful thinking on my part when I held off on going to ANEW. VanIsaacWScont 01:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Wow, Vanisaac. That is callous. El_C 01:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
+1 (+10, actually). EEng 02:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
(Redacted) VanIsaacWScont 01:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
<stunned, slack-jawed silence> EEng 02:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
El_C, I think we should block Friedman until we get a satisfactory answer. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Already done. El_C 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
El_C, thank you. User:John Maynard Friedman, this is a serious matter. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I've also redacted Vanisaac assertion that Psiĥedelisto is using his disability to game the system. Unbelievable. The heartlessness. I'm seriously weighing blocking them, as well. El_C 01:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Upon further consideration, I have blocked Vanisaac for one week. Sorry, but I'm pretty disgusted. El_C 01:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What happened here? In no one's defense, and in everyone's offense, that talk page discussion went badly in a few ways (even by the OP), and this report spiraled out of control quickly. I think this jumped the shark when emotions over took logic. This thread is a textbook example of worst-case-scenario. Why couldn't this have been talked out first? I think we have some people from different backgrounds interacting here without considering the other person's background. Lots of good people involved here. I purposely am using the word "people" here instead of "editors". Can everyone take a second look here? I think this can be worked out better. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Uh, anything concrete beyond a general chastisement to everyone? I'll repeat what Drmies said: this is a serious matter. I'm not sure you're fully appreciating that. El_C 04:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
But from what I can tell from digging thru the diffs and talk pages, was it really a conscious attack on the OP's disability? I'm asking for serious proof. The OP seemed to be getting under a few people's skin at the template talk. I agree with revdelling the edit summary, but where can it be shown that JMK was attacking based on disability? I thought they were attacking based on talk page interactions. Am I missing something? I'm not trying to downplay this, but can't this be resolved with some discussion? Where are the diffs showing they were clearing trying to hurt the OP based on their knowledge of the disability? Was this just a case of bad choice of words? Where's the diffs? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The diff is at the top of the report, entitled: "Diff." Clarifications from John Maynard Friedman have been sought. No need for redundancy, Bison X. El_C 05:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The diff was I will not descend to your level. I am ignoring everything you write. I choose not to debate with you or engage with you in any way. The reasons will be obvious to everyone except you. My choice is to work with editors who aim for consensus by calm and reasoned discussion and do not need to resort to personal attacks or believe that they can just impose their will irrespective of discussion in progress. and their edit summary was apparently "little boy", right? The OP frustrated the hell out of JMK, right? Where is it acknowledged they knew the latitude of what the hell they were saying? Is there a history here you're not letting on about? Are these blocks really appropriate? Psiĥedelisto was only asking for revdel of the edit summary. Can I ask @Psiĥedelisto: to respond here? I think there might be a way to work thru this. However, if JMK has previously acknowledged their disability, then I am completely off base here, I admit. But is that the case? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Your insensitivity has been noted. Psiĥedelisto, please do not feel obliged to respond to that. Please move along, Bison X. You are not helping. El_C 05:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
(e/c with close) I've been on both sides of something like this -- usually a misunderstanding. I must be missing something, so I apologize. I'll "move along." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This footnote is not intended as a contribution or material comment on the closed discussion above. However as my user-name has been put on the record with motives attributed to me, I feel that I should be allowed a closing comment. (If this is not allowed, then I will let it go). Had it not all happened in the middle of the night UK time, I would have rushed to correct a horrible misunderstanding. I have never encountered the complainant before this week, I know nothing about their personal circumstances and had no reason to go poking about. I have apologised at my talk page for an unintentional but very real insult.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    And I'll just add that JMF apoligized to P on another page, and P has graciously accepted that apology. So a painful episode has ended well, I think. EEng 15:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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

POV Editing at The Daily Stormer[edit]

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

Soibangla recently added a quote from Andrew Anglin, the founder of the White Supremacist website The Daily Stormer, describing Tucker Carlson as "literally our greatest ally," adding that Tucker Carlson Tonight "is basically 'Daily Stormer: The Show'. Other than the language used, he is covering all of our talking points."[79] The source for these claims was an attack piece posted on Buzzfeed here. I subsequently reverted the edit here citing BLP, UNDUE and NPOV. Soibangla questioned my reversion in a talk page discussion which can be found here.

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

Ad Orientem, both the WP:AWARE criteria of BLP and AP2 have been satisfied. You, as a single admin, may topic ban them accordingly for any length you see fit, including indefinitely, as an AE action. El_C 01:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks El C, I am aware of that. However, out of an abundance of caution, I am requesting input from experienced editors before taking any direct action. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Aware of AWARE, you say? Anyway, has there been similar issues like these with this user? Because if so, a topic ban is probably due. El_C 01:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
El C I don't think I have ever interacted with this editor before tonight. However an extremely cursory glance at their talk page and recent history is not showing anything quite this brazen. Though they do seem to take pride in their reputation for POV editing when it has been raised on their talk page. But in fairness, if RT was saying bad things about me, I might take a little guilty pleasure as well. My problem here is that I was content to let this go with a formal caution after I reverted their edit. But everything that followed in the talk page discussion has sent up all kinds of red flags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, the article talk page does signal a bunch of red flags. It does not appear the user understands that their edit was inappropriate. Hopefully, that is something they will come to terms with rather than face sanctions. El_C 01:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
to take pride in their reputation for POV editing when it has been raised on their talk page is flatly false. In no way have I ever come even close to doing that. I displayed my amusement when a Putin propaganda outlet characterized me as "a known quantity" on AP2, and falsely accused me of making POV edits, as well as my amusement at a troll on r/The_Donald falsely accusing me of POV edits in an apparent effort to rally a MAGA troll army to come at me. soibangla (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait a minute. BuzzFeed News, which Soibangla cited in his edit, is generally considered a reliable source by the community (see its entry at WP:RSP). There's no BLP violation in this edit; it accurately reflects the content of a reliable source. Soibangla calmly made that point to Ad Orientem on the article talk page, but Ad Orientem immediately escalated here to discuss a topic ban while mistakenly describing the source as unreliable. We don't usually topic-ban people for making accurate edits with a supporting reliable source. (Of course, the material may or may not belong in the article—that's a matter for discussion—but Soibangla hasn't done anything wrong by making a bold but well-sourced edit, and the only red flag I see is Ad Orientem escalating to AN/I for a reasonable, appropriately sourced edit without checking the source's reliability.) The usual sequence is WP:BRD, not BRAN/I.

    Separately, El_C, surely you realize that Ad Orientem can't actually "topic ban [Soibangla] for any length you see fit"—an admin can't revert someone's edit as part of a content dispute and then topic ban the other editor. This is WP:INVOLVED 101. MastCell Talk 02:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • If it's a BLP violation, which I believe to to be, then Ad Orientem had a duty to revert it. That does not make him invovled. As far as I am aware, Ad Orientem is an uninvolved admin in this matter. Anyway, we cannot malign someone (Tucker) by association. I don't believe we've sank that low to editorialize like that. El_C 02:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I concur. There is no doubt in my mind it is a BLP vio. The sole source is a naked attack piece that makes Fox News look like the NY Times in their moderation and balance. It was used in a transparent attempt to tag Carlson as an ally of these vile people. That kind of insinuation is absolutely not allowed w/o very serious reliable source evidence, typically multiple sources. And no, I don't consider that piece to in any way pass WP:RS. My reversion was done in my capacity as an admin. I thought I made that clear in the talk page discussion when I stated I was in the process of writing a formal caution for Soibangla's talk page. That said, I do tend to favor getting additional input in cases like this before imposing sanctions. There is no immediate rush or threat to the project that would require quick and decisive intervention. And I am prepared to defer if there is a consensus against such a step. But the edit in question was a serious no no that did cross multiple lines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The community has determined that BuzzFeed News is a reliable source. You don’t get to selectively disregard that consensus simply because you personally don’t like the source or its content. Soiblanga did everything right here - he made an edit accurately conveying the content of a reliable source and, when you reverted him, he went to the talk page and calmly discussed it. Threatening him with a block or topic ban is really out of line. MastCell Talk 06:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. However, I wouldn't have included the quote in Carlson's article, because I believe it's probably UNDUE. The Buzzfeed article has a quite-easily confirmable fact that Carlson is the TV host most quoted (by an order of magnitude) in the Daily Stormer's pages, so you could have a discussion about that, as long as it isn't being SYNTHed to accuse Carlson of racism. To paraphrase the Buzzfeed article itself "Carlson may not be a racist, but this bunch of racists are convinced that he is" - and that's not the same thing. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The source for the description of Carlson was the Daily Stormer/Anglin. That's not an RS for opinions about him. This edit was a serious BLP violation. SarahSV (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
But the source in the edit is a RS, not Stormer. They are reporting on what Anglin said, and it's cited in the same fashion as in innumerable other edits on Wikipedia. Millions, perhaps. It's just that in this case the reported quotes come from a particularly heinous man. Are we now going to draw lines as to when someone's quote is acceptable and when it isn't? soibangla (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Soibangla, imagine that a Holocaust-denial site wrote of a mainstream Holocaust historian: "He is covering all our talking points! Have you noticed how his numbers are always lower than everyone else's? He is literally our greatest ally!" You are arguing that we ought to add that view to Wikipedia, in the article about the Holocaust-denial site or to the historian's BLP, if we can find a minimally reliable source that repeats it. But of course we would never do that. SarahSV (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There would be all kinds of problems to have this on Tucker Carson's page. I'm less sure here. If that coverage isn't WP:UNDUE, and I suspect it is, then it would be reasonable for it to be quoted (if say this was one of the main things the Daily Stormer was known for). As far as sources, there are other, sources that might be more acceptable for similar information ([80], [81], [82]). What this article from Buzzfeed News seems to have is an analysis of coverage of Fox news folks which makes it a bit more useful IMO. Hobit (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, well, maybe - but if Andrew Anglin is that keen on the show (and there is no evidence the social media screenshots are fake) then that is a pretty big deal. Guy (help!) 12:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Even as someone who views Tucker Carlson as an ally to white nationalists (just going off of his rhetoric), I am surprised that the community sees Buzzfeed as a reliable source given their history of clickbaiting and racebaiting. Consensus is consensus I guess, but I do not think that treating buzzfeed as reliable will accomplish much other than giving the "Wikipedia is liberal propaganda" people ammunition. Darkknight2149 09:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, Darkknight2149, some of us view it as BLP violation of the first order: as pure editorializing. El_C 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Whilst I don't agree with the use of Buzzfeed in this way (although the easily proved fact that Carlson is the most-quoted TV host by the Daily Stormer is not in the slightest unreliable), the people who think that "Wikipedia is liberal progaganda" aren't going to stop saying it unless we end up looking like Conservapedia (i.e. a complete work of fiction). In the post-truth era, when you've got at least three right-wing leaders of major countries who pump out easily-debunkable nonsense (i.e. lies) on an almost daily basis, this is always going to be a problem, because some people believe them quite vehemently. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Darkknight2149, to your point, WP:RSP makes a distinction between BuzzFeed proper (a dubious, clickbaity source at best) and BuzzFeed News (which is viewed as generally reliable). The piece cited by Soibangla came from BuzzFeed News. In general, I agree with you that neither is an ideal source—I don't think I've ever used either one as a source for an edit here. But as an editor and admin, I can't just substitute my own opinion for community consensus about the source's reliability—which is what Ad Orientem and El_C did. That's my concern. I think it's fine if editors decide, through discussion, that inclusion of this material would constitute undue weight. I just think it's wrong that an editor was immediately hauled to AN/I for making a single, appropriately-sourced edit, and then calmly discussing the edit when it was reverted. MastCell Talk 16:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that in October 2018 an RfC about including praise of Carlson's show by white supremacists was opened. It was closed with a "no", saying it constituted undue weight. I participated in it and agreed with the result, as it was a blatant attempt to make Carlson look like a white supremacist. Soibangla participated too, and quoted this same Daily Stormer material. - DoubleCross () 10:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't think Soibangla's edit has any place in The Daily Stormer; if anywhere, it goes in the Tucker Carson bio, though there is clearly some doubt about that as well. But Soibangla is not IMO a disruptive editor, now nor did he act disruptively here, but went to talk when he was reverted. I believe he showed somewhat poor judgment in adding the material in the first place, per WP:UNDUE, but that alone, from a constructive editor, is far from being cause for a topic ban or indeed any kind of sanction. And if, hypothetically, it were, I don't think Ad Orientem should revert and then sanction, so I'm not in agreement with El C there. Bishonen | tålk 11:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC).
    Bishonen, right. Ad Orientem and others see a naked attack piece, I see robust criticism which cites its sources and shows its working. Whether or not it constitutes WP:UNDUE is another matter, but it's certainly not a BLP violation, because Buzzfeed News is a reliable source and the reporting, whose accuracy doesn't seem to be in dispute, is legitimately troubling.
    This is investigative journalism, albeit of a somewhat facile kind. BuzzFeed News is an American news website published by BuzzFeed. It has published a number of high-profile scoops, including the Trump–Russia dossier, for which it was heavily criticized.[1][2][3] During its relatively short tenure, it has won the George Polk Award, Sidney Award, National Magazine Award and National Press Foundation award, as well as being a finalist for Pulitzer Prizes. This won't win any awards, but neither is it clickbait or yellow journalism. Tabloidish, at worst.
    Does Andrew Anglin love Tucker Carlson's show? Hell yes, and anyone can go and repeat the work documented in the article and verify its accuracy. Is Carlson a racist? I don't know, but the racists certainly think he is. And that is the problem we always have: how to distinguish conservative voices that are actually racist from those who are merely sufficiently unconcerned about racism that they are OK with repeating dog-whistles and racist tropes. I have no clue how to fix that.
    Including praise of Carlson by white supremacists from primary sources is clearly unacceptable, but this is a secondary source - and that in and of itself would legitimately call into question whether an RfC based on primary sources is still a valid consensus (cf. the Joe Biden sexual assault allegations, which were included after secondary sources reported). Is it undue? Likely, but it's not so obvious that it merits a sanction. We don't sanction people for boldly adding material that's later decided to be undue, unless they do it constantly or egregiously. This would need to go to AE, I think, with evidence of a systemic problem, not just a single incident. Guy (help!) 12:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Bishonen, did you mean "nor did he act"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Jo, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, nog är det så alltid. Bishånen | tålk 14:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC).
  • I guess I'm in the minority here in seeing it as an egregious BLP violation by virtue of it being so UNDUE. I can accept that. But Guy raises some fine points, too, so I value his (mostly) excellent analysis. El_C 12:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    El C, heh! If faint praise is all I can get, I'll take it, my friend :-) Guy (help!) 13:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, this seems to be mudslinging for reasons the BLP subjects can't themselves decide. Similarly, there is an Associated Press article (credited to a Washington Times journalist) that the former KKK leader David Duke supports Ilhan Omar for her comments about Israel. I also think pushing for including that in the Omar article would be negative POV-pushing. And importantly, as the Daily Stormer article states, the site is involved in trolling. Connecting their more or less trollish comments to others is highly problematic for BLP reasons. --Pudeo (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Folks, there's genuine content disagreement here, over which reasonable people can have differing opinions. Whether the material should be included, and if so where, is a valid topic for consensus-seeking discussion, and the place for that is not here. Whether User:Soibangla should be sanctioned is a valid question here, and I'm not seeing justification for it - there's an UNDUE (content) discussion to be had, but I'm not seeing a violation of BLP or American Politics sanctions, as those sanctions do not prohibit the inclusion of negative material supported by reliable sources (and it's a source generally considered reliable). Also, I definitely agree that an admin taking part in what is actually a content disagreement should not be the one to impose sanctions in the event sanctions were considered appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed. And the fact that there's "genuine content disagreement here" means, in my view, that this wasn't a clear-cut BLP violation that should result in a block of any kind. Grandpallama (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There was already an RfC about this and that settles the issue until a new RfC. Not only is it a blp violation and undue but making that edit was circumventing consensus. [83] Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 13:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Levivich, it's not a BLP violation because it's reliably sourced. It may be UNDUE. Guy (help!) 13:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Guy, it can be two things. El_C 13:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
El C, it can be, but it isn't, because it is factually accurate and a RS. Also, and at least as disturbing, see this from today:
As I said above, I do not know if Tucker Carlson is a racist, but the racists sure as hell think he is. Guy (help!) 13:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
What can I say? That's hard to argue against. El_C 13:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree that it's reliably sourced; the Buzzfeednews tech column, and the NBC and Esquire opinion pieces, aren't RSes for suggesting a living person is an ally of white supremacists, and I don't see that the GQ article supports the edits in question. I guess count me in the minority. My barometer is that if it's a controversial statement that is not sourced to multiple, high quality sources, then it's a BLP violation. I get that from "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This counts, to me, as contentious material that is poorly sourced. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 15:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we close this now, with a suggestion that the editors return to the article talk page to discuss any remaining DUE WEIGHT issues? SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Having read through the comments that have appeared since last night, I see a rough consensus that no BLP vio occurred, a rough consensus that there are questions of UNDUE and a rough consensus against any sanctions. While I don't agree with the first conclusion, I bow to what appears to be the general take among my collegues as expressed in their comments. In light of which I will not take any further administrative action and will be satisfied that the edit in question, or anything similar, shall not be reinstated w/o clear talk page consensus supporting it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I am striking my above comment. Based on subsequent comments and discussion it appears to have been premature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The edit is a brazen BLP violation as far as I can see. This is a pretty alarming condemnation that should only come from the most reliable sources. I wouldn't allow this kind of derogatory BLP violating nonsense in an article about Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow with this flimsy level of referencing. Whatever happened to the efforts to approach BLPs with diligence and na effort to "do no harm"? When editors make it their mission to only add the negative (and use less then substantive references) and little to "edit for the opposition", one wonders how we can defend them as here for the general good?--MONGO (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    And the person in question seems to think this is just fine [84]. Sad.--MONGO (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
LOL! guffawed the person in question soibangla (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Taking a victory lap at Talk:The Daily Stormer--before this thread is even closed--makes me concerned about continued editing in BLP and AP2 topic areas. WP:Battleground statements like I'm pretty sure that, as an admin, Ad Orientem knows the right thing to do here now. The only question is whether he will demonstrate a modicum of courage and integrity to do it. do not give me confidence in an editor's ability to communicate with other editors in these very fraught topic areas. If what soibangla takes from this discussion is "I was right", I fear we are going to have problems in the future. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 18:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

As I am the subject of this topic, I will not presume to close it, but I recommnend someone do it, as the individual who opened it effectively closed it. soibangla (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  • BLP vio plus disregarding consensus to keep it out. I would support a 6 mos. t-ban. Atsme Talk 📧 00:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't imagine why people might associate Carlson with racists. Another story breaking from RS about this issue. Grandpallama (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I will explain my link here, since Ad Orientem suggested it was both a BLP and NOTFORUM violation; I'll strike the snark from my comment as potentially inappropriate, but I consider the rest of what Ad Orientem wrote on my talkpage to be a deliberate attempt to chill criticism of his attempt to push sanctions through on a good-faith editor. As far as NOTFORUM goes, the link is certainly relevant to what is being discussed here, because reliable sources continuously and regularly associate Tucker Carlson with white supremacists and racist language. The whole discussion here revolves around whether an editor adding a reliably sourced (and it's disturbing that Ad Orientem repeatedly calls Buzzfeed News anything other than a RS, as the community has established consensus that it is) statement should be sanctioned for his edit. Most everyone, myself included, agrees that the edit doesn't belong in the article and that it attempts to establish guilt by association in an inappropriate manner. But the further argument, that soibangla committed some gross violation by calmly discussing the reversion of his edit at the talkpage, or that it was unreasonable to think reliable sources regularly writing about connections between racist/supremacist groups and Carlson might merit a mention, ignores the reality of what RS are publishing on this subject. By all means, nothing should go on Carlson's or The Daily Stormer page that violates consensus or Wikipedia policies, but as recently as today, stories are breaking about Carlson's associations. To implement a punitive block on an editor (because the fact that he has made no attempt to force in his edit means you can't possibly call this preventative) for thinking the article should address this topic is highly troubling. Grandpallama (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Grandpallama, Thanks for your comment and as I noted elsewhere, your entitled to your view. I will make just one point though. AFAIK nobody was considering a block. I certainly wasn't. The only sanction I considered was a TBan. That is under discussion below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct--slip of the tongue on my part and the fault of editing late on a Friday night. That said, I find everything I argued equally applicable to the notion of a TBAN on the editor for this one edit. Grandpallama (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for 6 mos. t-ban[edit]

Soibangla added a quote in violation of BLP, UNDUE and NPOV and disregarded WP:Consensus that was against adding such material; noncompliance with consensus is a violation of policy.

  • Support for the reasons stated. Atsme Talk 📧 00:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as there is obvious consensus after discussion that there was no BLP violation. Blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive, and no evidence has been provided that soibangla requires a TBAN in order to prevent disruption; on the contrary, he has followed BRD. Grandpallama (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a point that I find weighty. There is not a current consensus on the question of a BLP vio. Opinions are divided rather sharply. However, we do have a broad agreement that the edit was inappropriate and UNDUE. But Soibangla has not attempted to reinstate the edit. Nor, a few snarky comments aside, have they suggested that they would do so. As the OP I am INVOLVED so I am not going to close the discussion. But, I will suggest that if Soibangla acknowledges the consensus that the edit was inappropriate and that they understand why, I would be fine if someone closed this on that basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, let's make a deal: I will acknowledge that my original edit was inappropriate, with a pledge to be more careful in the future, if you acknowledge you bypassed BRD — perhaps the most overarching principle of Wikipedia — to inappropriately open this topic. With the concurrence of other admins that our mutual agreement obviates further discussion here, we can close this topic and everyone can resume constructive editing. Deal? soibangla (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Soibangla: No deal. I opened this discussion in lieu of unilaterally imposing a TBan on the basis of what I believed (and still believe) to have been a flagrant BLP vio and POV edit. Your general response to this discussion continues to cause me grave concern. Either you understand that your edit was seriously inappropriate, or you don't. That is not, and should not be a subject of some kind of quid pro quo negotiation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Their last 50-100 contribs raise broader concerns:
    • "this is not Carlson's BLP" makes me question if they understand BLP applies everywhere
    • Using Raw Story as a source to associate Michael Flynn [85] with QAnon [86] (Raw Story has the same owners and editors as AlterNet, which is red at WP:RSP); Raw Story is not listed.). Using Mother Jones for the same thing, without attribution (see WP:RSP, MJ requires attribution for politics) [87]. I'm not sure why WaPo is included in the references in that last edit; the WaPo article doesn't mention QAnon or Flynn.
    • Using Media Matters (yellow at WP:RSP, requires attribution) without attribution for negative information about a directly competing, ideologically-opposed watchdog group Judicial Watch [88]
    • Using CNN (a direct commercial competitor) as a source for negative information about Fox News [89]
    • "Obama often adopted a scolding tone toward black audiences" sourced to WaPo, except the article doesn't say that in its own voice; it attributes the accusation. Specifically, it says critics of Obama said he adopted a scolding tone towards black audiences. Yet it's included in our article in Wikivoice. [90] Also the article is 2013. It's WP:RECENTISM, it's almost a primary source as a contemporary news source. At this point, there is such better (academic) sourcing available for Obama and black audiences. It really feels like we found an obscure article from years ago just so we can say what we want to say.
    • Same article, this edit is inserting politics into the section about policy. The first two sentences are sourced to WaPo and Politico, but then Mediaite is included and that's RSP yellow. The sentence Obama praised police officers throughout his presidency is sourced to a bunch of examples of Obama praising cops. It's WP:SYNTH. Then we add a cherry-picked quote [91], which is WP:PUFFERY.
    • Kind of misrepresenting a source to make a point: [92]. The source doesn't say "falsely", it says "out of context", which is, sure, a type of falsehood, but stepping back, "political candidate quotes opponent out of context" is hardly the kind of significant information that should be included in the candidate's campaign article. An article about a campaign should summarize the campaign, not catalogue every tit-for-tat. See also: this WP:UNDUE addition to Jeff Sessions [93] and the journalistic/editorializing/overly-partisan tone here.
    • The history of Rudy Guiliani and like most of Talk:Rudy Guiliani (see, e.g., "The two of you need to STOP the edit warring"), including comments like [94] [95] [96] [97]
    • Their responses to this thread: [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]
    • I noticed at User talk:Soibangla, from last year, this comment: "@Doug Weller: I am aware that some partisan editors use this alert in an attempt to intimidate others into silence. Unless you have a specific complaint about my edits, I suggest you refrain from sending generic alerts without cause". Battleground.
    • Admittedly the last 50-100 edits is a small sample size, but I can't help but notice that every single one is either negative about Republicans/conservatives or positive about Democrats/liberals. I find this ironic in light of their reference to "my amusement at a false reputation projected upon me by brazen hyperpartisans" [104].
    • Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits, just sort of advising them about using high-quality sources and being more careful, etc., but the attitude, particularly their response to this thread, makes me think the editor is not interested in learning how to improve, and for as long as that remains the case, I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. (Note I edited many of the above articles to address my concerns.) Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 07:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
      • A number of these analyses are misleading.
        • Mother Jones is green at WP:RSP, and statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed (emphasis mine), which is a far cry from ""requires attribution".
        • There is no policy stating that a group cannot criticize another competing group. At most, the Media Matters critique of Judicial Watch requires attribution, but we are not barred from using one group to critique another group.
        • See above on the claim that sourcing a critique of Fox to CNN is somehow problematic. No policy backing, and according to this reasoning, who would be allowed to critique Fox? CNN is a RS, period.
        • There is a misrepresentation of the scolding comment on the Obama page. The title of the article is "To critics, Obama’s scolding tone with black audiences is getting old", but the full text of what soibangla wrote is Obama often adopted a scolding tone toward black audiences, admonishing black men to be more responsible to their families and communities., which primarily comes directly from the second paragraph of the article in WaPo's own voice: During the speech, Obama admonished black men to take care of their families and their communities and told the graduates that despite the lingering legacies of slavery and discrimination, "we’ve got no time for excuses."
        • The concern of "falsely" vs. "out of context" is undermined by the conclusion reached by the CNN fact-check article: Clearly, the "enemy" comment was not some sort of general assessment of police officers or even a statement about how police officers are generally seen by communities. It was specifically about perceptions of police who use particular equipment in particular circumstances. Using the word "falsely" in light of that summation is perfectly acceptable and in no way a misrepresentation of the CNN article or its claims. Also, the argument that a campaign page shouldn't document every "tit-for-tat" is questionable in this context; the article breaks down the presidential campaign by month, with sections for each, and includes this as part of the July section. Considering the national unrest and conversations about policing in summer 2020, candidate statements and claims about police and police actions are reasonable additions.
        • The mention of the Rudy Giuliani talkpage is frustratingly misleading. It fails to mention that after MelanieN told both soibangla and the other editor to stop edit warring, she very clearly articulated that the other editor was failing to follow BRD and admonished them (but not soibangla) to do so; she also confirmed that the other editor was engaging in borderline personal attacks, but again, did not mention soibangla. It also fails to mention that soibangla disengaged.
        • The observation that "I can't help but notice that every single [edit] is either negative about Republicans/conservatives or positive about Democrats/liberals" seems to suggest that this isn't permitted. If you want to argue that soibangla needs to tone down battleground verbiage, that's one thing, but what else are you implying? Most editors, including a fair number in this very discussion, edit positively about one party and negatively about another. That's not against policy, as long as they're not being disruptive.
        • This is warning-worthy behavior, not immediate TBAN behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Levivich,
        • RSN is silent on Raw Story. It's fair game.
        • Media Matters: don't they provide "attribution" to the source documents? As I've explained previously elsewhere, I've never used Media Matters for their opinions, and I actually removed[[105]] such a cited use by another editor just days ago. I use it exclusively for the videos, transcripts and documents they provide, which are objectively indisputable. I use it as a secondary source simply to convey what would otherwise be primary sources.
        • Mediate: it's yellow, not red. Proceed with caution, not stop. And I proceeded with caution, using it only for the video/transcript of a Fox News host claiming "anti-police rhetoric"
        • Obama police speeches: I don't think it's SYNTH. One might assert two of the sources (CSPAN videos) are primary, but "Primary" does not mean "bad"}} soibangla (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
        • WP:UNDUE addition to Jeff Sessions It's not UNDUE, that section contains several similar short anecdotes, and the Sessions quote in my edit is from an exclusive interview with the NYT soibangla (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
        • and the journalistic/editorializing/overly-partisan tone here which we are apparently expected to believe simply because you say it's so. Kindly be specific. soibangla (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Soibangla, I assume you mean RSP, not RSN, because there are half a dozen threads at RSN about Raw Story, going back over ten years. When you say things like: because a source is not listed on RSP (or RSN, if that were the case), "it's fair game", it strengthens my opinion that you should be TBANed from AP2 and BLP. It's very much not the case that a source that is unlisted on our noticeboards is "fair game". In fact, many, many... the overwhelming majority... of unreliable sources are not listed at RSP and never discussed at RSN. You need to make an independent determination as an editor as to whether the source you are using meets WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and our other policies and guidelines.
            Now, if your attitude was one of, "Oh, I didn't know Raw Story is an unreliable source", or even "I disagree with Levivich and I think Raw Story is a reliable source because [reasons relating to what our policies say about what makes a source reliable or not]", I wouldn't think of a TBAN. But instead, your response is to suggest that Raw Story is "fair game", even after I told you why I thought it was unreliable (because of its ownership and editors). But you don't respond to the "meat" of my argument -- to whether Raw Story is reliable or not -- and instead, you play a "gotcha game" of "RSN is silent ... It's fair game". This is not an approach that we can tolerate in DS areas. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 21:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
            • If you want to argue it's not reliable, you can do that on RSP, or in the edit, or note that someone challenged it in the edit, but I don't think it makes much sense to come here now and unilaterally assert it's not reliable, especially since you haven't specified exactly what in the reference you deem questionable. it strengthens my opinion that you should be TBANed Perhaps you've noticed, just in this one thread alone, that a good number of admins have difficulty agreeing on major policies that have been hammered-out since forever. Should they all be banned, too? soibangla (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Levivich's comprehensive analysis. El_C 07:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    El C, I note that you, Springee and DoubleCross voted on the basis of this “comprehensive” analysis, before grandpallama and Aquillion critiqued it to reveal numerous significant weaknesses, which I may add to. I encourage you to consider those critiques. soibangla (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    OK, I'll add some examples of my own interactions with you [[106]]. From that link we have two examples. Here you suggest editors on Wikipedia who disagree with you are liars [[107]]. In this case[[108]] you say, "I get the sense you don't like me very much. I take that as a compliment of my work. ". How is that not a BATTLEGROUND mentality towards editors who disagree with you? So in addition to the other issues I have BATTLEGROUND examples from my own interactions with you. Springee (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    Springee, I did not call you or other editors a liar, I was referring to well-organized groups.
    You innappropriately pinged me here, when you should've come to my Talk page, then took a gratuitous swipe at me that "This isn't something to be proud of," referring to my amusement at an r/The_Donald troll brazenly lying about me in an apparent attempt to rally a MAGA troll army to come after me. And now you're here to pile-on in vengeance. Can you credibily say now that I don't have good reason for my ""sense you don't like me very much?" That's enough, just drop it. soibangla (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    Your comment about liars was clearly directed at people here, "I don’t have a problem with gun ownership, I only have a problem with liars. And in this case, the liars are particularly well organized and particularly aggressive, and they are hellbent on foisting their false agenda everywhere, including here.". Note the "including here" part. I don't recall pinging you here at all so I'm not sure how I could have done it inappropriately. It certainly doesn't justify an out of the blue comment like linked above. Springee (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    Soibangla, I'm happy with 3 months, too, but the point is that you need a not insignificant break from the topic area to reassess. El_C 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Levivich's analysis as well. Springee (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Levivich. - DoubleCross () 14:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While soibangla could stand to be more cautious, most of Levivich's arguments are breathtakingly wrong. Mother Jones is a high-quality source; yellow sources, like Media Matters, are use-carefully and not ones I would rely on, but it's baffling to suggest such a broad six-month topic-ban based on that. But by far the most shocking part (and the one that compelled me to comment) is the argument that we cannot cite CNN about Fox, an argument without the slightest sliver of grounding in policy and one I would expect to see more from a POV-pushing IP than an established editor. By that argument, no article on a news channel could ever have any citations to news, no article on a publisher or writer could ever have any citations to books, and no article on academia (or even topics within academia) could ever have any citations to other academics within their field. Given the importance of this, I'm going to take this to WP:RSN, since it's absolutely not an interpretation we can have floating around. --Aquillion (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    Note discussion was already underway at Talk:Fox News#Using biased sources and competitors as sources before the CNN-criticizing-Fox edits were made. (And that discussion isn't about CNN, it's about other journalistic sources.) I don't think it's even remotely reasonable to use CNN as a source for criticism of Fox, any more than it would be reasonable to use Fox as a source for criticism of CNN. They're the two largest cable news networks, both for profit, on opposite ideological sides. They're direct competitors with a financial incentive for making the other network look bad. This is like using Coca-Cola as a source for negative information about Pepsi, or using a political candidate as a source for negative information about their opponent. And of course this doesn't translate to academia... because it's not a for-profit company. And it doesn't extend to all media, either. You can't use the New York Times for negative information about the New York Post, and vice versa, but you can use NYT as a source for negative information about CNN or Fox because they're not direct competitors--not even in the same media. If you need an all caps blue blink, see WP:COMMONSENSE. Also WP:NPOV though. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 17:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You can't use the New York Times for negative information about the New York Post. Of course you can. The NYT is one of the most reputable sources in the world; suggesting that they would be unable to write impartially about the New York Post - or that CNN is unable to write impartially about Fox - is laughable to the point that it raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are not high-quality news sources with sterling reputations; CNN and the New York Times are, and throwing that reputation into doubt requires more than just "they're both news stations and disagree on stuff." I have and will continue to cite them in that context, will always restore such cites when I see them removed, and would naturally add them when absent, since such high-quality sources with an expertise in the field are some of the best to cite in this context. Not only is CNN citeable when it comes to Fox, it is a high-quality source worth adding, and using it in that context is commendable; I find the fact that you are doubling down on such a plainly inaccurate and groundless objection to be baffling. You have some (weak) points about other areas where soibangla could be more cautious, but by trying to push through this absurd and indefensible position you are undermining your entire argument. Also, I'll note that you described Fox and CNN as being on opposite ideological sides, which is inaccurate; Fox brands itself ideologically, but CNN does not. It is possible that this fundamental misunderstanding of the American media landscape contributes to your error here, though I'm still baffled that anyone could seriously suggest that Fox's status as a cable news company makes it immune to criticism from the entire cable news spectrum. (As an aside, Fox is owned by New Corp, which owns several newspapers - how does your logic not extend to immunizing it from newspapers as well?) --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hahaha... CNN is not a "high quality source" like The New York Times. They're not even in the same league. You can't compare cable news to the US's paper of record. But even the US's paper of record is not an appropriate source for negative information about its direct financial competitors. And, Aquillion, believe me, as much as you say you think my position is "indefensible", I think yours is laughable. So what? That's what content disputes are about. Anyway, the place to discuss this is the RSN post you started, not here. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 17:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Except that this isn't a content dispute. This is you invoking a non-existent policy about RS as part of a justification for imposing a TBAN on an editor, and then doubling down when shocked Wikipedians point out how "breathtakingly wrong" that justification is. Whether or not you like that CNN is a RS for reporting on Fox (or any other subject) can be taken up elsewhere, but imaginary policies can't be used to censure editors. Grandpallama (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Grandpallama, please do not put words in my mouth. I invoked no policy whatsoever - I never said anything even close to that there is a policy or a guideline or even an essay. Further, I did not say he should be TBANed for it. My last bullet point is clear that I, like you, think these are only warnable offenses, and my last bullet point explained why, and under what conditions I supported a TBAN. I think I was exceptionally clear and you are completely misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I've written. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 18:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
What? Your last bullet point states I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN, after specifically saying you don't think a warning suffices in this context; please don't play games and claim you opposed the TBAN after just voting to support it. As for CNN, you didn't call it a policy or a guideline or even an essay...and yet it's a partial justification for the TBAN you supported. But it's something people can't do. But it's not a policy. Gimme a break, Levivich--the only misrepresentation in your bullets came from you. Grandpallama (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think I've made my point(s), repeatedly, in this discussion, so I plan to refrain from commenting further unless pinged with a direct question. I don't want my commenting to turn into a bludgeon. Plus, I have bookshelves to build! Grandpallama (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand how you find this unclear: Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits, just sort of advising them about using high-quality sources and being more careful, etc., but the attitude, particularly their response to this thread, makes me think the editor is not interested in learning how to improve, and for as long as that remains the case, I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. That means I don't think these kinds of edits are TBANable, rather I think the attitude and not interested in learning how to improve are the reasons (for as long as that remains the case) that I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. Hope this clears up your confusion about the reason I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 19:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Improper/questionable sourcing does matter when determining a t-ban and the problem is consistent. For the record, Mother Jones is not "high quality" - it is a generally reliable source with caveats per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Mother Jones. Next, Media Matters, questionable per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Media_Matters_for_America, and all the cited competitor sources fall under COI. A little refresher can't hurt once in a while...see WP:RS. Atsme Talk 📧 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
While I didn't cite any policy, the policy is WP:V, footnote 9, which advises against using articles by any media group that ... discredits its competitors. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 19:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Levivich. I cited that same policy just over a week ago at RSN. Atsme exclaims, "My memory is so bad!" Levivich asks, "How bad is it?" She replies, "How bad is what..?" Atsme Talk 📧 20:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
It's perfectly clear: you supported a TBAN based upon your heavily flawed "analysis" while claiming, somehow, you don't support a TBAN based on your highly flawed "analysis"; if it didn't factor into the decision, why do it? The disingenuousness of this is tiresome. If you're hanging your hat on a footnote at WP:V as an argument that CNN cannot be cited as critiquing Fox, you're not going to make much headway. And I don't care how much people want to quibble about Mother Jones--Wikipedia has determined it's a RS, and the caveats for its use are other than what was presented. A little refresher can't hurt once in a while...see WP:RSP. Grandpallama (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised you're having such a hard time understanding the concept of "It's not the mistakes, but the refusal to correct the mistakes, that justifies a TBAN." I'm also saddened that you accuse me of doing so many bad things all the time. One of these days, I hope you can disagree with me without calling me a bad editor. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 22:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with regret, based on the analysis by Levivich and the general response of Soibangla, including especially their most recent comment, which suggests that they just don't get it, likely coupled with a bad case of IDHT. Under the circumstances I don't think they should be editing anything related to post 1932 US Politics. We can revisit the subject in six months and see if they have a better understanding of the problematic nature of their edit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Addendum I actually would prefer the TBan be indefinite with the possibility of review after six months. I am still not seeing any acknowledgement from them that their edit was seriously inappropriate. And while I concede there is a sharp difference of opinion in this discussion as to whether or not it was a BLP vio, there is a strong consensus that it was at the very least UNDUE. Until Soibangla acknowledges this, they should not be editing anything dealing with AP2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, the primary reason for your perceived intransigence on my part is your persistent refusal to acknowledge some basic facts of how this topic arose in the first place. For example, in your opening paragraph of this thread, you state The source for these claims was an attack piece posted on Buzzfeed, having asserted on the Talk page that it was an op-ed from Buzzfeed, a yellow source, but I showed you there that it was a news report from BuzzfeedNews, a green source. MastCell also showed told you that BuzzfeedNews is a reliable source. Before you struck it, your findings of comments found a rough consensus that no BLP vio occurred, a rough consensus that there are questions of UNDUE and a rough consensus against any sanctions but now you assert there is a strong consensus that it was at the very least UNDUE (italics mine). And if that's the only offense remaining, that could have been — and should have been — properly handled by standard BRD in Talk, which you precipitously bypassed to seek what is tantamount to a death sentence for me — for one edit out of many thousands. You also continue to assert that you had the unilateral authority to ban me on the spot, even though MastCell correctly pointed out that because you reverted my edit, and we were the only participants in the ensuing Talk discussion, you were the INVOLVED party and should properly recuse yourself from asserting authority to ban me. I again refer to MastCell's comments, which succinctly summarize the core problems with your approach, and to which you have never responded. The fact that you never addressed my points on Talk, precipitously escalated to ANI, and then failed to address MastCell's analysis strongly suggests that you are knowingly, willfully and steadfastly ignoring strongly exculpatory evidence in my favor. You refuse to acknowledge any of this, and instead you insist that I simply won't accept any responsibility and further escalate the matter, now returning to calling for my permanent removal. I am truly at a loss to understand what is motivating this.

Soibangla hasn't done anything wrong by making a bold but well-sourced edit, and the only red flag I see is Ad Orientem escalating to AN/I for a reasonable, appropriately sourced edit without checking the source's reliability...The community has determined that BuzzFeed News is a reliable source. You don’t get to selectively disregard that consensus simply because you personally don’t like the source or its content. Soiblanga did everything right here - he made an edit accurately conveying the content of a reliable source and, when you reverted him, he went to the talk page and calmly discussed it. Threatening him with a block or topic ban is really out of line. — MastCell

Look, I readily concede from the all-hands-on-deck pile-on now occurring that sometimes I demonstrate a bad attitude, and can sometimes even be nasty, and sometimes make sloppy edits. People are telling me to get my act together. I get it. I really do. I will take it to heart and conscientiously endeavor to do better going forward. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Aquillon, and could this please be punted to WP:AE? Nothing is going to be accomplished by page long arguments from involved editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Initially, I was going to oppose this under the condition Soibangla recognized that the edit was UNDUE and agreed to be more careful in the future. But his response to Ad Orientem above where he tried to negotiate with him changed my mind, as did Levivich's post outlining more examples of policy-violating behavior. Though he certainly is the only editor who does it, adding every bit of negative trivial information you can find to an article about a person or organization you don't like is not an appropriate way to edit. Also, Siobangla recently edited the Fox News article with trivial information about Fox cropping a picture of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump using CNN as a source. The edit contained a clear BLP violation that called Epstein a "former Trump associate" (something the CNN article did not say). I reverted his edit with a summary indicating it was both a BLP violation and UNDUE. He then restored a modified version of this original edit.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and would suggest an indefinite topic ban, as this type of BLP violation has happened before. I suggest an indef ban because Soibangla was unable to understand that "a claim" and "the claim" are not synonymous:
  • Soibangla (with support from Aquillion*) used an ambiguous statement in the NYT to make an unambiguous claim at the Jeffrey Epstein page, which constituted a BLP violation for Epstein's main victim, Virginia Giuffre by stating she admitted to having lied about seeing Bill Clinton on Epstein's island.*, *, *
  • Soibangla was told by SlimVirgin in the related RS/N that the cited sentence in the NYT was ambiguous and couldn't be used to make the claim Soibangla was making *
  • Soibangla never concedes, continues at Sarah's TP, and then doesn't show up to the related RfC to argue his case. For all we know, he still thinks he was right.
This false claim was live on the Epstein page for over a month because I was continually disallowed from correcting it. I'm not sure where an editor with the comprehension difficulties exemplified here belongs, but the American Politics area is troubled enough as it is. petrarchan47คุ 04:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This sounds like a call to ban Soibangla to settle a personal grievance of yours. If so, I don't think you've shown that your pain rises to the level of a community concern. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I confess that that encounter was among the most exasperating I've had on Wikipedia and I finally had to walk away. Your insistence then, and still now, that "a claim" was unspecified in the NYT article is belied by the fact the sentence clearly stated it was a claim that Clinton had visited Epstein's island, which Giuffre later conceded was false. You latched onto parsing the trivial difference between "the" and "a" while disregarding that the sentence clearly stated what "a claim" was about. My repeated efforts to explain this obvious reality to you proved futile. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support T-Ban Confess my dealings with Soibangla have been less than pleasant, but, comeon, if the most recent 100 or so edits have been as problematic as the ones shown by Levivich and others above, with that sort of pattern does anyone expect that earlier edits to be any better? While old now, his BLP violating comment here about a WSJ contributing editor "Her opinion ain't worth a bucket of spit. She is notorious for just making stuff up. She is yet another compulsive liar. Period."[109] is not atypical. After I gave him a 3RR reminder he retaliated with [110].--MONGO (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Levivich's analysis, which I found weighted and occasionally bogus. --Calton | Talk 10:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Largely per Levivich which held a lot of weight for me. I honestly was not sure if I was going to give an opinion here. Me and Soibangla have interacted quite a bit and even had fun and joked around, but it is hard to deny the issues when laid out like this. When taken as a whole it seems to come off as a case of Sealioning. Never accepting that there are legitimate issues with the content they are trying to add to articles and attempting to transfer the onus to the person who reverted. Something all to common in the AP topic area and something that should be addressed. As noted above yes when reverted they generally head to the talk page and start a discussion, which is good. Though as I explained that is not where the issue ends. So when taken as a whole there are major disruptions cased by this.
I am also rather disturbed at the debate over the BuzzFeed News article. Yes RSP says generally reliable, but the purpose of RSP is not if something is or is not reliable but if it is generally reliable. That is a distinction that is worth mentioning, it is still a case by case basis. The community has consensus that it is generally reliable, not that it is always reliable. So we have BuzzFeed News with their source being The Daily Stormer attacking a BLP. In this instance I would argue that the BuzzFeed article is not a RS for that info on a BLP. There are also arguments while it is not a BLP vio it is just a UNDUE situation. That is false as well. If it is UNDUE for a BLP it is a BLP vio to push to include it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, anyway. This thread opened with what should've been a non-starter. It's a sourced statement (and not to an op-ed in an unreliable source, as was presented) that relates to an aspect of Tucker Carlson that gets an awful lot of press attention. It's not a BLP violation that needs addressing on a noticeboard. That doesn't mean I think it should be in either the Daily Stormer or the Carlson article (that particular language is probably undue for both), but it was added one time, reverted, and not restored ... it's a content dispute. As for Levivich's list above, I agree with Aquillion about some of it, and there are some things that are minorly concerning. I checked the AN/ANI history for other instances of Soibangla being reported here, assuming that to jump so quickly to a tban proposal there must be some history, but there's none I can find. I see one 3RR block from six years ago and one AE request that was closed as a content dispute without action (as this should've been). Soibangla, if this is closed without action, maybe take it as advice to try to err on the side of caution and discussion a bit more? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per Levivich, especially this part: Normally I wouldn't suggest TBANing somebody for these kinds of edits, just sort of advising them about using high-quality sources and being more careful, etc., but the attitude, particularly their response to this thread, makes me think the editor is not interested in learning how to improve, and for as long as that remains the case, I support a BLP and AP2 TBAN.Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Without commenting on soibangla’s overall conduct, I’d like to object to User:Levivich’s misleading characterization of the discussion at Talk:Rudy Giuliani, where he seems to imply that I found fault with soibangla at that page. I'd also like to thank User:Grandpallama for correcting and clarifying the situation; without his ping I might not have noticed this thread. In fact I did not criticize soibangla’s talk page conduct; I merely warned him and the other editor for edit warring. My talk page criticisms were directed to the other editor, who was repeatedly disparaging and insulting soibangla. Please disregard that item in Levivich’s list of accusations. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    MelanieN, sorry, what misleading characterization do you see in what I wrote: The history of Rudy Guiliani and like most of Talk:Rudy Guiliani (see, e.g., "The two of you need to STOP the edit warring"), including comments like [94] [95] [96] [97]? I'm not "implying" that you found fault, I'm quoting your explicit finding of fault. Are you saying the two of them were not edit warring on Rudy Guiliani? Looking at the history of the page, it looks to me like they were. Those four diffs are the specific concerns I had at that talk page, and they're all by soiblanga, not by you. I guess I should have just said "edit warring at Rudy Guiliani with another editor" rather than quoting you; I'll do that next time; and it certainly wasn't my intent to mischaracterize you, but I didn't realize that you didn't think they were edit warring? Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 19:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    I did warn them both for edit warring. My point here is that I did not criticize soibangla’s talk page conduct - which is what was implied by your citing me along with a bunch of links to things soibangla said. If anything, I thought soibangla was remaining commendably calm and content-focused, rather than getting baited into attacking back. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don't understand how anyone could perceive that implication in what I wrote. Sorry, it wasn't intended. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 19:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

USER: Mr.User200 - keeps his posting his personal conclusions and counts under military/aviation articles.[edit]

Not a proper report. "Moving in the shadows" — really? Please don't say things like that. OP warned to self-correct. El_C 15:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

his most recent hits are:

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen

MIM-23 Hawk

but I am very sure he is everywhere, moving in the shadows and driving his personal POV as given facts. Give him a warning, block, I don't know... Just do something, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnkd (talkcontribs)

Just in case, use talk page for dispute resolution. Also the edit you reverted was just stick to the Source ( Literal from the RS "The airstrikes late Saturday on the al-Waitya airbase in the desert southwestern of Tripoli destroyed military equipment recently brought in by Turkey, including air-defense systems, according to officials in Tripoli. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media", the Washington Post. Your errasing of information at List of aviation incidents is pure blanking of content because you dont like it. And that edit is vandalism or DONTLIKEIT at least. You have errased that table over 8 timed in a years other users have reverted your blancking including me. Other pages have a final table too. See the Shotdown template artivles.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Canvassing and threatened to have an admin called on me[edit]

Self-requested block applied. El_C 15:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been told I was canvassing by Lil-unique1 and have been threatened by MaranoFan that he would bring admin if I kept creating “Finneas stubs”. This has happened in the past by different users and has made me very stressed. It seems like they want me banned, so if an admin can please do that request and ban this account, because I was canvassing and creating article that someone doesn’t like. That would be very helpful. The users can be happy and I can finally stop stressing over these incidents and move on with my life... DarklyShadows (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DarklyShadows, if editing Wikipedia is causing you distress, you should stop. I would be willing to block you for any duration you wish, up to and including indefinitely. El_C 14:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please read the notice at the top of ANI. You should leave ANI notices on both those editors' talk pages to notify them of this discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
El_C Indefinitely would be great. It seems these users want me gone and it’s making me very worried and stressed. Thanks a lot. DarklyShadows (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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

My talk page.[edit]

Can an admin sort out this weirdness that seems to be attacking my talk page. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I just indef'd the Commander in Chief. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
heh, cheers, let's make Wikipedia great again! Govvy (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
"[W]hy remove i need rights" — tweet-worthy! El_C 15:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Not even the actual real Donald Trump would write English as garbled as this. Now about those tax returns.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Covfefe? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
lol, I could restore the content for a laugh! heh. Govvy (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
If this were the real Trump he wouldn't be making a Wikipedia account to "make things right", he'd tweet something like: "Terrible! The failing Fake News Pedia isn't talking about how we are REBUILDING OUR ECONOMY. Did Hillary pay them off? Or was it China? JOBS!" ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Lol, I only just noticed this thread. I came across this user via Special:Log/newusers. Adam9007 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

heh, I decided to added it to bottom of User:Govvy for a laugh, feel free to write funny stuff below it if you want. Govvy (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I missed my joke earlier. I impeached the Commander in Chief. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Clash Jester[edit]

Was indeffed (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clash Jester (talk · contribs) is clearly WP:NOTHERE; see the number of warnings on his user page and his ongoing creation of very questionable redirects shown in his deleted CONTRIBS, which came about after their block for pretending to be a famous footballer. At worst a troll who thinks they are cleverer than they are, at best somebody who is CIR/NOTHERE. I suggest an indef block. GiantSnowman 16:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Agreed. See their talkpage, redirect mess. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether they are a professional footballer or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we have a CIR issue. Emailed me three times over the rename and unblock. Posted so many times to their talk page I could not accept their request and someone else unblocked during all the edit conflicts. Just too hot to trot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    I did not think too hard about the rename. Gah! t'ink about it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed on an indefinite block, we should not have imposters on Wikipedia such as this one "pretending to be a famous footballer". Footballers should be training at the time and days of these edits made by this user, not spending time trolling. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Agree with a block, he's clearly not here for the benefit of Wikipedia. JMHamo (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Based on the input here, and my own review of his live and deleted contribs, I think an indef block for WP:NOTHERE is due. Going to block after this edit. Dennis Brown - 23:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Mass-deletion of blocked user[edit]

Regarding User:Zinedinemay2006 , I reported them for for constantly recreating deleted and draftified pages to which he was swifty permanently blocked. I was thinking it could be in order for the pages created to be mass-removed. Take a look at the users talk page and contribs and you will see more about what I mean.   Kadzi  (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I was just discussing this on IRC. They have created over 100 pages, but quite a number have been cleaned up by other editors, e.g. Protea rubropilosa. Those ones should be left, at least. For the rest, not sure if it's better to delete/redirect the ones that are left, or just putting on maintenance tags. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Yep - there's also tons of draft pages that will now be unnecessarily stagnant in draftspace for 6 months (as user is blocked)   Kadzi  (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
A lot of the drafts are duplicates of mainspace articles (they recreated the same articles in mainspace after they were draftified). I suppose these mainspace duplicates could be deleted using G6, as cut-and-paste moves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
These new articles are in a horrible shape, that's a vast amount of cleaning-up - in effect they would have to be completely rewritten. Would support speedying the lot rather than expecting people to do that. But exempt those instances that have been sorted out correctly, like the one linked above. (Also note that a fair few of these are subspecies that would not normally receive a separate article in any case.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I (as well as Praxidicae) went through and redirected the subspecies articles to the appropriate species article (and even made a new article). I also had cleaned a few others up. They are certainly garbage articles, poorly formatted, sourced, and translated. It didn't take me too long to cleanup one, but no way I can cleanup all 50+ of their bad plant articles. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Leo Breman is having a go at working over the remaining ones - apparently they are translations from the Afrikaans WP. So I guess we could let them sit for a while and hope he doesn't run out of steam :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Kalpathyram's legal threats against മയലാം മല്ലു[edit]

for making legal threats by Yamla (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 06:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kalpathyram is making legal threats against മയലാം മല്ലു here. PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•AC) This message was left at 19:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You forgot to notify them of this discussion. I have done so. I have also blocked under WP:NLT. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Request to have Mary Kay Letourneau's wikipedia account locked (User:Smmary)[edit]

Globally Locked. Thanks Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infamous former school teacher Mary Kay Letourneau had a wikipedia account, Smmary that was used intermittently over the last decade to dispute claims about herself on her article per WP:BLPSELF, most recently just last year. Now that the subject is deceased per recent news coverage, and the fact that the article got over 700,000 views in the past few days can her user and talk pages be permanently protected. Thanks Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Repeated reversions and evidence of bias by TruthGuardians (at FBI files on Michael Jackson)[edit]

Note: Rather than report this user outright for edit warring, I've decided to move it here in the spirit of good faith, but I am using the template for reporting a user.

Page: FBI files on Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TruthGuardians (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/966891033

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/966883524
  2. Special:Diff/966884490
  3. Special:Diff/966884699
  4. Special:Diff/966884951
  5. Special:Diff/966891033

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/966897110

I believe there is evidence of extreme bias within FBI files on Michael Jackson, and within the actions of User:TruthGuardians. Unfortunately it's a complicated issue, so bear with me, if you will.

This WP article is about the FBI Files about Michael Jackson that were released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2009. According to the FBI's own words about these files:

Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases.

— FBI, FBI Records: Michael Jackson,

There are no conclusions in the FBI files, they are merely a collection of evidence and reports used to assist law enforcement agencies (as anyone can see for themselves at the above link). The files are largely comprised of collected newspaper clippings or technical analysis of evidence. However the FBI files on Michael Jackson article has been edited to selectively address various newspaper clippings or allegations within the file.

Consider the following sentence: "Other allegations being tracked by various newspaper clippings included detectives traveling to the Philippines to interview a couple who use to work for Jackson. Due to credibility issues over back pay, their claims were dismissed."

There is no conclusion about the claims within the FBI file, simply a newspaper clipping referring to them.

Or the following paragraph written in response to another newspaper clipping in the file:

In 2003, 10 years after George accused Jackson, he cheerfully recalled his 1979 interview with him in Louis Theroux’s documentary, Louis, Martin & Michael. When asked about the accusation he said “it came out really without my authority” and "it developed from somebody who had a big mouth, basically, one of my close friends who knew about the story." Regarding whether the story was true George told Theroux “parts of it are true of the story are true...I mean I would say the majority is true but papers get their bit and they twist it and they make things a bit sensationalized really."

These comments are not about the FBI file itself, but rather selectively choosing small samples of a 300+ page document (namely accusations relating to Michael Jackson) and attempting to address THEM. In short, this page seems to primarily spend its time selectively referencing specific allegations and attempting to refute them, pushing the narrative of Jackson's innocence.

This apparent bias is supported by TruthGuardians's complaints on the Talk page that the article is being vandalised by users who wish to remove "content that is critical of Jackson’s accusers" (see Special:Diff/962478693).

The page should simply be about the FBI's files, and the public reaction to their release. There is nothing "unbalanced" about the files that needs to be addressed, nor anything critical about Michael Jacksons's accusers that needs to be added. WikiMane11 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I partial blocked both TruthGaurdians and ThunderPeel2001 36 hours for edit warring on that page. This is ThunderPeel's first offense, but it is TruthGaurdian's second (he was warned, but not blocked, for edit warring a month ago), so I would support a longer block on TruthGaurdian. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    I make no judgement on the other claims, beyond saying that both users should have used dispute resolution to solve this content dispute before it became an edit war. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems fair. As stated above, I have begun the dispute process here: Special:Diff/966897110. I believe the page itself has some serious issues that need to be address, however. WikiMane11 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Having recently participated in the talk page discussion for this article, and tweaked the contents a bit, I would suggest that the article should be configured so as to follow what is said in third-party sources, rather than attempting to reflect any editor's judgment about what in the FBI files bears repeating on Wikipedia. BD2412 T 02:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Willing to mediate[edit]

A request has been filed at DRN for moderated dispute resolution. I am willing to mediate a discussion to resolve this as an article content dispute if the parties agree that this can be dealt with as a content dispute. As User:BD2412 has said, the article has to reflect what reliable third parties have written about the files, and the discussion has to focus on what the article should say, which should be consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since any dispute resolution process is voluntary, and dispute resolution only takes places in one forum at a time, the parties will have to agree to withdraw any conduct issues at least for now. Do the editors want to engage in moderated dispute resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to that course of action. BD2412 T 00:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


User reblocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Darth-X-President was previously blocked by another admin (not me) for disruptive editing, specifically, frequent page moves without discussion and an unwillingness to acknowledge concerns posted to their Talk page. They pledged to "never move a page without discussing it with others" [111], on which basis I unblocked them. Two days ago they did, in fact, make another unilateral page move [112] without discussion and outside a naming convention. This move was then undone. I then posted this request for clarification to their Talk page. Since the datestamp on my request for clarification, they have resumed editing but have not answered my inquiry. I believe reimposing the indefinite block would be warranted, however, would prefer not to do so out of a preponderance of caution as my judgment may be clouded since I was the one who unblocked them in the first place. Would an admin please review this and take whatever action or non-action you feel is appropriate? Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  • You unblocked them, you are in the best position to decide if they have violated the terms. There is nothing barring you from policing your own unblock. Dennis Brown - 10:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Since you were the unblocking admin I contacted you about this rather than considering the block myself. I didn't want to step on your toes and I think in many cases the unblocking admin is the best to reimpose a block if they feel the terms of the unblock have been violated. Canterbury Tail talk 10:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I also admire your willingness to be open-minded and forgiving - but if they're ignoring your communication, I don't see a single thing wrong with a reblock. — Ched (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. Based on that I've blocked the editor in question. Chetsford (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Personal attack, disruptive edits, and battleground behavior by User:LordAgincourt[edit]

The reported user was blocked for disruptive editing and personal attack on 25 June and 27 June.[113] I warned this user for his edits on Ganja, Azerbaijan and he used personal attack in his reply.[114] See how he replied to another editor that reverted his edits.[115][116] This case is a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE because it seems LordAgincourt refuses to follow WP rules and guidelines even after 2x block. Also see how he disrupted talk pages; e.g. deleting other editors' comments[117] and troll stuff like this.[118] --Wario-Man (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You can clearly see im contributing constructive edits to help improve an artticle. It is not vandalism. It is not trolling. It os not a violation. I was already blocked for deleting a dead talk page which seems excessive. My edit was sourced from an E.I article on Ganzak. Did you bother to look it up? You seemed to attack me on my talk page saying something that doesnt appear to be true. The edit was xlarifying a contradiction in the article. And you want to block me for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordAgincourt (talkcontribs) 05:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


Will someone please block Kadasa12 (talk · contribs) for WP:NPA on my talk page and elsewhere. If you look at their talk, you'll see mention of at least two IPs they appear also to be using. - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


- Sitush (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


Reclosing. OP partially blocked 2 weeks. El_C 14:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a preventative measure to prevent further edit warning. Editor repeatedly removes information given in the article with the claim it isn't sourced. It is clearly. The claim is bizarre as it is dishonest, the first admin to cross paths with me on this has failed to act, despite agreeing with me about the issue and the content. Dapi89 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is John Cunningham (RAF officer) FYI. Dapi89 (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Who identified the birds as Kentish plover? Narky Blert (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Seems to me that the discussion on the talk page is more than covering it, however Dapi89 is refusing to hear it. Dapi89 is making a claim as to the specific type of bird without sources to back it up and is the one who inserted the specific bird type in the first place. Seems like a wooden aerial weapon is coming around. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dapi89: When making an ANI report, you must notify the involved editors. I have done so for you in this case.
Taking a look at the page history, it appears that both editors have broken 3RR. No exemption appears to have been claimed by either. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, I misread the page history. Dapi89 has broken 3RR; Pigsonthewing performed two non-consecutive reverts, then two consecutive reverts with no other edits in between, which doesn't break 3RR according to my interpretation. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
There was certainly an edit war nine days ago; but PotW hasn't edited the article in a week. Dapi89's report is, frankly, verging on the disruptive: if anything, they have re-ignited the edit-war on their own. . ——Serial # 13:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

[ec; not stale] Time for a Boomerang. Immediately after returning for a one-week block, Dapi89 has one again restored a claim not made in the cited source, with an edit summary of "dishonest lover [sic] mentioned in Golley; further reversion will be referred to disruptive editing page". The falsity of the claim has been established on the talk page. Although they has just posted there, with false accusations, they do not refute. @RexxS: as the admin who previously protected the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reopened the report. Sorry about that, Pigsonthewing. El_C 14:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

IP editors breaking links in Indian film-related lists[edit]

IPV6 /64 rangeblocked for a month by El_C. (non-admin closure). --Jack Frost (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A succession of IP editors has been removing the piped parts of links in Indian film-related lists, to the great aggravation of other editors, particularly DABfixers, who come across their messes. This diff is typical. The solution is reversion; but at least three editors (including myself) have been fixing individual entries on the usual assumption that someone hadn't checked their links before posting. It's very possible to miss things that way: bluelinks to WP:PTOPICs don't show up on any radar, and it was only when I chanced to spot a film called Railway Station that I thought to look more deeply.

This one is live (last edit 02:49, 10 July 2020)

These are stale (active 1 May 2020 - 6 July 2020; sorted in range order):

There could well have been others. They seem never to stay on one IP for more than a day. This looks WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR, and I suggest an appropriately-designed WP:BLOCK. Narky Blert (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock one month. El_C 13:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
That was quick, I was still posting the notifications! Narky Blert (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Repeated reversions by Israell[edit]

Partial bloc one week. It looks like you accidentally posted this here instead of at AN3. No matter. El_C 13:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disclaimer: I have been found guilty of edit warring on this page and am currently under a ban, so I fully acknowledge that (along with another user User:TruthGuardians). However another user on the page is guilty of edit warring as of this morning, and as per the sanctions on this topic, such behaviour is to be reported here.

Page: FBI files on Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Israell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/966884951

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/966886713
  2. Special:Diff/966890645
  3. Special:Diff/966900419
  4. Special:Diff/966917033

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/966974522

There is a wider issue this article being used to push an agenda (see above and Special:Diff/966884626). That conversation is ongoing. However attempts to bring other Wikieditors into the conversation through the addition of WP:NPOV have been thwarted by User:Israell. They have repeatedly removed the tag from the page, claiming they feel the article is already "balanced".

Note: User:Israell has already been warned for potentially WP:CANVASSING in this topic, suggesting a partial bias. WikiMane11 (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Max Pumpking[edit]

Already globally locked; per meta:Global locks, globally-locked accounts can't even log in, much less edit their talk page. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Max Pumpking (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) please revoke TPA. See for example this edit or the edit summary of the immedately following edit. Please also revdel the contents, some stuff there doesnt belong here... Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: I have reformatted your comment to make a clickable link, rather than forcing people to edit the page and use copy-paste; I hope that's all right. --JBL (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No need, they're globally locked now and thus have no talk page access. Praxidicae (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Jason Drummond vandalism[edit]

The page for Jason Drummond continues to be vandalised by user I read the news today. I have previously asked for the page to be protected, which was done, the user then returned. It is seemingly only this user who wants to make Drummond look bad and if you look at the user's contributions Special:Contributions/I_read_the_news_today, you will see that he focuses solely on adjusting Drummond's page to his liking. I have suggested on Drummond's talk page that he is possibly the same vexatious litigant who is mentioned in the article for having brought a private prosecution against Drummond in August 2019 using forged evidence, however I have no proof that it is this same person, it just seems like a logical conclusion, given that the user previously submitted an edit where he referenced a campaign that was started by the same individual mentioned in the private prosecution (or at least one with the same name - seems like an improbably coincidence). The same campaign had no contributors, no followers and no publicity, so only this person could have known about it. I have made multiple 'undo' changes to Drummond's BLP and reverted it multiple times to a cleaner and more preferred version but the user continues to vandalise and post links that either don't work or have no relevance to BLP. I previously reported this user on the vandalism admin page and the request was seemingly ignored - I did not receive a response so I am now posting it here for discussion. JulianParge (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Whatever is going on at that page, what that editor is doing isn't vandalism, questionable yes, with a touch of BLP violations and poor sourcing. There's clearly some long-term COI editing going on from other editors, and reasonable deduction would have me think Jason7477 (talk · contribs) is the subject of the article. Some other accounts there are no less suspicious. There's enough going on at that page to warrant further examination at WP:COIN regardless of the outcome in regards to that user. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I dispute that I am vandalising the page Jason Drummond . I am seeking to add sourced and relevant material. Whether that makes the subject look good or bad does not concern me - just that it is sourced and accurate. I am more than happy to see all relevant and sourced material posted about the subject. User JulianParge has gone the opposite way and has sought repeatedly to revert to a "Wiki Lite" treatment of the subject as he and others have effectively systematically removed a number of relevant and neutral postings over time. The latest revision by user JulianParge again removes on a wholesale basis a number of perfectly relevant and well sourced postings. These could and should have been left on the page through more precise and targeted editing rather than a wholesale removal. I have removed virtually nothing posted by previous posters, unless those postings are unverifiable, but have sought to add only relevant verifiable material. Through his actions JulianParge seeks to continually suppress and conceal neutral and sourced material. In a free society this is wholly unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I read the news today (talkcontribs) 09:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Akoroves has taken to being a troll account[edit]

Resolved: Indef blocks issued.

Quick backstory User:Akoroves previously was blocked for sockpuppetry when he repeatedly trying to add himself (Alexander Korevesis) to Korovesis using a second account (User:Wikiauthor77). Since then, the Korovesis page has been protected multiple times due to random IPs adding Alexander Korevesis to the list of notable people, prompting this warning from User:NinjaRobotPirate. Almost immediately after the second period of page protection ended on June 4, the editor immediately started to add either fictional people (ex: ex2 and ex2) or himself but with a fictional description (ex) through random IPs until a third page protection was placed. This has prompted Akoroves to actually use his account to continue trolling the page (ex1, ex2). I seeing that the editor only wishes to troll the page, this editor clearly is not here to build an encyclopedia. GPL93 (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


Criticsandupdates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is persisting in adding material to Jayne Joso, which doesn't appear to be supported by the source cited. When I've raised this at User talk:Criticsandupdates, there's been no reply - Criticsandupdates just reinstates the material. The only communication I've had has been this rather cryptic message, which the user immediately deleted. Note that there's been COI editing of this article before, as noted at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 103#Jayne Joso. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that row 143 of the march spreadsheet cited says that an award was med to "Jayne Rollinson" for "The Water CaTts (novel)" There is no cited source that says that Jayne Joso is Jayne Rollinson, although that might be the case. Brief and cryptic communication, failing to mention a difference of name, edit warring to insert a statement of debatable significan ce noty clearly supported by the cited source, none of this is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible block evasion?[edit]

Problem solved. Dennis Brown - 01:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This IP put a sock puppet tag on the IP page. See here. Since that account is blocked, this IP might as well be blocked for block evasion. Interstellarity (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reblocked the /64 range for 3 months.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Ponyo for looking into this. Interstellarity (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Had enough of this[edit]

I'm stepping away from the conflict but I would prefer attacks such as this, this and this were dealt with. I'd also appreciate someone looking at this account who popped up at exactly the same time as the IP started attacking. Maybe also this one who appeared out of nowhere. Absconded Northerner (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked the IPv4 address for PAs and edit warring. The IPv6 address could be...some really meta WP:MEAT I guess? But I'm not gonna block yet. The Sherrif of Nottingham account probably needs a rename, but I'm on mobile and don't wanna search out the rename template :p Otherwise their edits seem productive enough, probably just a local resident. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 00:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Incivility towards WMF employees at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (WMF)[edit]

No call for administrative action at this time, and the underlying Village Pump discussion has been closed yesterday by CaptainEek with a thoughtful statement to which I commend to all of you. As Wikipedia:Civility says, our encyclopedia's civility expectations apply sitewide, which means we all must show mutual respect toward others. Neutralitytalk 17:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am pretty sure nothing would come out of this topic, and I will probably be the one everything is blamed on, however, I am afraid we have to go through it to demonstrate that the community is not capable of solving the problem. We have a topic, Wikipedia talk:Village pump (WMF)#Civility and safe space, started by @Qgil-WMF:, a WMF employee (I believe he is employed in the community engagement of whatever it is now, under Maggie Dennis). Quim argues that even if there is a disagreement between the WMF and the community (which is the case now), the discussions still can be held civilly, and WP:CIVILITY is not optional here. A number of users supported this but a number of users also opposed (some of them are using W?F notation for the WMF, following the earlier suggestion by Guy Macon). If I try to summarize the arguments (and I might be wrong here because these are not my arguments) there are three: (i) the community is so exhausted because of the policy of WMF which takes disastrous decisions affecting the community without prior consultation and without taking the feedback of the community into account, that it is ok to be sometimes incivil; (ii) the WMF can do with us whatever they want, and we can not do anything with them, so being incivil is justified; (iii) what is happening (including using W?F in the responses to WMF employees) is civil and ok. I will not provide diffs, reading the whole topic (it is not that long) is instructive. My argument is basically that we need somehow to enforce civility at least at that page (may be the VP and its talk page), but I think with this one I will leave it here and see what the community can do.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

As I am not seeking sanctions against specific individuals (and generally while I strongly disagree with some opinions provided there I believe all users who participated in the discussion are at this point net-positive for Wikipedia), I will not go to the individual talk pages. Instead, in my next edits I will ping all the participants of that discussion and also leave there a message about the existence of this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sitush, Naypta, Fram, QEDK, and Hammersoft:--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman, Certes, Joe Roe, GreenMeansGo, and RexxS:--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Headbomb and Barkeep49:, I hope I did not forget anybody--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Thank you for posting this here. I have been fairly clear, both here and elsewhere on-wiki, in that I am of the opinion that our civility policy should be enforced much more strongly everywhere on the wiki, not just at VPWMF. That being said, I think there is a particular issue at VPWMF, and that it's particularly serious because it doesn't only affect one or two editors; rather, it affects the entire community's relationship with the WMF and its staff, and could even affect recruiting staff members for the WMF in the first instance. I know I wouldn't want to work for an organisation where I spent my day taking abuse from random usernames on Wikipedia. I share your lack of faith that this will be resolved here, but one can hope that it will be.
WP:CIVILITY does not have exceptions, and IAR is not, in my view, valid for the civility policy. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Strongly agree that the civility policy is IAR-exempt. There's a difference, in any discussion be it on or off Wikipedia, between being robust in your arguments and crossing the line into name-calling or similar. As one example, we wouldn't tolerate a community member deliberately changing another party to a (non-WMF targeted) discussion's name repeatedly to make a point, so why are we doing the same when referring to the WMF here? I don't think the WMF as an organisation is perfect, far from it, but I do think we should be expressing views in a way that's respectful to the human reading it at the other end, regardless of our thoughts on the entity as a whole. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Please give diffs of my "harrassment" or incivility. It is all explained on that talk page and very clearly I was misrepresented from the outset. - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned you are in group (iii) - you think the discussion is above the WP:CIVILITY threshold. Please correct me if i am wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Not good enough. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
This place is for admin intervention. If someone wants to block me for saying that an idea seemed "stupid" and yet also saying that if it must carry on then whoever lies behind it should consider WP:SYSTEMIC then go ahead. I am not in a diplomatic service and I'm not going to write an extra 20 words to make the same point when everyone knows what I mean anyway. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Thank you for the ping. Having re-read my contributions, I am confident that they contain no harassment or incivility. I look forward to a speedy resolution so that we can resume our search for a workable solution. Certes (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Who has been harassed there actually? The only one arguing that a specific discussion was running afoul of civility and safe space concerns was Qgil, who accused Sitush of being uncivil. But even that was just Qgil giving their opinion, perhaps in an attempt to stifle negative opinions of WMF right from the start. If there are other bits of the discussion you think are uncivil and constitute harassment, then please provide diffs. I haven't checked what has been said since last night, but at that time it was just a theoretical discussion of what might be allowable or expected in certain circumstances, not any actual harassment or incivility, so no reason at all to involve ANI and to post dramatic headlines. Fram (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have now read the discussion at that talk page since I left for the night, and there is only one post there that is truly problematic and needs some admin stepping in, and that is the hugely chilling and unwarranted "We are not quite ripe for arbitration, but I think I will try first ANI before movng to the arbitration." by Ymblanter. WTF? How can anyone reading that discussion think there is anything there that needs ANI, never mind arbitration? That, together with the false "harassment" claim here, is just an attempt at intimidation and scaring away people. This is not acceptable, collegial behaviour, and is much more uncivil and anti-safespace than anything else said there. Fram (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not sure how I should reply to this. Let us see what others have to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • One of the problems is that while we're volunteers, WMF employees are just that, and they deserve to be treated with the same kind of respect we would give to employees of any other organization we interact with. Yes, we can have vigorous debate, but we can't skirt the same lines of incivility as we can get away with when we're interacting with each other. We can't treat them like other volunteers. Using W?F is bullying, IMO, and so was the discussion of the 'Article of the week'. This in my opinion is the same as being rude to a waiter or the grocery store clerk just because you can. For all we know this person has had 'interacting with enwiki at VPWMF' added to their job description. —valereee (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Ha! You are sort of suggesting that the reverse may not apply, ie: that the WMF employees need not respect the volunteers. Cart before horse, I think, given they would have no job without us volunteers. Brilliant! - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    Sitush, where has a WMF employee been calling something you did stupid, or rendering your username in an insulting way, or otherwise interacting with you in a way you found disrespectful to the point you needed to open a discussion about it on a talk page? The reason you can get away with being rude to waiters is because they can't punch back. I hope you aren't that kind of person. —valereee (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    I would argue that there have been cases where the WMF has been sealioning us (e.g. superprotect, Wikipedia rebranding, etc.) and even though they use polite language, they are actually telling the community to go f*ck itself. Of course that's not a reason to be rude to them, especially not to individual employees, but respect must go both ways. -- King of ♥ 21:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I haven't see Guy Macon's suggestion of W?F you've referred to, but considering the 'rebranding' issue, which looked like it would quite possibly change WMF to WPF, this doesn't seem like bullying. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
So you do not think that widely promoting a relatively poor article via an official Twitter feed and doing so without first consulting the community was disrespectful and potentially quite damaging? I'm not trawling back through my ten years or so here but I can tell you that there have been occasions when WMF employees have been disrespectful, even if they adopt sealioning to be thus. Me, I just say it as it is because civil disrespect is still disrespect so why go round the houses? Not that I consider my remarks to be disrespectful and I have said as much. Just now above, I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your comment. I can tell you now how this thread will end up - no consensus - because that's how all discussions about WP:CIVIL end up. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I certainly think there's a concern to be addressed, and that forum is the place to address it. The whole reason for having the forum is to give WMF a place to come and ask about shit like that, and the way to make sure they think of it is to make that place a place they feel like they can maybe bounce around an idea without being called stupid. And the reason all discussions about civility go nowhere is that there are too many people here who enjoy being uncivil. —valereee (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
No, the reason is because civility is in the eye of the beholder. But if you think that it is because too many people "enjoy" it then just maybe there is consensus that WP:CONSENSUS does not work for the issue? - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not following? —valereee (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, you wrote it: the reason all discussions about civility go nowhere is that there are too many people here who enjoy being uncivil. But you cannot possibly prove it. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You also say to make that place a place they feel like they can maybe bounce around an idea ... But they didn't, did they? They just went ahead and did it on their Twitter feed. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee We can't treat [W?F employees] like other volunteers. Why not? The civility policy already applies to every discussion. Are you suggesting there should be a separate civility policy governing interactions with W?F employees? (my use of "W?F" is just a little bit of protest against renaming) Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 11:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Harassment is, as always, a serious accusation, and not one to be made lightly and without evidence, particularly by an admin. Reviewing the discussion, I'm not seeing anything that can be construed as "harassment", or even incivility. If I'm overlooking something, please elaborate, by all means. However it's not clear to me what the implication of "W?F" is. ~Swarm~ {sting} 10:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    The level of incivility some volunteer editors are willing to accept from one another shouldn't be the low bar for everything. We're dealing with employees of an organization. —valereee (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself. Asked and answered above. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Your answers were nonresponsive. —valereee (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, Sitush's answers were spot-on. You appear to be claiming that there was no answer instead of an answer that you are not willing to accept. You may find [ ] to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I actually agree that harassment is too broad a notion, and there is likely nothing in this thread which a majority would define as harassment. I therefore changed the title of this topic. I disagree about incivility.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • While I do see the point that we shouldn't abuse the WMF just because we can (and vice versa), others do have a point that the WMF should at least warn the community if they're doing to do anything major that is going to draw a lot of outside attention. At the very least, they should have posted a notice to that article's talk page before making it Article of the Week to give the article regulars time to clean it up (if not, ya know, putting something in the Signpost to give even more members time to prepare). These aren't opposing issues, these are perpendicular issues being used by differing sides. If the WMF is not going to do that, they need to not get butthurt when their actions are criticized. And sure, we shouldn't seek to make them butthurt and I'm not yet seeing any reason to go all A.WMF.A.B. here. As for the other issue of balance of power (e.g. the WMF can remove members of this community but not the other way around), the only WMF employee I can think of who I actually got into a conflict with where I know we were both angry at each other is not a current employee. Anecdotal but that episode suggests for me that although (actually perhaps because) the WMF is non-profit, they will cut employees who cause too much trouble getting butthurt over criticism or who otherwise risk putting them too far in the red. If I had to propose any solutions, it'd be for the WMF to say they'll try to do better at checking with the community before taking actions that affect it and (unless and until the WMF starts secretly removing members of the community for editorial purposes) for the community to remember that the WMF is just trying to keep the damn site up. No apologies, no blocks, no bans, no new polices or guidelines or taskforces or initiatives. I know that's gonna be unsatisfactory to a lot of people. Oh well. No real action needs to be taken. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Skimming through the discussion, I see robust debate ("stupid idea" is NOT a personal attack, even if overly blunt, btw), but what disturbs me is that I am seeing WMF employees DEMAND more respect than we normally give each other. This is certainly part of the reason I gave up my admin bit for some time, and wrote the open letter (still) on my user page. There is nothing on that page that needs administrative interference. All I can conclude is that some people are being very thin skinned and wanting our policy on civility enforced on WMF pages at a level that it isn't enforced on every other page, and THAT is a problem. If you can't handle robust debate, then collaborative projects aren't your cup of tea. Yes, we want to be civil in all things, but that this trivial thing was brought here is a bit disturbing and reinforces the reservations that many of us already have about the Foundation. Dennis Brown - 10:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    It seems that most times that a representative from the WMF talks to the community, I'm reminded of the animated film "Animal Farm", where one of the Seven Commandments is modified to read "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" (emphasis added). Dennis Brown - 19:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    the animated film "Animal Farm" Oh. Uh. I love you Dennis. But I think maybe I have a book you need to borrow. GMGtalk 20:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Having read the discussions above and on pages referenced, I cannot help but to think WP:CIVILITY, in this case, is used as a means to quench dissent. That is unequivocally bad and transcends the scope of the policy in question. Moreover if sanctions or remedies are not requested and no diffs of actual incivility are provided, the question what this is doing on WP:ANI is a legitimate one. Kleuske (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • To echo the above two comments. This is another example of the WMF attempting to enforce a level of discourse which is incompatible with the ENWP community, it's policies and general robust discussion. Frankly the accusations of harassment and incivility are just laughably idiotic. The pattern is getting tiresome. WMF does stupid thing. Members of community get annoyed at stupid thing and call it stupid. WMF and it's lackeys complain about their feelings being hurt. The concept that if they stopped doing stupid things without talking to the community first, they wouldn't get treated harshly afterwards seems never to cross their minds. Despite it being repeatedly pointed out to them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Since I was pinged.) Dennis' formulation is a fairly good one re: "more respect than we normally give each other". Not to say that we do or ought to disrespect one other. But this ain't a tea party, and we ain't here to compliment the drapery and the scones. This is a factory floor and the machinery runs by smashing ideas into each other, and doing our gods honest best to argue our position, because that's how we get a better encyclopedia. I think most of us on the floor are pretty used to that.
If people are crossing the line into legitimate attacks against people, rather than ideas, then we should call them out on it, myself included. As it happens, I no-so-long-ago had occasion to email Ymblanter and apologize, because I was concerned that I'd given them honest offense. If I've given someone else offense then let me know and I'll be happy to apologize for that too. But ideas? Ideas are fair game. We should attack them more. Mine. Yours. All of them. And we ought not disrespect the issue of harassment by confusing harassment with the sound of smashing ideas. GMGtalk 11:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've read through the discussion and I'm not sure what the exact issue is. I don't see any breaches of civility and would strongly oppose any action taken.
It's nice for the WMF to tweet about popular and well written (emphasis mine) articles. It's probably also fine for them to tweet about articles that need editing or improvement (which we also have a project for). It's not a bad idea on its own merits. So, the ideal course of action would be to explain to the WMF that we have established procedures in place and they'd be welcome to use and advertise content from those as a demonstration of what we do.
That should end the conversation, but because the community and the WMF have been at loggerheads with each other for years and years, with the WMF having lost the community's respect, anything they do is likely to be received poorly, regardless of its merits. I think the community needs to be more respectful to the messages the WMF send out (cf. "never attribute to malice etc") but equally the WMF need to be respectful towards the community and frame their messages in the least antagonising way they can possibly muster. That's kind of the essence of what (I think) WP:CIVIL is.
I agree with Only In Death that the WMF has made questionable actions that have antagonised the community and caused perfectly justifiable criticism and blowback; however, I don't agree that this specific thing (Article of the Week) warrants the same level of robust criticism as some of the more well-publicised events of the past. Is this really a hill worth dying on? The point somebody made about rebranding often being an exercise for consultants to make money is a fair and legitimate one; I'm struggling to find a way that could phrase that in a way that would make the WMF understand it. The use of "W?F" is silly and is similar to those who call Brexiters "stupid, ignorant racist Tory scumbags" - I agree with their point of view, I just don't understand what effect it will have other than making them feel better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You know what I think would honest-to-god help solve the issue more than anything else? Every Foundation employee, regardless of rank or stature, is required to spend a minimum of 45 minutes every day contributing to a project in some way. Not posting on phab. Not looking at a spreadsheet. In the trenches, with the Soldiers, doing the ditry work. You want to proofread an article? Go for it. You want to take a walk outside your office and snap some pictures to upload to Commons? Fantastic. But when you submit your timesheet, that justifies why we are using donations to pay for your salary, you need to have a justification of how you spent your three hours and 45 minutes this week contributing to the thing that employs you. GMGtalk 13:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo This has been suggested before - I've seen it rejected on legal grounds, specifically: people from the foundation editing as part of their work would introduce liability issues. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Specifically, it might contravene their 501(c)(3) status. ——Serial # 16:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not totally sure I understand what's problematic about that from a tax perspective. I had considered that it might be dicey from a 230 perspective. I presumed it could be framed as a training requirement. As in, they weren't being paid to "contribute" any content in particular with no oversight, but they were contributing as a way to familiarize themselves with the projects they were running. Interesting. GMGtalk 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
230 of the CDA is the main concern, I think. I presumed it could be framed as a training requirement. Hm... not sure that would work, but it's an interesting line of thought. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 20:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have read the original conversations carefully but only skimmed here. I think volunteers need to have a way to protest foundation decisions and W?F seems like a reasonable one and not, in my view, bullying. If the foundation chooses not to respond to people using that language that too seems reasonable. What bothered me in the discussion is that some members of the community were suggesting that foundation employees deserve no respect or should have no expectation of civility. Also I'm pretty proud of the house metaphor I came up with to describe what happened here so I'll just link to that diff. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If this is the example of incivility that WMF came out with, we have a problem. Not of incivility, but rather one of the WMF (or, at least the one employee who opened the incivility thread) not understanding the meaning of debate and discourse being able to deal with (mild) criticism. That, it seems to me, is the bigger problem. (Nice analogy @Barkeep49:. Particularly the use of the landlord - renter because it nicely sets up the power equation.)--regentspark (comment) 14:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
regentspark, I fixed your link for you, hope you don't mind. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi. I just want to say that I had seen this page a few hours ago and I had written a detailed reply sharing my perspective. Meanwhile, the discussion has... evolved here too, and now I fear posting what others may interpret as more gasoline. I want to thank Ymblanter for acting with best intentions. I have no interest in accentuating any tensions. I find the discussion here interesting but (to be clear) I am not seeking any administrators' action. Looking forward to the time and place when we all can discuss about one tweet without causing these side effects. Meanwhile, we'll do our best. Right now I'm not sure about the best immediate next steps, but probably it will become clearer in the next day(s). Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If telling the WMF that one of their ideas was stupid every time they came up with a stupid idea was sanctionable, we wouldn't have many editors left. There is a massive difference between saying an idea is stupid, and saying a person is stupid. Having said that, the Article of the Week wasn't a stupid idea, it was just badly implemented, something we've seen from the WMF many times as well. "Would you like a functional WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia?" "Sure we would!" *WMF come up with Visual Editor* Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a culture clash that will never be resolved. Sheer tilting at windmills here. The WMF has the culture of a San Francisco non profit. To those who aren't familiar with this type of culture, calling a colleague's idea or work "stupid" is a damn near fireable offense in this culture. Enwiki, meanwhile, has the culture of an internet website. In this type of culture, I can call a colleague a "c---" and people would debate whether or not I should be punished for it. Trying to get internet people to act the way people act at San Fran nonprofits is hilariously unrealistic. You'll have a better chance of brokering peace in the Middle East. WMF just needs to accept they're dealing with internet culture. A more reasonable standard is trying to stop people from calling each other "c---". Also recognize that it's a very self selected group that's posting there (myself included), not representative of the wider community. (Same at ANI by the way. You'd get a different response if you posted this at VPP or on Cent.) Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 15:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That is a good point, but I don't think that the culture is specific to San Francisco. My wife works for an NYC non-profit, and the culture seems pretty similar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • +1 on this being a good point. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry for sounding like a broken record but I did not call anyone "stupid" and have no idea whether it was the work of one person or a committee. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Levivich. We've adopted a culture of communication- and it's served us well- that forthright language, for the sake of the actual article contents, is welcome and expected. The Fram debacle has shown us that trying to elevate civility above, and to the detriment of, all other concerns isn't going to work and if the WMF wants to keep picking that fight they're going to keep losing. Besides, it isn't really collegiality at all; you can still snark and snipe at each other all day in the style of a Noel Coward comedy of manners provided nobody says "fuck" but that's just a veneer of civility, not the real thing. Reyk YO! 16:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Evidence, please. This started with Ymblanter making the following claim:

"This is pretty much what you are doing now - harassing WMF employees by calling them names on the sole basis of them being WMF employees."[119]

I responded with

"Please provide a diff where anyone on Wikipedia called anyone names on the sole basis of them being a W?F employee. I will be glad to report that behavior at ANI and ask the Administrators to put a stop to it.[120]

Ymblanter then came here making vague accusations without providing a single diff to back up the above claim. Since when does AN or ANI even discuss reports where the complainant refuses to provide diffs?

In the above thread Valereee claims "Using W?F is bullying, and Ymblanter claims that "using W?F in the responses to WMF employees" is a violation of WP:CIVIL (an assertion that multiple editors in this thread have disagreed with.)

For the record, here is my suggestion in its entirety:

A minor gesture of protest: W?F

As a minor gesture of protest against the Wikimedia foundation's decision to rebrand itself with Wikipedia's good name, until they back down I choose to call them "the "W?F".
Feel free to assume that this stands for "WMF", "WPF", or "WTF".
I call on those who oppose the rebranding to start using "W?F".
"We should have been clearer: a rebrand will happen. This has already been decided by the Board."[121] -- Heather Walls, head of the Communications department at the Wikimedia Foundation and executive sponsor of the Brand project.
Sometimes it is the small things that tip the scales. --Guy Macon, 1 July 2020

I dispute the assertion that the above is incivility, and I would call the reader's attention to [ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy: I've suggested once before that you ought to withdraw the comparison between societal privilege that people live through every day and people not liking what you say on Wikipedia. I'd like to strongly make that suggestion once more. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. I do not agree that one cannot compare things that are similar in some ways without implying that they are similar in all ways. In my opinion, your suggestion leads to a world without metaphor or simile, never comparing anything to anything else and noting the similarities unless they are identical in all ways. I personally think that it is acceptable for me to say "I am burning up" on a hot day or "let's eat. I'm starving" without having a new Tone Police Academy graduate accuse me of insensitivity to people who are actually on fire or who are actually starving. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's being incivil Guy, I just think it's being an attention-seeking dick. And to try and compare it to the Everyday Feminism article you linked to is ridiculous. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333 has been warned on his talk page about personal attacks such as the one above. Let us hope that he does not choose to escalate the conflict with additional personal attacks or other conduct unbecoming of an administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x3 - I just posted a longer version of this to the VP talk page thread, so will try not to be too redundant. In terms of what's relevant for ANI, it seems important to distinguish between harsh criticism of the foundation and harsh criticism of employees as individuals, because civility doesn't work the same way in both cases. It also seems important to assume that responses to a WMF employee acting as a representative of the organization are more accurately directed at the foundation. That's what I see in the AoTW thread. If someone calls something the WMF did "stupid", while not ideal, that's different from calling a person stupid or even telling a person "your idea is stupid". It does get at a fundamental question regarding interaction between the foundation and the community: is it better for the employee working on AoTW (for example) to try to engage with the community even though it's personal because the community does value that personal element, or is it better to have designated employees communicate dispassionately on behalf of the foundation at the risk of fully formalizing the relationship. I don't know the answer to that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Numerous editors across a wide range of Wikimedia projects have used various means of imploring the WMF to listen to us regarding their ill-conceived rebranding project. So now they are communicating with us... by asking us to be more polite. Very tone-deaf. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
What is all this bullshit about safe spaces and blah blah blah. We are the Union, they are the company. (Redacted) We are the ones on the side of the angels here. They just count and waste the money. We are the alruistic volunteers that create what they market. They will listen to us, or they won't have a product to rebrand. John from Idegon (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Information.svg Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. Clear WP:CIVILITY violation.
  • To those who would forbid even the minor expression of protest of using the term "W?F", you are aware that WP:CIVIL does not apply to saying things about organizations, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Unless WMF has become sentient, then there are still editors involved, so that's irrelevant. Given that it's pretty obvious that this stands for "What the Fuck" surely anyone who advocates the usage of such a phrase should be permanently banned from Wikipedia, without prejudice. It's time that the 5 pillars were enforced, and there's no reason for such clear hostility, which only leads to a hostile environment. Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd argue that advocating for draconian blanket bans contributes to a hostile environment. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
You want to make casual use of "WTF" a bannable offense? WTF?!?! Good luck trying to push that one through. Let me know how it works out for you.
I made my meaning perfectly clear several times:
"As a minor gesture of protest against the Wikimedia foundation's decision to rebrand itself with Wikipedia's good name, until they back down I choose to call them "the "W?F".
Feel free to assume that this stands for "WMF", "WPF", or "WTF".
I call on those who oppose the rebranding to start using "W?F"."
Your transparent attempt to paint "W?F" as as anything other than what it is -- a minor gesture of protest against the Wikimedia foundation's decision to rebrand itself with Wikipedia's good name -- is classic sealioning. See [ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
WTF with the Straw Man argument, User:Guy Macon? Where did I say that casual use of WTF should be a bannable offence? The example you gave, would be targeted harassment - which is most certainly not casual usage. How is it not targeted? How would it not create a hostile environment? It's about time WMF drained the swamp of incivility around here, as far as I'm concerned. Their house - their rules. Nfitz (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Did they build the house? No. Did they furnish the house? No. Do they clean the house? No. Do they do maintenance on the grounds? No. Do they compensate us for the time and effort we expend making their house look nice? No. You want to improve the tone of community discussions related to the WMF? Get the WMF to listen to what we are saying because without us they would have nothing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: Did they furnish the house? Yes, with their team of MediaWiki developers. Do they clean the house? Yes, with Trust and Safety. Do they do maintenance on the grounds? Yes, with the Operations team, who keep Wikipedia, all the other Wikimedia sites, Toolforge etc etc running and fast for people around the world.
Are the WMF content creators? No, usually not. Are they hugely valuable to this project and to all the other projects? Yes. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The W?F could accomplish all of those goals -- and do a better job at them than they are doing now -- while spending between 5% and 10% of the 91 million US dollars (that's 72 million Pounds sterling, 124 Canadian dollars or 131 million Australian dollars) that they spent last year. I have run the numbers and I several people have checked my numbers, coming up with roughly the same result. All of the details with citations to sources can be found at WP:CANCER. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Naypta, I stand by my comment. I think that a majority of this community would place little to no confidence in the WMF functions that you mentioned. The WMF is overcompensated for its remarkably small contribution to our volunteer-driven project. They rake in the donations off the strength of our labor and allow us no meaningful input in decision-making. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

After having mulled this whole affair over quite a bit, the question of who is being harassed, here, remains unanswered. A legitimate case can be made Sitush is the one being harassed, since he’s the one being singled out and dragged to the drama board on apparently spurious grounds. Opinions? Kleuske (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that a legitimate case can be made as described. This description is the opposite of what I read in this thread. The answer to the question who is being harassed here? is "no one". Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 21:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Sitush will be fine. There are enough eyes on this that people see what is really going on. Personally, I would prefer the discussion over this mess stay within the confines of this thread. I'm under no illusion that the Foundation is going to have an epiphany over this, and will instead be more entrenched in the idea that we, the unwashed masses, are an uncouth, unruly bunch that must be controlled. This thread clearly proves this isn't hyperbole. Dennis Brown - 22:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see much of a point in this continuing a whole lot further. I appreciate that Ymb opened the discussion up for broader input. Discussion is our tool. But there is no administrative action called, or even really asked for. I'm sorry that Qgil feels they're being put in a tough corner. I'm sorry they're being put in a tough corner. If they feel they're being harassed, we will absolutely take that seriously. But...that takes more than vaguely saying that a discussion is unpleasant. As others have pointed out, we're not the customers here. We' know...the people who donate millions of dollars in free labor, write and police all the content, and more often then not, develop the things the help us write and police all the content. So I mean, if things are getting a bit unpleasant, then if you want to be the waiter, then yes, we would like to speak to your manager. I'm not sure what she's doing these days, but we're the people who built and designed the restaurant, and also the menu, and also we cook all the food for free. GMGtalk 23:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Dennis Brown, I will be fine. I do wish Qgil-WMF could find a clearer writing style than corporate flannel such as this because it really doesn't help, but I was never going to be sanctioned because I did nothing wrong. I take far worse flak pretty much daily from aggrieved contributors in the India topic area. I've just been interviewed by a guy writing an article for The Caravan (magazine) and he is horrified at what I have to put up with but would also I think be astonished if he saw how the WMF approach civility etc. - Sitush (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Of course you were never going to be sanctioned. Of course you didn't do anything wrong. Accusing you of "Incivility towards W[redacted]F employees" when you clearly were talking about something stupid that the W?F did was an intimidation tactic to get you to stop criticizing the W?F. I am being treated the same way. See that little ? between the W and the F? Because other editors have started using "W?F" I have been accused of showing up at the workplace of W?F employees, threatening them, and harassing them, and have been told that the W?F should ban me from all W?F projects -- all because of that question mark. They just want to bully critics into silence. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Look, this is not a complete analogy, but why do not you try replying to the American editors by calling their country "United fucking states", or, if you want to avoid incivility accusations for using the word "fuck", "United copulating states", or "U?A" for brevity? And see what happens? This is fully aligned with your opinion that one may not attack persons but is fully entitled to say anything about organizations, and, after all, the sentiment is very wide spread over the world.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Speaking as both an American and an American veteran of the United States Air Force, I don't take offense if he uses "United Fucking States". Then again, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the first and more important right recognized (and I do mean recognized, not granted) is the right to free speech. I take a comment like "United Fucking States" as a statement against the action of the government, not an individual attack against any one person. To quote Evelyn Beatrice (channeling Voltaire) "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I will defend to the death your right to say it". People get entirely too butt-hurt over little things. I'm more offended by you bringing this non-issue to ANI, Ymblanter. I had always held you in high esteem until now. This does look more like bullying than addressing a problem, as I don't see a problem. Dennis Brown - 15:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
If I would come across a discussion where people use the "United Fucking States" routinely referring to the US I would not participate in this discussion unless I am absolutely forced to. This is just not a level of conversation I can support. Sorry but I am at this point not able to explain it more clearly than I already did.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I might not either, but I'm not going to harass someone over the use. I always have the option of just ignoring it. I'm not thin skinned and perhaps due to my past, accept that not everyone is going to have the same opinion. That doesn't address the fact that this discussion as a whole shouldn't have ever taken place, and the complaining that (as a community) we aren't polite enough when addressing Foundation members. There is a serious culture problem in San Francisco, a real disconnect from the greater community here. And I came back just to watch it get fixed (unlikely, in my eyes) or implode upon the arrogance of itself. This isn't directed at you personally, but it does appear you've been a part of that culture long enough that you have lost your objectivity. Dennis Brown - 16:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I do not think I have been part of that culture at all, if I understand correctly what you mean. I spent my entire career at the university (exact sciences, mind you), and we always talk to the point. We are not using this corporate speech mentioned in this thread. I have never been to San Francisco, for the record. Concerning my relations with WMF, I can cite my own reply from another page, even if it is on a longish side: "I have been very vocal opposing all controversial initiatives by the WMF in the last 12 years. Specifically concerning rebranding, my signature is in the first 20 in the RfC and in the first 40 in the petition, opposing rebranding. I have made several dozen statements and I am probably one of the 10 top posters on meta on the topic. I had #Notmyfoundation tag at my user page and only removed it after the statement of the Board that they will look into the issue". I do not see I can be branded as somebody who always does what the WMF says, or as a kind of their agent of influence here. However, I see a problem, which is the level of discussion - I still think it is civility, but in any case this level is not acceptable for many people. Yesterday we had issues with Wikidata editors, today we have issues with WMF employees, tomorrow we are going to have a problem with women editors (note that the only woman editor in this thread was essentially barked upon and apparently decided not to continue). It is not a question of individual editors being at fault - again, the only editor here who unambiguously crossed the line, got an immediate block. It is a problem with the position of the line. It is not about opinions. I do not have a specific opinion about the article of the week, and I strongly oppose rebranding. It is about of how these opinions are expressed. We can tell eberybody to grow a thiick skin. The consequence would be that we are discussing without Wikidata editors, without WMF employees, without women editors - and then suddently we get suprrised when people start talking about toxic environment (though I personally really hate this term) and UCoC. And then peorple go to Twitter to discuss issues which must be discussed here but they do not feel comfortable discussing here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a serious culture problem in San Francisco, a real disconnect from the greater community here. That made me LOL. It's the other way around, Dennis. It's this online community that has a serious culture problem and is disconnected from the greater community (the world). 90% white and male is the proof. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 16:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
W?F was funny in the beginning, when you first introduced in on Meta, but apparently you just do not know how to stop.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I cannot read Guy's mind but the idea that W?F has to mean WTF never crossed mine until someone mentioned it here. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet and the wildcard ? is a standard thing in computing, and that is how I accepted it - "substitute any letter here". This entire thread is ill-conceived, as was the tweet that sparked it. I also cannot read your mind, Ymblanter, but I am seriously at a loss regarding why you would bring something to ANI yet seemingly state from the outset that you do not want admin action. If it had to be anywhere, which is dubious, perhaps AN would have been a better forum given that some administrators were in fact involved in the original discussion. The entire thing is a farrago of your making and of the WMF, sorry. It will happen again soon because it is what the WMF do: act without consultation, waffle about civility when challenged, walk away with some corporate flannel after lighting the fire, rinse, repeat.
This thread never served a useful purpose and should be closed. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I thought I was very clear in the beginning why I brought it here. Let me try again. (1) I think we have a problem in that discussion, which is that the general level of the discussion (that people advocate that opponents of WMF employees should be exempt from WP:CIVILITY - at least this is how I read the discussion, and it turns out that I am in a minority, but I am not the only one) is not really acceptable and is actually counterproductive. If I were a WMF employee I would never go and participate in the discussion where bad faith is assumed against me by default. May be people do not mean it, but this is how I would perceive it. Whereas this might look like a problem of WMF, and even of one particular WMF employee, and I see that many people advise "to grow thick skin", this is in fact a long-standing problem which the moist vocal community voices so far refused to recognize - for example, that women are generally uncomfortable to participating in discussions at such level, not on the merits of the issue discussed, but purely because of the language used. The question was "can we do it better", and the answer is apparently no. (I will not even mention UcOC here, because this would make the whole picture even more difficult). (2) I wanted to have independent opinions - whether we have a problem. Apparently people mostly think we do not. ANI is a reasonable place to ask for independent opinions on the level of a discussion as far as behavior is concerned. I would say AN is less suitable - I was no necessarily asking for opinions of administrators, but I do not hold a strong opinion here. (iii) Contrary to what sone people stated here, I was not (and am not) seeking sanctions against individual participants of the discussion. However I think - I still think, though I was not supported here in this thread - that some actions different from blocks or topic bands or protections - could be taken. For example, a Wikipedian of high standing could have gone there and ask the users to tone down. (Joe Roe tried, and was told to mind his own business, but may be more of them would accomplish the job). (4) As this is a problem - not necessarily with WMF employees, but generally, as I outlined above - which clearly is perceived by many parties as detrimental for Wikipedia and needs to be solved, the issue at some point will make it to the arbitration. I do not exactly know what this case would be, and I highly doubt it would be a case against Sitush or Guy Macon, probably something way more general. In order for the case to be accepted, one must demonstrate that the community was not able to deal with the issue. This discussion (and, indeed, I agree it will be closed or arxived as unresolved) is one step to demonstrate this. This is what I started the topic from.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
You confused 'unresolved' with 'soundly rejected' there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Sabotage in my articles[edit]

Checkuser blocked Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello and do not be bored. The service of the great managers of Wikipedia. This IP sabotages my creative articles. Please block it.W Mozart (Talk) 10:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wmozart1, for the record you shouldn't remove CSD tags from articles you have created yourself. ——Serial # 10:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I apologize, I didn't know this, but did these labels hit my articles?They intend to sabotage the labels.W Mozart (Talk) 10:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • He tagged two articles for speedy delete, but his other contribs have been very positive. I'm not inclined to block him at this stage. Dennis Brown - 10:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown:Hello . Excuse me, what do you mean by positive?I am a newcomer and I am not very familiar with the rules. Thank you for your help.W Mozart (Talk) 10:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I suspect too that while the IP may have been trolling you, they were probably not inaccurate in their assertions. Your first edit, after all, was this near-perfectly formatted and referenced draft. ——Serial # 10:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I don't think that's the link you wanted... Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Eh, ta Naypta ——Serial # 10:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • By positive, I mean they corrected a date of birth for a rapper's page, communicated on the talk page in a pleasant manner, provided sources, etc. The kind of stuff we encourage. By tagging your two articles, I'm not sure of their motivation. Might be good, might be bad, but it is hard to tell their motivation with just those two edits. They MIGHT have been in good faith. Or not. That isn't strong enough to block someone. Dennis Brown - 11:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Someone with access to deleted articles might consider it worthwhile to compare Draft:Newsha Modabber, created in a single edit by User:Wmozart1 on the 8th of July [122] with earlier deleted creations of articles on the same subject in February, both speedy deleted as G5 'Creations by banned or blocked users' [123]. The IP named above seems to think there is socking going on, and I'd have to agree that it seems at least plausible. (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
That is interesting. I think the list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArmanAfifeh/Archive is interesting, but it means a {{checkuser needed}}. Dennis Brown - 11:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Someone on commons noted a behavioral connection between Wmozart1 and "Mh6ti". I see Mh6ti is identified in that SPI. DMacks (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Triangulating from commons:File:Kamis party.jpg suggests a connection to, part of a pool that both User:Berean Hunter and User:AmandaNP have rangeblocked here on enwiki (they did not identify the master in the public log). I'm also seeing overlap with User:Gm110m, who is CU-blocked here on enwiki. DMacks (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Yep. Pinging TonyBallioni who also appears to have blocked the (now globally-locked) Yasproject, the original creator. ——Serial # 11:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: I made the article you mentioned according to its sources, its sources are valid and I did not publish it in Drift.W Mozart (Talk) 11:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown:,@Serial Number 54129: Please check my account To be determined.W Mozart (Talk) 11:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
W Mozart, can I ask why you are applying to become a new page reviewer only 7 days after creating your account? [124] What exactly is the urgency, and why do you think that the normal 90 days of editing (amongst other criteria) shouldn't apply to you? (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I have requested a patrol. Is this a crime? I have just arrived and I have been on the wiki for 6 days. If my request is wrong, I apologize to you.W Mozart (Talk) 11:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
If I wasn't a newcomer, I would have known the rules better, but I don't know much about being a newcomer.I have not yet read the rules to find out if my request was wrong or right. If this is a crime in your opinion, I apologize to you.W Mozart (Talk) 11:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
For a newcomer, you seem to be remarkably skilled at creating multiple articles in a very short period, each in a single edit. (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Swallow because I use my own wiki translator that doesn't require skill.W Mozart (Talk) 12:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The English-language Wikipedia does not accept machine-translated articles. And using any automated translator requires skill - or at least, a level of competence in the language being translated to that you appear to lack. Even ignoring the issues with notability, sourcing etc, your articles are incoherent. As is your last comment. What exactly do you mean by 'swallow'? (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone should probably look into W Mozart's contributions on Commons too. There appear to be multiple uploads of images for which the claimed public domain copyright status isn't compatible with the source stated. [125] 12:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. DMacks (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I would also note that Draft:Amin Fardin, also created by W Mozart, appears to be an autobiography: "I have become very popular within Iranian/Kurdish/ Afghani community due to my reports. Despite the YouTube ban in Iran, My YouTube channel has got more than 100 million minutes viewing and is very well popular, most of my videos on YouTube’s gets more than 500,000 views on YouTube..." (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That article's deleted history correlates Wmozart1 with multiple other socks in the noted SPI. DMacks (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And on it goes: it should be noted that creation of content regarding Amin Fardin on multiple Wikiprojects is a recurring theme in the long-running sockpuppetry archive linked earlier. [126] (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

My dear, when I told myself to inspect, I do not know what you are looking for in my account, but I request that they inspect.W Mozart (Talk) 12:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
When me is arguing with me, ping me too. You who are old already know this.W Mozart (Talk) 12:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I've tagged their (non-redirect) creations as {{Db-g5|Azizvisi}}. They also created seven redirects which will soon qualify for G8. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Nuked. DMacks (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Pity, in a way. From Draft:Amin Fardin and after receiving residency, He started exposing himself.[36][37][38][39] Found art at its finest. Qwirkle (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Pure gold, Qwirkle! ——Serial # 14:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threat[edit]

for making legal threats by 331dot (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 18:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Made at an SPI I just opened here: [127]. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Spudlace) continued reverts and vandalism on Portuguese cuisine[edit]

(Spudlace) has been engaged in WP:Vandalism, violated WP:3RV and deleted even images repeatedly against this article:


Also because they display a similar MO (aggressive conduct, fanaticism, supposedly new profile with apparent knowledge of Wikipedia editing tools which doesn’t add up with new users) to banned serial vandal User:JamesOredan( Based on experience, the alarm bells are ringing and I strongly suspect this is yet another sockpuppet profile created with single-purpose intent. Please check user’s Spudlace activity.

Many thanks, Melroross (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


This user Spudlace continues to vandalise the same page, with no valid explanation to their persistent reverts of referenced contents:
Please assist with this very disruptive, counterproductive and time-consuming reversal mission by Spudlace.
Thank you Melroross (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


This user User:Spudlace continues with disruptive and malicious editing:
User:Spudlace Added ‘multiple issues template’ to this article for alleged unreliable sources, bare referencing and (WP) notices, when very little is left to question. They do not contribute with quality, duly referenced and academic contents, but rather either revert other editors’ good-faith contributions or add peculiar, inaccurate and speculative contents which make little or no sense.

Third request, please assist with this. Melroross (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Spudlace is also involved in pretty aggressive disputed edits at Salsa (sauce). I assume good faith, but a tune-up of approach is certainly in order. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Btw, I don't see any notification of this complaint at Spudlace's talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

Apokaradokia has been blocked on the grounds of compromised account by Cabayi. LegallyWiki87 has been blocked for for making legal threats by Ymblanter (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 18:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following a request for intervention at WT:FOOTY, in late May I protected Eniola Aluko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after an account claiming to be the subject and her assistant (Apokaradokia (talk · contribs)) made repeated edits to it. Recently I noticed another similarly named account (Dokiakara1964 (talk · contribs)) had been making similar edits, so undid them. Today, a third account (LegallyWiki87 (talk · contribs)) reinstated the same edits. I reverted, warned the user about WP:COI and asked them to request changes on the talk page, and semi-protected the article.

LegallyWiki87 has just left a message on my talk page saying this is "now the subject of legal investigation". Cheers, Number 57 17:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the user indef and left them an explanation what they can do if their words were misinterpreted.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User Ms96 civil right-wing POV pushing[edit]

For reverse racist donderpreek,
"Go walk the plank", said CaptainEek.
- Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 02:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I encountered this user only just recently at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory; I've been active at that page recently but didn't notice their active discussion at the top of the talk page until today. They're one of a seemingly endless string of accounts coming to the page to advocate for including irrelevant demographic statistics to this article on a batshit crazy white supremacist theory that Jews are conspiring with government agents around the world to exterminate the "white race". Since Ms96 opened their version of the discussion on 15 June, they had managed to convince exactly nobody of the merits of including these irrelevant statistics but was still going on about it, so I closed the discussion. They reverted my close (another editor restored it) and then took to my talk page to continue the argument, which I did not engage, just warned them that they had already been advised about AP2 discretionary sanctions. Another editor did engage briefly but Ms96's last comment there was a loose legal threat which I removed. (Not diffed because it probably doesn't meet the WP:NLT threshold, but they're definitely escalating).

Afterwards, I reviewed some more of this user's recent work:

  • On Reverse racism, Ms96 made a bold edit to the article's lede stating bluntly that reverse racism is a real social phenomenon, rather than the sourced consensus that it's alleged by conservatives as an attack on affirmative action programs, or the zero-sum white supremacist belief that all societal gains by non-whites come at whites' expense, basing their edit solely on the existence of discriminatory policies against whites in Zimbabwe (Mugabeism). When another editor tried to incorporate some of their useful Mugabeism material into the article in appropriate context, Ms96 reverted to their preferred "reverse racism is real" version. Their edit was later entirely reverted by another editor. Ms96 again started a discussion which failed to convince anyone of their POV.
  • On Far-right politics in the United Kingdom (diff) they removed a see-also link to Right-wing terrorism, wondering in their edit summary "how this POV has remained intact so long". The link is not POV: an entire half of the section it heads is devoted to UK right wing entities which have been described as terrorist organizations.
  • On Racism in Zimbabwe, the edit summary in this revert speaks for itself: "Your actions in white washing the issue of racism against whites is strikingly alarming."
  • On Talk:Black Lives Matter, they're pushing for the organization to be labelled Marxist in Wikipedia's voice. They claim to have sources but what they really have is a novel synthesis based on sources identifying various BLM "leaders" as Marxist. Several editors have rejected this but they're still going as of today.

Furthermore, in response to being warned about edit warring for reverting my close (a warning that was probably not due, to be honest) they responded by attacking the editor who warned them, and others who replied. These attacks contain such gems as:

I believe, to put it lightly, that this user should not be near anything having to do with post-1932 American politics, right-wing politics globally, or anything to do with racism or race relations, and propose that they be banned from those topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Their talk page discussion makes it clear that they are WP:NOTHERE and can be expected to be a continuing disruption. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC) O3000 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that the source they cited to call BLM Marxist is a hyper-McCarthyian conspiracy theorist work asserting that Marxists have been infiltrating the government and that their influences include FDR's New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, and Johnson's War on poverty -- not to mention Black Islam. That alone should result in at least a topic ban from all political articles, if not history and race as well. There's also them bending over backwards to defensively re-interpret someone else's utterly false statement that only a single Guardian article is used "to declare white genocide in South Africa a myth" (that thread quickly closed as NOTHERE pot-stirring). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Given the suggestions of topic bans in multiple areas, the clear POV-pushing and conspiracy nonsense, and their cavalier use of slurs and PA's, I have simply indeffed them for WP:NOTHERE. Another admin is welcome to unblock them with a reasonable request and at least a politics topic ban, but I see no need to waste time on this thread and user. They're just another time-sink who wants to right the great wrongs that folks perceive on Wikipedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Entry: “Whiteness”[edit]

Officially noted. Chetsford (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I recently came across this hate-motivated entry on Wikipedia and felt that it should be reported in order that it be removed immediately. Elaborating on racist, stereotypical thinking benefits no one and constitutes a psychopathology that should not be construed as knowledge and shared with the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckoperniak (talkcontribs) 02:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The process for deleting an article is over here. --Golbez (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not thinking we need a lot of time on this one.[128][129] - SummerPhDv2.0 02:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Ckoperniak - thank you for your report. I have made an official note of this entry. Chetsford (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Kenneth Saclote[edit]

Kenneth Saclote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing beauty pageant Wikipedia pages for longer than I can even remember. They have received warning after warning, and I have reported them twice, but administrators did not even acknowledge my report either time, which allowed the editor to continue on vandalizing articles with no consequences. They have received final warnings more times than I can count and has shown no interest in pursuing discussions on how to follow editing rules. The editors @Bri: and @EdJohnston: previously added on and vouched for my reports of Kenneth Saclote that went unanswered, so if they'd like to add anything else I invite them to. Kenneth Saclote's vandalism has most often occurred on the Miss Universe 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, and the article history can show their vandalism stemming back to December 2019, when they were first reported. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Jjj1238. This report needs details before any action would be justified. Search for 'Saclote' in the following links to see if you can back up your report:
EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


1292simon is following me around on pages through my contributions and either restoring disruptive edits by users, removing my edits or badmouthing about me to users. Recent examples are here, here and here. Instance of the above mentioned badmouthing can be found here. The only reason I can see is of personal hatred and grevience against me. I attempted to discuss this with him over his talk page but he removed the discussions. I've had enough with this user's petty behaviour and therefore request the administration to take proper action against this user.U1 quattro TALK 04:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There may or may not be an issue with MOS:OL, however, I think one would be hard pressed to make a case of WP:HOUNDING as it appears most of these articles 1292simon was already at when U1 arrived, at least according to the interaction analyzer [130]. Chetsford (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Chetsford 1292simon never edited at any of the articles I mentioned according to the analyser and the only way he is going there as I suspect is through my contributions. It got worse at Toyota HiAce when he bad mouthed about me to the user whose edits I reverted.U1 quattro TALK 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Now the same thing happened at Lamborghini Centenario, 1292simon wasn't at this article in its entire history and he went there just to restore a disruptive edit made by an ipv6 IP and is continuously citing WP:BRD while he has not read it himself and continues to violate WP:HOUNDING. This behaviour needs to stop.U1 quattro TALK 12:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Content disputes of this nature are best handled on the Talk pages of the relevant articles, not in back and forth comments in edit summaries as you two seem to be doing. I think if there were some — any — attempt to discuss the difference you two have over specific edits at the article Talk pages we'd be able to conduct a more lucid evaluation of the merits of the claims. ANI really should be more of a last resort for editor disputes, not the first point of contact. In my opinion, a HOUNDING case would be better made if (a) there were more than three lifetime examples of the other editor coming to a page you'd edited, having no prior history at that page, specifically to undo your edits, and, (b) this was widely occurring on a number of articles you've recently edited rather than what appears to be a minority that could be explained by the singular interest you both seem to have in automotive related articles. Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Chetsford this is definitely a hounding case. This user is following me around for unknown reasons and undoing my edits and it has been going on for a few days now. I just mentioned some articles but now it seems that everywhere I edit, this user is there to revert it so simply because he doesn't like my edits. He hasn't read the policies but continues to use them in his defence. In a more recent incident at Ferrari 360 this user specially came there to undo my edit because it was not vandalism in his opinion while the reality was opposite as this user didn't care to read the source, he preferred to just revert my edits and be done with it. In the pages I mentioned in my original post, this user has no editing history and the analyser shows that. I had attempted to discuss this matter at this user's talk page but he is more interested in removing my posts rather than responding. I edit here as a hobby, not be hounded by some user who seemingly hates me because I do not agree with him. Wiki could do better without this non sense. In accordance with WP:HOUNDING Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. this user is indeed causing me distress due to some personal vandetta he seems to have against me.U1 quattro TALK 17:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, this user badmouthing about me at Ominae's talk page is something beyond a content dispute.U1 quattro TALK 18:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
There is no hounding here, and nothing else that merits administrator intervention, but just a common interest in cars, which seems to be one of those subject areas where editors are unable to discuss things like adult humans on the article talk pages. Just stop reverting each other and talk about what should be in the articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
How is there no hounding Phil Bridger? This user literally follows me around to specifically undo my edits on pages where he has never been before and saying bad things about me to users whose edits I revert. I don't think any wiki policy instructs users to follow each other on articles and cause disruption there which this user has been doing as of late. This definitely demands administrative action. I want this user off my tail so I can edit here peacefully.U1 quattro TALK 18:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


OP, and everyone else, thinks this should be closed. Chetsford (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have watched him closely after his checkuser block to see if he legitimately improves his behavior, as i have made my remarks on his IP back in early June. I thought he has done good so far without any problems, but then i just found out he was blocked on (for profanity) yesterday for one day. After that block he posted this (in Polish), and it was copied from some website i will not post in here because he posted his account password in there.

Because of that (and the password post), i told him that message should not be posted and i asked the moderators that these posts should be deleted. Instead, the posts were never deleted and i got to know him personally. I tried to be nice to him and he said this (in Polish, due to the law:)

Czas na aresztowanie na Seszelach !!! „Kamerun” to także nazwa byłej niemieckiej kolonii - mimo uzyskania w 1959 r. Niepodległości od Francji - „Praca w Kamerunie” lol nie, Afryka Środkowa nie jest fałszywa. P.D. Nie umiem mówić po francusku ani po angielsku, albo po prostu jestem aresztowany na tej małej wyspie we wschodniej Afryce, którą powiedziałem w pierwszym słowie. Mam nadzieję, że moja siostra zmarła z AK-47, który mam w domu - pomimo zakazu symboli komunistycznych - Zrób mi zdjęcie swojego kalkulatora !!! 29 lutego myślałem o czcionce Riglos O.

Also called me this:

Proszę czekać dużo czasu, ponieważ mój komputer jest zepsuty, wyglądasz na Indonezyjczyka bez IQ lub po prostu opóźnionego kumpla z Azji Południowo-Wschodniej.

Recently it appears that i have mended my relationship with him, with this:

tak i nie znam tej części Warszawy, którą mieszkam xd. również dziękuję !!! to nie wojna, to tylko kontrowersja, ponieważ nikt nie musi ujawniać hasła. Potrzebuję też pomocy Piotra, ponieważ jest niemożliwe

However, these first two quotes are really made me horrified at what is going on with him. I need help. I really need help. SMB99thx Email! 05:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I have emailed administrators regarding this. I was terrified and fearful, it feels like a ermegency situation, despite that i'm trying to be nice with him. SMB99thx Email! 05:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
"I need help. I really need help." SMB99thx, what type of help do you believe you need? Bedriczwaleta has been indefinitely blocked already. If you feel you are in mortal danger, you should contact your local police department and email [email protected] Chetsford (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe i'm in mortal danger. I need help because he posted messages like arresting himself and exiling to Seychelles and mentioned AK-47 in his sister's death (my condolences). I feel terrified about what happened to him, not myself. I need help because he's probably in a dangerous situation despite my attempts at getting him on the right track since 10 June. I have emailed [email protected] on this situation. SMB99thx Email! 05:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Correction: He feels threatened and as such caused him to send messages like that (getting arrested, not arresting himself). Again, the problem is that his messages seem to scream for help and because of this, i want help too because he's in a bad situation. I cannot help him by myself. I fear for his life. SMB99thx Email! 06:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@SMB99thx: if you have emailed [email protected] then you have done the right thing to deal with the situation. They have a very professional system in place for dealing with this kind of thing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Thank you. We need to save lives, including him (based on the messages) at threat of being imprisoned or exiled. Unblocked or blocked does not matter. SMB99thx Email! 07:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking he may have a mental problem. His last post to his talkpage, which he deleted, translates as "= WARNING: == If I speak any language other than Polish, I will be arrested for a thousand dollars (or slightly almost PLN 3,968). I may be sentenced to death and permanently isolated, and if not, on a private plane, convict me indefinite time in Seychelles. This is a GOOD WARNING NOW !!! I also advertised you." Ok, the translation isn't perfect, but... Doug Weller talk 08:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
You are maybe right that he's mentally disturbed. He said that he's saddened by death of his sister and he's unhappy about George Floyd protests. George Floyd protests are also the reason why i am back here at full-time. I wish him for the best facing those issues he had. SMB99thx Email! 11:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be best if this was closed and left for [email protected] to deal with. Whatever problem this editor may have is best dealt with by people who know what they are doing. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I'll consider seconding your proposal to close this. I brought this up on ANI because i really don't know how to do with him. I feel i treated him badly. I have entertained getting him either globally locked or have his talk page access revoked with the help of admins but i can't get myself to do so. As i have said, he needs help. SMB99thx Email! 11:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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


User:BlackSun2104 is edit warring Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. There was a consensus on how to work the high frequency document with very specific ways to handle certain countries. It does not matter whether the information provided is correct, there is a reason behind every entry made over a prelonger period. User refuses to discuss the matter. KittenKlub (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The user has been warned enough, and if the continue I will block them for edit-warring. However, the consensus you refer to is not reflected at the talk page of the template despite the existence of the two blocks there explaining current consensus. One does not expect a new user going through all the talk pages archives of this heavily edited talk page, and if this issue (using templates rather than bare numbers) is important it should be added to the consensus block(s).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter:I know that the documentation is far from perfect. The difficult calculation for the US is there for a reason because some territories are included a separate entries, but are counted in the US total. The reasoning behind the wikidata for India and the template is unknown for me as well. KittenKlub (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
But then you should not expect a user with 120 edits in total to grasp this from the very beginning? I think dropping them a more helpful note at their talk page could take the situation a long way.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I've regularly edited the aforementioned template and would like to bring my comments here.
As a user with around 560 edits back when the aforementioned template was at extended auto-confirmed protection, I was able to grasp the sum template almost immediately. For reference, the template was definitely the first item I edited on Wikipedia that used the sum template. I can only speak for this from the templates used for the United States; I never paid attention to how other locations' figures were structured.
Then again, this isn't all that BlackSun2104's done.
He's also worded several of his so-called "reminders" to update locations' figures as "Required" (therefore disregarding WP:VOLUNTEER) [[131]]; [[132]], assumes Wikipedia editors are "careless" [[133]], hasn't learned that editing a topic after publishing it for the first time is possible [[134]] (three topics in a row! all about the same issue!), says that we are "slow to update" [[135]] (another three in a row {again disregarding WP:VOLUNTEER}), and quite frankly just adds stress to the editors of the template.
After a hiatus, he has returned with the same degree of ignorance for WP:VOLUNTEER [[136]]. Should I also note that reply from the editor who responded wasn't a veteran editor of the template and gave off some "f*$! off" vibes?
Clearly, this editor hasn't learned even the basic tenets of Wikipedia (and probably has no intentions to), and has not responded to a single reminder that other editors of the template has left on the editor's talk page [[137]]. And besides, the talk page consensus may not have explicitly stated anything regarding sum templates, but it has mentioned how to handle territories on the template—and BlackSun2104's most recent edits to the template have clearly violated that clause of the consensus.
Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 16:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I find the behavior of the user highly problematic. If they continue please ping me, and I will block them if I am around. However, I do not think I should block the user who got the last warning and has not edited after a warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User 梦出一切[edit]

梦出一切 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

On List of Internet phenomena in China (example edit, the user listed above (who I will refer to as "Dream" after the first hanzi in their name,) has made a series of edits that, based on the number of dead parameters in the references, the amount of unreadably broken English, and the fact that nearly 100,000 bytes of text have been added to the article by Dream in the span of four and a half hours. This leads me to believe that Dream is turning the article into a direct machine translation of the corresponding Chinese-language article without proper copyediting or attribution that it is a cross-Wiki translation, which would be in blatant violation of WP:MACHINETRANSLATION.

If this isn't a violation I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Klohinxtalk 08:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE: After being block on zh for creating various meaningless pages, this user continued created scarcely used user boxes and those machine translation here. -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Violent Threats Against Me[edit]

This editor @Julie Conteh, has just threatened me with African sorcery as seen in this diff should their promo article Draft:Israel Rocklyn which has been deleted & recreated by them severally & has just been marked for a CSDG11 by me, be eventually deleted. I request an indef block as their edit history show they are not here to build an encyclopedia but rather are here for the singular purpose of promoing the subject of their article. Celestina007 (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You called their contributions "horse shit". Did you expect them to roll over and be polite? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Celestina007, you are required to notify the editor that you started a discussion here about them. You can do this by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} to their talk page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, I deleted it as WP:G11. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't we block them for threatening off-wiki magical action? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I blocked indef since it was a very clear threat of violence (whatever we can think of black witchcraft). Not yet sure what the behavior of the other party was, will look at it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333, No Ritchie, you seem to misunderstand the timeline of events here. I only used “horseshit threat” in my Edit summary after they had first threatened me with dark magic and suffering not prior. And yes @BlackcurrantTea, you are very much correct, this is my first ANI case so I forgot that part. I’d so now. @Deepfriedokra, now that’s the real question. @Ymblanter, I literally just stopped Wikipedia from being used as a promotional platform.Celestina007 (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Having received threats my self, I have no problem with OP calling this threat a variety of fertilizer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The behavior of Celestina007 is not exemplary here either. If you think the user is evading a block, report block evasion. If you think this is promotional editing, report promotional editing. I have seen people literally attacked by socks for days, and becoming incivil, and at least I see how it may be excused. It does not seem to be the case here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I support the deletion and block, and would also request Celestina007 refrains from inflaming these sorts of situations in the future. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333 & Ymblanter, well I guess you are both correct. I’d do better next time. Celestina007 (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As an uninvolved editor, I think I'd concur with both Celestina007's analysis of the threat and their response; to be honest, anyone threatens another editor with, literallly, any form of suffering loses all good faith priveleges that instant. And the timing's important: had she responded horticulturally to a simple request for clarification overa CSD tag, that would have been poor. But to respond that way after being threatened? Go right ahead. ——Serial # 10:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
A hamsa, used for protection against the evil eye.
  • Not sure how effective a hamsa charm is against West African juju, but in the event that any of you are cursed, I wish to present you with this two-dimensional talisman to ward off evil spirits. Use it wisely. Kurtis (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Kurtis, Oh my, I presume just viewing it is supposed to activate its anti sorcery effects, well I have viewed it multiple times & hopefully it saves me from the impending curse that supposedly awaits me. Thanks kurtis, quite thoughtful of you. Celestina007 (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Any spell-casting editor should consider the Rule of Three. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

B103N48 needs a quick refresher on WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY[edit]

B103N48 needs a quick refresher on WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. Not requesting sanctions.

The various conversations can be found here, but short story, user apparently thinks their editing is beyond community scrutiny, and after I attempted to clarify why this and this edit, where the user adds obnoxious, confusing slashes to needlessly complicate a cast list, wasn't consistent with community guidelines, they opted to get pissy. NJA attempted to provide some context for why I was trying to assist, but they didn't bother to respond. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Blocked. OK, you're not seeking sanctions, Cyphoidbomb, but that was fairly extreme, and they were blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks less than a month ago. I've blocked for 72 hours this time. Bishonen | tålk 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC).

Disruptive editing on many wrestling-related pages by Andrew9393787[edit]

User:Andrew9393787 contributes in various destructive ways to many wrestling-related pages. They persistently adds unsourced content with subsequent removal of the "unsourced" template on Ronda Rousey, a behavior which is leading to an edit war. They seems to have issues with sources in general, either by failing in provide them (such as on 6ix9ine 1 2) or interpreting them at will, deliberately adding errors such as on WWE (1 2); in late June when The Undertaker seemingly announced his retirement, Andrew9393787 stoically engaged into an edit war, also removing seemingly reliable sources hinting the retirement.
The user has been warned countless times on talk page about different issues warnings that were promptly deleted (including a last warning from me); they laconically replied to me with a "don't tell me what to do" on my talk). Khruner (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you should hit him over the head with a folding chair and be done with it. --JBL (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Such a manouver would probably only be part of a long feud. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I've exhausted my wrestling knowledge, so I'm going to have to tag out of this discussion. --JBL (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
From skimming their contributions over the past month or two, I'm not seeing anything worth keeping. Indeffed. If anyone unblocks, recommend also applying a topic ban on pro wrestling. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeated off-site canvassing by Moamem[edit]

On Space Launch System, I and Moamem were engaged in a content dispute last month. A compromise was eventually proposed by Eggsaladsandwich, and while both of us resisted it at first, both of us eventually accepted it. Slightly prior to this, I'd noticed Moamem had engaged in off-site canvassing (Redacted), and made an entry on the talk page. Moamem was warned by PhilipTerryGraham in this edit against doing so again.

When Moamem expressed discontent with the existing compromise earlier this month, I opened an RfC to try and build a consensus that would settle the issue for good, knowing that my hands were not entirely clean during the last dispute and hoping that a wider selection of editors would result in a more productive discussion. Things seemed promising, and while the RfC is still far from finished, a consensus seemed to be emerging for a slightly-altered version of the compromise. Earlier today, however, Moamem posted six posts to subforums of (Redacted). Each post was identical in content, presenting his argument and a warped interpretation of my own, then calling for users to join the discussion on the talk page. He did not consult with anyone at Talk:Space Launch System before doing this.

Some of these posts may have been removed by site moderators since then, but here's the list as it was:

  • (Redacted)
  • (Redacted)
  • (Redacted)
  • (Redacted)
  • (Redacted)
  • (Redacted)

Here are two screenshots (Redacted) showing the content of one of the posts, in case they're taken down.

His allegation that I am a moderator of (Redacted) is true, but it's an unpaid volunteer position. I have an interest in the program, not a conflict of interest. My opinions are mine, and mine alone. Either way, I don't think it's relevant to his repeated disregard of Wikipedia:Canvassing.

I personally believe his actions violate all the criterion for inappropriate notification. The scale is mass, the message is biased, it's been posted at least in part to partisan audiences, and it's non-transparent as it takes place off-site and existing discussion participants weren't notified. As he has already been warned against his behavior, I find it hard to believe it was done in good faith, either. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 18:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's (Redacted) further evidence of canvassing. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jadebenn: I'd suggest you're skirting a violation of WP:OUTING with what you've linked here - an email to Arbcom is probably a better course of action here. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 19:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alfie: Apologies, didn't realize. Thank you to the admin who took care of that. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  1. PhilipTerryGraham never warned or said anything about asking for input outside Wikipedia! He warned me about being balanced in my request as I said in a comment I deleted since : "I could really use someone to help making this contributor see reason!". A wording he deemed reprehensible(assessment I totally agree with and subsequently deleted my comment). I also asked him specifically about asking about offsite input saying : "I do admit my error tho and will try to avoid it next time. But just to be clear is the problem getting input from outside platforms or my (single) poorly worded phrase?". his answer was : "It's the poorly worded phrasing, mostly. When requesting for input from others, always be neutral and don't call upon people to specifically support you."
  2. I had reservation about the "compromise" right away. I only reluctantly accepted it because we were the only 2 participating in the conversation currently and it was my opinion against yours (even tho 6 different people disagreed with you in the past 6 months). But once a 7th person expressed it's disagreement with you it was time to open this issue. And rightfully so 4 more people showed up with the exact same point of view. That seems like a consensus to me!
  3. I published a very balanced post on 6 of the biggest Space communities on reddit because of the lack of interest of Wikipedia contributors. I didn't post on r/SpaceLaunchSystem the most appropriate subreddit because you banned/cesored me from it for no reason other than not liking my opinions and despite backlash from your own community (one of them even showed up here). I made sure to include your name so you'll be notified right away, so I was trying to be as transparent as possible and invited you to give your opinion on the posts.
  4. While I tried to be as balanced as possible. We all have our biases. Therefore I told you multiple times that I am open to edit my post to accommodate any issue you have with them. But you failed to give me any issue you have with my posts.
  5. I still don't know the exact issue you have with my reddit post besides you not wanting people to participate in the discussion because you're the only one with that opinion!
  6. Now that people are starting to show up and your position is becoming untenable you're trying to play the referee
  7. @Alfie: I never published any personal info of his (I don't have any anyways). Moamem (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Please read WP:MEATPUPPET. Asking for help off-site is prohibited, as we build consensus based on our policies and guidelines, not voting. At this point, the best thing you could do is to delete your off-site requests or ask them not to interfere with that process. Woodroar (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Woodroar:Hi, thanks for your input. From prior mod interactions and the link you're giving me, this seems to be directed to those trying to skew the debate in a single direction (by contacting family, friends, or like-minded people). I did no such a thing. I went to important space communities that are totally neutral ( or even skewed toward supporting SLS like r/nasa) to get their input after we reached an dead end with Jadebenn and the rest of the Wikipedia didn't seem interested in participating in the conversation. It just happen that Jadebenn realizing that his untenable position is falling apart is now trying to play the referee! I don't know what I was supposed to do in that situation? - Moamem (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not only about canvassing for like-minded input. It's about requesting people from off-site—people who don't understand our policies or guidelines or behavioral expectations—to influence a decision on-wiki. Because here's the thing: it doesn't matter if a hundred people show up and vote your way, the better policy-based argument wins even if it's brought up by a single editor on the other side. Literally a single editor. But meanwhile, the people responsible for mediating the dispute need to sift through all the junk arguments. Those people are all volunteers, too. They're not getting paid to do any of this, just like I'm not getting paid to explain this to you. Meatpuppetry is a lousy thing to do on any site, but it's extra lousy here because it doesn't do anything but waste time. And possibly get all those new people and you sanctioned for it. So the best thing you can do right now is make a good-faith effort to ask them to stop. Woodroar (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion by[edit]

This IP claims to have made an edit "earlier" to User talk:Oshwah that was reverted. The only edits to that page that were reverted in the last 24 hours were made by users that were subsequently blocked. I don't know which account belongs to them, but this is obviously a case of block evasion. - ZLEA T\C 20:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)